Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

79971

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The main argument for these proposed changes to the greenbelt is that we need to support a growing population. No doubt that a growing population requires an increased supply of housing. It also requires an increased supply of food. The majority of the areas proposed for removal are farmlands. Read more

Comment ID

79974

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Do not develop on protected land. This is a short term solution that will cause long term harm. Campaign promises were made, and this will break them. There are other solutions - committees have noted that this won’t even be close to the right solution!!!! Read more

Comment ID

79982

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The greenbelt was created for several specific purposes and was enacted in consultation with experts and the public. Seeking to alter the well researched and forward thinking investment in the future that is the greenbelt is short sighted at best, and downright ignorant greed at its worst. Read more

Comment ID

79990

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The greenbelt is so much more valuable to our province than any number of residences could be. Considering how dire the world's current climate and food security situation is, why on earth would it make sense to remove such an incredible and valuable piece of agricultural land? Read more

Comment ID

79994

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Really unhappy with what this bill is proposing. Seems as though there is no consideration being made for what this means for the environment or the species at risk in the area. Moreover, some of the land that would be opened up is within the flood zones, which makes no sense. Read more