You are free to publish my…

You are free to publish my comment.
We are proposing a regulation. That is the problem, you can't regulate that which you don't own. This is a corporation, as is all conservation authorities, "extorting" property and there is nothing in the Conservation Authorities Act that allows for this action, even under section 28 as section 28 pertains to the implementation of the obligations in the easements/covenants, not before and not during the planning process, as even the municipalities cannot plan for something if they do not own. Under the municipal act sections 10 and 11, subsections 2 - By-laws - section 4 of subsection 2: states: 4. Public assets of the municipality acquired for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act. And municipal property assets are defined as: "municipal property assets" means an asset of the municipality that is land, equipment or other goods. Private property is not a "municipal property asset" as it does not belong to the municipality.
Then there is the Planning Act which only involves the "planning" for what property that belongs to the municipality or what the municipality has "acquired as a municipal property asset". Sections 24 (67), 25 (68), 28 (69), of the Planning Act clearly state this. As for zoning, again the municipality must own it before they can zone (70) for anything under section 34 (71).
Any society or organization, especially a democratic one, places a high value on contracts. Contracts are instruments whereby two or more parties voluntarily contract with each other in order to obtain a beneficial outcome. Where is my voluntary contract with the conservation authority when a municipality demands that I obtain a permit from them in order to build on my property, but not before I obtain an approval from the conservation authority? And what happens when the conservation authority denies approval on flimsy pretext in authority overreach? Expropriation of public property happens. Here is a judge's summation in the NVCA case.
The NVCA, however, cannot create jurisdiction over a proposed development by reason of safety issues alone where flood control is not impacted any more than it can use flood control as a pretext to assert jurisdiction it does not otherwise possess. The condition precedent to the NVCA's authority to grant or withhold its permission to develop is an effect on flood control and not the subjective assessment of the NVCA or the Tribunal of the appropriateness of the development from a safety perspective.
In this case, it appears to me that safety was used as a pretext for applying a policy preference that would seek to impose a blanket ban on development in areas with a floodplain without regard to the particular characteristics of the actual land or of the proposed development. In my opinion, safety was elevated out of all proportion to a reasonable assessment of it in order to provide a basis to apply a general policy that is itself without statutory mandate. The complete elimination of all risk in all endeavours is neither possible nor desirable. The Tribual's approach to safety as a factor in flood control was unreasonable.
I have been forced to deal with GRCA since 2011 for the building of a home on a lot of record. It has been a humiliating and frustrating experience to have someone, (Greg Wells in this case) decide on a whim to deny me the use of my property to live and work there. He has no deed to the property, no contract with me, does not pay the taxes on the property, has not contributed a dime in the purchase or maintenance of the property, but he has the first and final say on what I can and cannot do with my property. That is why I categorically state, that the process must first and foremost be truly voluntary. And second, the property owner must have the final say on what and how he or she uses his or her property. Anything else is dictatorship/police state, when the rightful owners are charged and dragged to court for having the audacity to live and work on their own property. Canada is a common law jurisdiction, so long as I do no harm to another man or woman, I must be free to be and do as I wish.