The proposed removal of…

The proposed removal of thousands of acres from the Greenbelt under the guise of building more homes is a completely questionable act. It favors the special interests of a few large developers, seemingly who have political ties to the Premier. The argument that this move will provide significant housing is not supported by the government's own numbers, and will have significant financial impacts to municipalities and significant environmental impacts to nature and residents long term.

The proposed change would have a minimal impact on the housing need, not only numerically but because the built form - most likely large single-family detached and semi detached houses, provide a minimum of additional units at a maximum cost. This cost is not only reflected in the construction cost of each dwelling, due to the high square footage, but also due to the higher construction cost of services at the periphery of service areas. This cost is borne by fewer people, as more service infrastructure is needed per capita in suburban neighbourhoods. Additionally, this infrastructure will be more expensive to replace at the end of its lifecycle. This will further burden municipalities that already have some of the highest property taxes. The additional changes to development charges proposed in Bill 23 are an additional blow.

For this proposed change to take place, it's already been reported that this could have specific impacts on wetlands and watersheds. Further, removal of any forested areas would have additional hydrogeological impacts. Aside from the environmental impacts, there's a real material impact to residents within the watershed areas. How does the province propose to handle liability for increases flooding risk? Will houses built even be insurable long term? If the lands in question themselves aren't prone to flooding, how assured can residents downstream be that there won't be risks of flooding or other issues? These questions reinforce the reality that this proposed change is not necessary.

The recommendations this year from the Province's own housing taskforce provided suggestions, including to greatly increase as of right dwelling numbers in areas that already have development. Rather than opening up unbuilt land which is environmentally sensitive and provides substantial valuable agricultural and environmental services, the province should instead seek to encourage intensification on already built lands, and diversification of building typologies to provide a greater range of housing options than just expensive suburban sprawl.

This will both more efficiently use already built services and infrastructure, but will help to create more vibrant, diverse and liveable communities that mitigate the risk and impacts to the environment. Further, it will help to create more financially viable communities for the long term, rather than a short term fix (that's not actually even a fix) that will leave municipalities holding the bag for decades to come.

The need to address the housing crisis and the need to mitigate the environmental impacts of sprawl, climate change, etc. are not zero sum. Rather, many well informed professionals from across the development industry have proposed a range of options for years that would balance these needs. It's absurd to believe this favouring of one solution which benefits specific developers is a better solution than a comprehensive menu of options that balances the need for housing with the need for a healthy environment for people to live in.

My comments within are largely influenced by the work of Charles Marohn and the Strong Towns approach. Rather than continuing with a "Growth Ponzi Scheme" which creates sprawl, damages the environment, and saddles municipalities with financial burdens and depressing environments, we should instead be building incrementally, intensively and efficiently. This will create beautiful, vibrant, environmentally sustainable and beautiful places which reflect the people who live there.

The Greenbelt lands should be protected for generations to come, and the people of the province should be granted the respect not to be sadfled by the Provincial representatives bad planning and short-sighted drive towards profit and corporate cronyism.