The proposed changes to this…

The proposed changes to this Act do not meaningfully address the housing crisis that we are currently facing and will also negatively impact the well-being of those living in the proposed new developments and all other member of their municipalities.

Equitable access to nature and green space is extremely important for human well-being. In fact, lack of access to nature is correlated with mental health issues. The edits to this Act are proposing a reduction in the parkland dedication rate and the amount of greenspace required when developing. This is unacceptable! To reduce the amount of greenspace in order to increase the number of houses, will negatively effect the communities that are being built. Extensive research has been conducted in the realm of access to nature and well-being which shows that total area of public green spaces are significantly associated with greater mental well-being. Several papers that support this fact have been attached to this comment (there are many, many more). This is true for both children and adults. Thus, to reduce greenspace requirements in development is to negatively impact the mental health of the residents who will occupy that development. Cash in lieu is not enough to offset the negative mental health impacts that the reduction in greenspace will have for the rest of the life of the development (over 100 years). The current requirements for parkland dedication are not the reason we have a housing crisis.

Moreover the changes to this Act propose that certain types of development, like those done as not-for-profit and affordable housing, are exempt from development charges and community benefit charges. If developers do not pay development charges and community benefits charges then all of the onus to pay for the necessary public infrastructure will be put onto current taxpayers and property owners. Individuals living in the GTA already pay very high taxes. It is unacceptable to have them pay for development. Developers should be paying for development. Municipalities need the fees from developers in order to ensure that new subdivisions have adequate infrastructure. Depriving them of these funds is asking them to do more with less and municipalities are already too stretched for cash (where will the funding for new community centres come from? Should low income individuals not have access to community centres?). In addition, the edits to this Act are proposing that not-for-profit housing and affordable housing are exempt from parkland dedication requirements. Does that mean that low income individuals do not deserve equitable access to nature? Should they be less able to access nature in their community purely because of the fact that they are low income? Access to nature is a right that needs to be enjoyed by all. Just because an area has lower income individuals does not meant that they should not be able to access nature or have less access to nature. I would like to direct your attention again to the previous point I made about the connection between mental health and access to nature. By exempting this type of development from parkland requirements you are giving the green light for developers to deprive low-income individuals from access to nature. This is repugnant.