Omnibus Budget Bill 229, schedule 6.

Land zoned as provincially significant wetlands, on which you cannot build, sell for 1 thousand an acre. Developer buys 100 acres of such land. Gets an MZO, thus making that land worth 100 times a much, because you can now build on it. Developer buy 100 acres at 1,000 bucks each = $100,000 cash layout. MZO is passed, so that the $100,000 developer investment in the land is now worth .......$10 Million. Who wins ? Certainly not the neighbors who expected that wetland to be protected, forever. Or the municipality that have had this new owner thrust upon them, who will be disregarding the official plans for their city.

This is the best news I have ever heard. If you are a member of Ontario Land Owners Association or a Libertarian you would understand how removes the over reaching excuses of excessive mandate infringements the CA have been making on property owners for years.

This is like Christmas in July. This bill will advance so many rights and illegal edicts, interference in private property owners, stealing land, stopping construction all under the Neo Statist, who are enviro geeks destroying the right to enjoy your property.

In our 2018 platform, we listed removal of MPAC's, CA and lower the Land Transfer title tax down to fee of $275. This would have removed central management (T.O), defunded them all and put that responsibility back onto local municipal and city counselors, who are 100% accountable to local taxpayers. This is great, but it does not go far enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Schedule 6 , deals with amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act. It gives an MZO absolute power to override the provinces 36 Conservation Authorities, which are responsible for the protection and restoration of land , water and natural habitat in their communities. Mostly wetlands and flood plains. This bill would break the Conservation Authorities protection from political interference that they have had since 1946. In this year alone the minister has issued more than 35 MZO's, some on environmentally sensitive lands that would normally not allow development. I would assume that most on this site would consider themselves pro wetlands. How do people feel about schedule 6? I feel that it is good for the developers, not so much for the environment. . Ford tried to give permission for developers to develop the greenbelt. When the poop hit the fan about that, he had to back peddle. Maybe schedule 6 is his way of fulfilling his obligations to them. As has been said before...follow the money.

---

Perfectly laid out comments and truth of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

We're witnessing what happens when NGO's like CA's are given authority over vast tracts of sensitive land,largely left unchecked. The Harris Conservatives decided it would be a good thing to download that authority to the "private(?!)" sector in order to crush the budget of OMNR as a cost cutting measure to wrestle down a massive debt left by the previous government. On the surface,it was a good idea,but,it failed miserably to counter-balance the legislation to prevent "mission creep" of the ensuing bureaucracy it created. Fast forward to today and we see an organization that has simply gotten too big for it's britches,needing to be taken a little more than a peg or two. That is what Schedule 6 attempts to do. Having said that,IMO,there's no checks and balances included in it which may allow developers to usurp too much and ruin which heretofore has been a fantastic policy of conservation across the province. I've written to both our local MPP and to the Premier communicating those concerns. Other than receiving acknowledgement receipt letters,nothing substantive has come out,so far. No doubt,I'm not the only Conservative supporter who have taken the initiative to communicate those concerns. We'll see what happens.

---

Ontario Land Owners Association - you should join - they have been battling the system for years, on behalf of landowners, Elizebeth Marshal, Shirley Doan, Jeff Bogarts, Tom Black all great people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

While developers might have a role in advancing this, its more than likely private land owners like myself. I own 150 acres and mixed bush and abandoned farmland. I don't have any plans to develop it, but I sure don't want any designation placed on it which would prevent me from tilling the fields or building on it. There are land owner associations in eastern Ontario which have been lobbying for these changes. Developers tend not to be involved so much as they don't buy land that is designated.

---

Unfortunately - that is story you hear - but 95% of the fighting and raping is done to individual landowners who take on a system that uses taxpayers money to fight taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

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.

---

Ahhhh….look at you telling private property what they can or cannot with there own paid for lands...that's why the need to have all authority removed from CA and MPAC. That authority/power should reside in your local municipal counsel where you the taxpayers can take them head with voting power. Instead...local counsel says "that is provincial authority" nothing I can do. This is why it should end, and place that power back at local taxpayer. Rein in the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

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.

---

Line. Half of what you agree with in post 42 is contradicted by what you agree with in post 43. I agree with some of what you say, but only because I feel that the designation should not be changeable to protected land If you’re already the owner ,then that is bad. If you buy protected land knowing it’s designation, and then try to change it with a MZO , that is also wrong. You knew it’s designation when you bought it at a reduced price you should have no opportunity to change it. You bought it as protected it should stay protected.You bought it as non protected it should stay non protected. Developers are buying up protected lands cheaply then MZO s are changing the designation to unprotected,so they can build. This section 6 takes away any appeals.

Gord.
When it comes to say the value of your property, or other parts of your life.

Are you not always the one to say " I made good choices"? Was smart with my money. Made the choice to work in PS, collect my pension even though it raped the lowly tax payers? Why should developers be any different?
Are you not also a person that when the liberals were in power, despite the more than obvious vote buying of the GTA and Unions say. "1 person, 1 vote"...Well now its Ford turn....to buy votes, reward friends, ram development through be they warehouses or wind farms....

Me.
Another day, another age I'd likely be howling as much as rural Ontario was when wind farms were being rammed down their throats. You used to say " Can't stop progress"....
Nope we cant. Not if we want world class cities and the wealth that comes with that, that can accommodate 7 million...........and growing.

Me
More than anything, virtually anything else right now..today...we need.
development......for many reasons. Not the least of which is tax revenue and jobs.

Am I surprised they've rammed 35 through this year....................

With respect to private land owners. I know more than a few that have had to run the gauntlet with CAs because they've run amok and roughshod with virtually no way to reign them in.
You reap what you sow I suppose.

And yep, I do see a not too distant future where we lose the streams coming out of the Morraine. Which feed everything all the way down to the wetlands and Lake O.
Most in the GTA are blind to things other than their own lives.

If we can save the headwaters, great. The rest
well "you" wanted it.

Let’s put it another way. You buy 100 acres with a small 2 acre pond on it with a nice stream coming out of it going onto another persons property. Decide later you want to fill it in, it’s your property so you feel you can. The other person bought his property because of the stream. You just cut off his water. That good? Option 2 , your neighbour doesn’t like the stream going through his land and puts up a dam on his property , flooding your land. His property and he can do whatever he wants. Still fair? Remember you bought the property with a pond and he bought his property because of the stream If you are allowed to change your mind so is he .You made his property worth less, cannot he do the same? ......Line you want the local government to control designations of land. Please explain then why are you glad that the decisions will be made in Qs Park and not by local councils ? MZO's are over ruling the local municipalities, the exact opposite of what you claim to want.

We could spend eternity cherry picking scenarios for/against. For example.

A guy I know runs his own electrical business. One he invested a lot of his own personal money in, to get it off the ground when he came back from Alberta. A nd more with credit lines when it started growing. His property is in Brooklin. The house (his mothers) needed an addition, the garages maybe as well for the trucks and tools. He spent a lot of money on architects and permits. Town council was on board. Cloca shut him down. I might also mention, the same guy is losing sleep...lots of it today. The same guy is even paying his journeymen to do crap on his own house, to try and avoid laying them off.

"on a flood plain".
Despite being over a hundred yards and atleast 40 feet above Lynde creek. Which in 100 years, has never flooded even close to the houses closer to it. They all should know, most of them and their families (including my fiance's) have lived in Brooklin since it was less than 1,000 people 40 years ago.

Don't talk about "fair" Gord. That word doesn't exist in our language, we just like to pretend it does :)

On topic/point. Or at least mine.
Do you or do you not
Think now more than ever, citizens need jobs and municipalities and especially Ontario need super fast influxs of tax revenue.

It's a binary question.