Frankly I think this, and…

Frankly I think this, and many other development related proposals are absurd! My first question is: every time we lose a smaller portion of wetland that was previously part of a provincially significant wetland, how many houses will this permit? My guess is maybe a dozen or so. From a cost / benefit perspective, making a dozen homeowners move a bit farther away from the location of their wetland based proposed home, is an insignificant cost versus the benefit the wetland complex provides to everyone in the wetland's watershed.

From my perspective, this proposal and proposed bill 23 are short sighted while producing long term harm. The apparent fundamental premise of the bill is simply focused on a grade schooler’s understanding of the concept of supply and demand. The government’s “pitch” to Ontarians is: “the federal government is planning on admitting vast numbers of immigrants most of whom will settle in the GTHA because this is such a vibrant, job rich area.” This will significantly increase the demand for additional (new) houses. Therefore, we need drastic, autocratic, government powers to ensure that enough new houses are built to accommodate this population.

The government’s premise for taking this position only looks at the supply side of the demand and supply argument. What is fails to take into consideration is the demand portion of the equation. The following items are totally overlooked by this bill:
1. Demographics: The baby boom. The first members of this cohort are now in their mid 70’s. Many are either downsizing of even dying. Either activity will free up the houses they spent the last years of their lives in. What do the government’s projections indicate to be the number of houses these activities will add to the market’s housing supply?

2. The prices of resale houses are based off the cost of new houses. As long as developers continue to build sprawl dependent, new single-family houses, the cost of all housing will go up. I expect there are few if any times over the last 20 years where the price of new housing declined by any appreciable amount. Hence the price of all housing will continue to increase (once we get through adjusting for the current pricing bubble). This aggravates, rather than alleviates the affordable housing problem.

3. Thanks to the Ford government’s trashing of our environment, Ontarians and new Canadians may decide to locate elsewhere in Ontario or other parts of Canada. There is a growing focus on “quality of life” issues. This is becoming very prevalent in the North American workforce. Recently there have been a number of articles in our local press about people who have moved to other Ontario and international communities and how happy they are.

4. Another major demand factor is Ontario’s pathetic seniors care capabilities and strategies. Most seniors want to “grow old” in their community and in most cases their homes. Given Ontario’s pathetic seniors policies and programs, the only practical way they can do this is by employing “self-help” solutions. These include engaging live-in care givers. This will, at least temporally, address some short-term demand issues.

5. Extended families are also something that will undoubtedly reduce demand. As the cost of housing continues to increase, grown children will delay leaving their parents’ houses. As is the case in other countries, we will very likely see these children bringing their spouse to live with them in their (parent’s) house and they will, in turn raise their children in that house. As a result, we will see a growing number of three generation families living in GTA Homes. Thus, further reducing demand.

6. We are also seeing an emergence of college housing practices being utilized in the post college community. In this situation, college friends who shared accommodations while in school continue that sharing practice in shared housing convenient to their places of employment.

7. Every bit of our wetlands play a critical role in the proper function of our environment. Wetlands provide the following important benefits to the ecosystem. The housing developments that are being proposed to replace these wetlands provide none of these important benefits:

a. Canada’s wetlands are home to a wonderful diversity of species. In the spring, wetlands are brimming with waterfowl, blackbirds and shorebirds as they nest and raise their young in the safety of reeds, grasses and stones. Not only are wetlands a sanctuary for migratory and year-round birds, there are also home to a variety of fish species, frogs, turtles, muskrats, minks and beavers that are long-term residents.

b. Wetlands are the kidneys of the planet. Wetlands have the wonderful ability to remove pollutants from water, thanks to their luscious vegetation. Cattails are able to capture excess phosphorus and nitrogen, thereby preventing harmful algal blooms. Even more amazingly, wetlands are able to get rid of 90% of water-borne pathogens. Wetlands recharge groundwater, which 26% of Canadians rely on for drinking water.

c. Wetlands are masters at carbon sequestration. This process sucks in carbon and stores it in wetland soil. Peatlands, including fens and bogs, collect ‘peat’ or partially decomposed plants and other organic matter. When peatlands are drained for development, carbon and nitrogen are released as greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.

d. Wetlands act like giant sponges. When the clouds open up and rain pours down, wetlands are able to absorb excess water. This means that wetlands act as a buffer against flooding.

While there will likely be more changes to the simplistic level of demand envisaged by the Ford Government, at a minimum, these demand variations need to be thoroughly considered before anything like the legislation now being proposed becomes the law of this province.

The government recently engaged an expert panel to determine how to address York Region’s sewage requirements (demand) and got some excellent advice. The province should do the same for the housing demand / affordable housing problem with special focus on the importance of every bit of wetland we have, no matter how small it may seem.

There are very likely a number of possible legislative enhancements that would promote multiple ownerships or tenancies. Unfortunately, the current Landlords and Tennant Act is so tenant friendly that virtually none of the baby boomers would consider renting out the now significant amount of empty nester rooms in their houses. Given the impact of inflation and problems with potentially living longer that their resources, the additional income that would be available to these seniors would likely be very welcome.

The problem is, if the tenant doesn’t work out, how do they evict them? Without a really good answer to that question, by way of government legislation, significant amounts of good livable space will never be made available.

This proposed policy to allow “pay to slay” destruction of currently protected wetlands and woodlands, and changes to the rules that are used to identify wetlands, will cause the majority of these rare and ecologically crucial areas to be lost to development. We have spent decades to preserve these environmentally crucial features. Trading these environmental gems away for further housing sprawl would be totally unconscionable!