I don't think that is what anyone has said. bbut I wwould not buy land if the government is going to tell me how to use it.
Printable View
I don't think that is what anyone has said. bbut I wwould not buy land if the government is going to tell me how to use it.
I would hope you would know it’s zone designation before you bought it. The problem is that developers are doing an end around to get by or change the designation without appeal.
I really don't have a valid opinion on this topic but I'll pass this along. One of my daughters has worked for a CA around Toronto for years and she's always talked about the ongoing battle with deep pocketed developers trying to push their product onto CA designated land. From what I can understand is that much of this land isn't just for touchy feely types who like to smell flowers and leaves but hold environmental indicators in the form of unique fauna and flora. Be what it may, that's just one of the other aspects of these CA's and I don't doubt she'll be fuming at this piece of legislation.
sawbill I am involved with two different battles with developers. Save the Pickering waterfront and now, Save the Pickering Wetlands. Outdoors people should be very concerned looking at this legislation and it’s impact. Greed is at the root of the problem.
Without doubt,developers would build and pave over the entire province if given the opportunity. Removing regulations and methods of enforcement would be a huge error. Any government that drops that ball will pay a catastrophic price at the polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Well here is the bill, why not start with facts first.
https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-b...ion-1/bill-229
Looking at it, I see some potential for issues but as with any legal document written by the gov't it often the interpretation but I have more concern over Schedule 8 and 40 much more and especially since the 3 together actually seem to be part of the same overall goal. All 3 together there seems to be something in mind whether it is land claim oriented or developers oriented I don't have the time or background to say.
https://www.ola.org/sites/default/fi...-11/b229_e.pdf
But since Schedule 6 starts out this way I would think land claim.
16 SCHEDULE 6
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT
1 The Conservation Authorities Act is amended by adding the following section:
Existing aboriginal or treaty rights
I agree section 40 is also very concerning. It gives the Minister, the final say. The Minister alone can decide what goes on in our Provincial Parks. Very similar to section 6, and our Conservation lands. There is no appeal of a MZO. Is it the same in section 40? Good story on pages 1,8 and 9 in the Star today, showing the ramifications of this amendment, on municipal planning. Read the article. I fail to see how this could be considered a good thing.
What happens is CAs see marginal farmland not being used growing up with brush and they start designating it "wet land". Landowners who do not want the wetland designation bring in the bulldozers and level it so it is now vacant land again. The huge amazon distribution centre near Russell is built on land like this. Landowners do it to protect the value of their land. Nothing convoluted about that. But it is a good reason why you want to make sure that "nature" does not take root on your property.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
If the CAs want to designate land, then buy it at market value.
No. Conservation Authorities bad. Landowners good. Sometimes landowners are also developers, but most land owners are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
That's the whole weakness of the CAs. They don't want to take on the developers - too much trouble. But small landowners - they can be run over.
If you buy land designated as 'protected', you should not be able to change the designation with a MZO.. Totally different story than CA's , changing the designation after you bought it, on that I agree. They should have to prove beyond a doubt, the change is needed , with you having the right to appeal, that decision. MZO's allow for no appeal, period.