To Whom It May Concern, …

To Whom It May Concern,

Development of the green belt is myopic and runs counter to what we know are best practices with respect to combatting sprawl, traffic, climate change, ecological devastation, and losses in biodiversity.

I would like to address these issues individually.

Urban Sprawl:

The evidence is clear -- urban sprawl is no way to build sustainable neighbourhoods. From a fiscal point of view, it has been shown in Edmonton and Ottawa that low density, single family homes on the outskirts of these cities are a net drain on municipal coffers. In particular, the taxes that they yield are not sufficient to provide basic municipal services, such as sewage and road maintenance. Meanwhile, high density dwellers are a net plus on municipal coffers. Should the government of Ontario proceed with this development, they are introducing a net liability to municipalities and to the taxpayer writ large.

It is not clear to me why those living in apartments and condos ought to subsidize those living in single family homes. If one has a preference for the latter, they ought to pay for it. What makes this particular subsidy so odious is that it tends to be the low to middle income person (or high income person choosing to live sustainably) who is subsidizing the decision of someone else to not do so. This is not defensible.

Ecological devastation and losses of biodiversity:

According to the most recent UN report on biodiversity, the population of native land-based species has declined by a minimum of 20% since 1900. Greater than 40% of amphibians and one third of marine mammals are under threat. Almost 10% of domesticated animals used for food/agriculture went instinct between the 16th century and 2016.

Ontario must do its part. In particular, the environmental ministry must act decisively to protect our eco-systems.

When we do act in concert, the results are spectacular. In Mexico, jaguar populations are increasing thanks to conservation efforts. Bravo to them. We have to do our part in our own backyard.

On protecting green space: how can we ask the Brazilians to save the rain forest, or Mexico to save its jungles, while we continue to pave away our green space? This is completely dishonest. This is talking out of both sides of one's mouth. We need all hands on deck and all oars rowing in one direction in order to combat climate change. At this point in time, we are closer to twiddling our thumbs in the boat than we are to rowing in unison.

Traffic:

More single family homes and low density dwellings means more reliance on cars, which invariably leads to more roads and more highways. Simultaneously, public transit becomes impossible to offer at any kind of scale that makes economic sense.

The single leading cause of death amongst young men ages 18-40 is accidents, followed by suicide. If you were to cure all cancers in this age group, that would amount to only 10% of the lives lost to accidents and suicides. Building more highways and more roads isn't just terrible for the environment, with loss of green space and biodiversity -- it's bad for people as well. More roads, more cars, means more accidents and more death and disability.

Governmental agencies and urban planners must recognize the critical, life-saving role they play. The urban planner can save many more lives -- orders of magnitude more -- than the physician, surgeon, police officer, or firefighter, but only with the right policies.

Further, increased reliance on cars means a less active, less healthy populace that will cost more to care for in their later years. This will further burden an already overburdened health care system.
A majority of Canadians want to age in place; however, this desire is completely at odds with our sedentary lifestyles and poor health. Our urban design absolutely impacts our health; it is time that government policy reflect that reality.

Development and the Economy:

It is not at all clear to me why developers cannot make money by densifying existing neighbourhoods. At the municipal level, development fees are onerous to the point of being predatory. There are brilliant developers and architects out there with ideas on how to make high quality, medium density housing.

The province, in choosing to pave the greenbelt, is choosing winners. Of course it will be cheaper to develop where nothing exists and real-estate costs are low. However, as discussed above, this represents "false savings" -- what is being saved is in fact being debited from the environment, from the loss of animal life, and fiscally from municipal coffers and those living sustainably.

Conclusion:

Mistakes have been made in the past relating to urban development. The difference today is that we have the data, expertise, and experience to know which path we ought to take.

The government must not conflate politics with good governance; the former is shepherding good will amongst its own partisans, while the latter is making the world better.

Please re-consider this fiscally and environmentally catastrophic policy.

Thank-you.