Omnibus Budget Bill 229, schedule 6.

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.

This should get interesting as generally this group is pro Conservative.

I fear that is why it was not brought up before...No matter what political party you vote for, schedule 6 is just plain wrong. I wonder how many posts we will have, before someone blames Trudeau.

Only good for the the money that's what they want and need. Who cares about these protected when they need money right lol.

They should leave them alone and build else where. Why spend 80 years to save just to let it go?

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

With the Conservatives having a majority is a done deal.

Speculating but I have a feeling it may be due to something like this:

"after transfer, Algonquin lands will be subject to municipal jurisdiction, including the same land use planning and development approvals and authorities as other private lands"

https://www.ontario.ca/page/algonquin-land-claim

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.

---

I think the Conservation authorities had a little to much power and basically were more about "telling you what not to do on your land" instead of actually helping.

I had the opportunity in recent years to purchase two adjoining parcels of land to my own. It was a nightmare to contact, speak to ,get answers from the local conservation authority. I was expected to PAY THEM to come out to the land so that they could TELL ME what I could not do with it. So one parcel was a big upland marsh/swamp surrounded by a lot of old growth tree's, some of which should be harvested .Out of the 50 acres after looking at it and a set back, I would have been left with 23 acre' s to harvest, not really for the money, but to open it up for hunting and improve the wildlife habitat. They also had an ANSI on it
which consisted of "granite outcroppings to the surface" LOL I think pretty common on the Canadian Shield.
Anyway the Conservation folks stated the MNR placed the designation, the MNR said the Conservation folks made the designation and back and forth they went.
A local logger said he would probably pass on cutting as it was to much bother with all the set back nonsense. Basically a 300 feet set back all around the swamp and some more for EP ZONE.

In the end I did not buy the land and its sits as it has for decades.

On the other hand, 'telling you what not to do on your land', could be a good thing. Say you buy a property designated 'wetland' and want to fill it in with dirt, is it not a good thing, that they can tell, you that you can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

On the other hand, 'telling you what not to do on your land', could be a good thing. Say you buy a property designated 'wetland' and want to fill it in with dirt, is it not a good thing, that they can tell, you you can't?

---

No its a good thing because you have bought it at a price point that reflects its value as wetland and should know what your getting into. But my point about CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES is they had to much power and had to be consulted to often.

The funny thing was I recently witnessed CROWN LAND logged adjoining my land and wetlands. The set back I was expected to comply with in regards to the land I was going to buy was not equally applied to the Crown land, in fact they cut within yards of the wetlands but that's a whole other story.

Can a Conservation Authority over rule the Crown? I think Federal land is whole different ball of wax. Pickering Airport lands come to mind, the regional Conservation Authority said it should be a no go. The Feds said, to bad, we will develop the land if we want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

On the other hand, 'telling you what not to do on your land', could be a good thing. Say you buy a property designated 'wetland' and want to fill it in with dirt, is it not a good thing, that they can tell, you that you can't?

---

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.

Well said Trimmer.

Totally agree. Political partisanship should have nothing to do with righting this wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

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.

---

That was my gut felling when I read the news this morning. Take them down a peg or two and see if they'll become more responsive to/with the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Can a Conservation Authority over rule the Crown? I think Federal land is whole different ball of wax. Pickering Airport lands come to mind, the regional Conservation Authority said it should be a no go. The Feds said, to bad, we will develop the land if we want to.

---

I think most "crown" land is actually provincially owned. Up in Renfrew county near the park, the crown land gets raped and pillaged. No concern for setbacks and wet areas.

The conservation areas have been bullying private landowners and this change is long overdue.
One area where they have really being going overboard in eastern ontario is designating abandoned farmland as "wetland".
The land cannot be returned to farmland nor can it be developed.

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.

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.

---

Bingo..

The government should not be telling me what I can do on my land. Thousand of ac were bulldozed around here before they were designated wetlands just to get around the government. If the government had left well enough alone the land would have been left alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

On the other hand, 'telling you what not to do on your land', could be a good thing. Say you buy a property designated 'wetland' and want to fill it in with dirt, is it not a good thing, that they can tell, you that you can't?

---

That there is convoluted thinking.

Let me get the jist of what I am surmising of the comments, Conservation Authorities bad, developers good. So you are saying that you are in agreement with MZO s having the final say with no appeal.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

sawbill I am involved with two different battles with developers. Save the Pickering waterfront and now, Save the Pickering Wetlands. 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

That there is convoluted thinking.

---

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.

If the CAs want to designate land, then buy it at market value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Let me get the jist of what I am surmising of the comments, Conservation Authorities bad, developers good. So you are saying that you are in agreement with MZO s having the final say with no appeal.

---

No. Conservation Authorities bad. Landowners good. Sometimes landowners are also developers, but most land owners are not.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

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

---

It is not difficult to see that the transfer of lands is mostly comprised of prime waterfront real estate that will be developed. Billions of dollars at stake here. They will simply remove restrictions in order to proceed. Nothing to do with conservation. That will be the job of additional provincial parks. http://www.tanakiwin.com/imap.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by impact

It is not difficult to see that the transfer of lands is mostly comprised of prime waterfront real estate that will be developed. Billions of dollars at stake here. They will simply remove restrictions in order to proceed. Nothing to do with conservation. That will be the job of additional provincial parks. http://www.tanakiwin.com/imap.html

---

Nothing to do with conservation or preservation of the environment is a given and the billions of dollars is sure right. I wonder though if there is also the other way possible reading some of it later. IF the .... BIG IF, IF the land claim wins and there is nonsense with local officials etc. the ability to put in a provincial appointie in place, the public hearings, they could be used as a way to over ride turning parts of Algonquin etc. into sub divisions/strip malls without the provinces OK (with so many citiots in parliament I kind of cringe for the future if people don't watch AND care *) since there is the part about who actually owns the buildings on those properties. Looking at it reminds me of Elmer Fudds rifle, depends on which end the butt stock is on who gets shot, it could be used to help protect or to really sell out. It is the 3 schedules together though that make me want to watch it closer.

* Think 1.3 million new immigrants the feds want to bring in, so many in Toronto that think places like Gage park in Brampton is the wild outdoors etc.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5263980

I guess if you don’t succeed on your first attempt, keep trying. Personally, I think all politics have gone down the crapper long ago.! What we need is to stop paying politicians big money (+ kick backs) for doing a job that should be selfless. It’s a shame really. Developers get away with murder, and the fines are a joke.

ok, i'll bite.

Are we polarized? Yep, read just this thread. :)

There's another way to look at this issue. I'll start by saying I am very familiar with the parcel of land in Ajax slotted for a warehouse. It's not what I would call wetlands or sensitive. Years ago, a woodlot to the east of it used to hold a lot of deer. Not so much anymore. Too much concrete and asphalt chased them all away a long time ago. I would take anything being put out by that group with a major dose of salt. Worth leaving as is? Sure, so long as there aren't greater needs.

Like jobs.
Durham region for the most part is nothing but retail, a small automotive industry, public service and commuters. I am often very much against all the corporate welfare it receives. I'm "kind" of happy Ford and Trudeua are "today" throwing 700,000,000 at GM to keep 2,000 employed in Oshawa....

Real Estate prices.
Hard to moan about stupid housing prices, and moan about development........True, this fair sized chunk of land is slotted for a warehouse. But if not on this chunk, then it will be another..Which means land more suitable for housing is paved over for a warehouse.....

Land taxes.
Most people I know in the region are griping about land taxes, and griping about the lack of infrastructure, and griping about the 412/418 not being free

What's coming.
The East Airport, located north of Pickering/Ajax. More jobs, more wealth, more tax revenue....But there's opposition to that development as well.

The one thing that is certain, Pickering/Ajax are sorely in need of North/South corridors. Between the airport and the casino (and warehouse)....Ouch...There are reasons I got out of that crap. Point Being...To the S is Lake O and to the North the Morraine...You know the lifeblood (clean water) of earth....

In the end, though people try you can't have your cake and eat it too.
if you don't want development and jobs and the wealth/tax revenue that comes with that. By all means, there are all kinds of places around Ontario that would.
If you don't like real estate prices or land taxes that come with it, There are all kinds of places that would welcome it with open arms. Or more accurately the cause for demand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>supply
And if you don't like the congestion, mass of humanity that follows the $$...Well.....No-one to blame but "yourself" You voted and wanted this decades ago when we should have diversifying.

Make up your mind comes to mind. :)

JB you’re correct on most counts. The land is in Pickering and housing will be on that land as well as the warehouse. In past years I have gone shed hunting in those woods. Lots of deer and other critters still in there. Guessing that the same could be said about Peterborough, do you want progress ? House prices will go up, and people who have lived there for years will be priced out. I thought you mentioned that concern earlier.

I knows there's some Gord. Way too many hours spent chasing deer and Owls. Key word "some".

The problem with PTBO and with Lindsay that "sets it apart". Is there's no industry or more accurately very little. That boat sailed ( as did many people, which also means fewer customers) between 2004 and 2010 for the most part. Good jobs gone, tax revenue gone amongst other things. And I hate to say, what did the spoiled GTA do? Turned blind eyes

The housing situation in the GTA is pushing people out. Not in dribbles as might normally occur as people leave the city here and there behind, but in large numbers.

Are they coming to work in Lindsay for that 70,100k job? PTBO where the mean duo is 55k? You might say well similar happened in Durham back around 2006 as more and more moved to Durham Region. Not really, the infracstrure supported a lot. Like a 40min Go Train into work in the city.... So yes, people are moving into those areas but they aren't bring the jobs/companies/infrastructure with them...And yes good jobs are desperately now.../points to $700,000,000 for Oshawa....
It's not remotely similiar :)

Copied from someone that lives in PTBO and posted today.
The real estate market in Peterborough is a en joke right now.....unbelievable. Lifetime resident and I cannot stay here thanks to aggressive and pathetic offers from the Durham and GTA region.
Can't compete....there is no en way wartime homes should be selling in the $460,000+ range.
Guess I'll need to start looking into Fenelon Falls region to have a chance.

FF...Ah my neck of the woods. On the water, 500 ++ +And In town, a nice one for 400+. Tear down 300, nice property though.

Lots of people moving into the Kawartha's. Flush with cash, Working remotely, or going in once, twice a week collecting 100k. Its litterly killing outlying regions. And on top of that, without the infrastrucure, and tax revenue, wealth generation from industry...........Honestly make me sick. I'm no rocket scientist, nor civil planner.I saw it all coming back around 08. Especially because when it comes to green stuff, and I look at geology ( the Morraine) and Lake O... In large part that's why I got out when I did, and why when we first moved in I said 7 years max...I think with what's going on now, I was optimistic by 1 year :). No offense but the GTA couldnt give two craps about what "stuff" has done/is doing. :)

Anywho,
Now more than ever, as much as we might "despise" developers..and think the worst of Ford ( which it/this might very well be)...Well as I said in the other thread.
"Time and place for everything"
/looks at 2020.

I know a couple of people who were due to retire in the next couple of years. They decided to go now, for the sake of a couple of years. It's your top 5 years salary for pension pay outs. They figure their best 5 years are behind them.

I’m not sure this is related to the bill other than off hand way.

Can’t blame people for what they are doing, though they can be blamed for their parts in what’s led to it. At its simplest me me me me me me me me me me.

Plenty of that going around today with Covid as well
****

Sometimes. Some topics. It’s as simple as an old adage.

“the simplest solution is almost always the best.”

What would I be doing right now, if I were Ford?

Amongst other things. Ramming this legislation through like there’s no tomorrow. For a few reasons.

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.

Not at the expense of safeguards that have been in place for 60 years. Or giving to much power to developers who are only in it for quick monetary gain, with no concern for the long range ramifications, of their developments. JB..... I have had to get a special permit for 100 bucks, ( for each tree wanted to be cut), to cut down trees in my own backyard. A city arborist had to come out and inspect before issuing said permit. Why, because my property backs onto a Conservation area with a creek, a creek that is 150 feet from my property line and 50 feet down an embankment. I knew that I would need permits, when I moved in. I would think that anyone should do , 'due diligence' with any , council or organization in charge of giving permission, or handing out permits before any architects would be consulted, or building plans made.

That's your choice and opinion, I can respect that. At least we know where you stand even if we don't agree.

Fair?
I don't think its fair your safely collecting a pension paid for by him, never experienced the stresses of work outside of public service. I don't think it fair, not remotely that having to move to Alberta due to brain dead policies and "stuff" here. The same type of policies had him leaving Alberta. Only to try and start over here, only having to fight beurcrats that don't live in the real world, only to be in a position today where he not only staring shutting down and declaring bankruptcy in face. The guy is actually paying journeymen, to do work on his house he could be doing himself, so they and their families....

Fair.
That word has never, will never exist.

Funny thing. Despite being the type of person that does agree we need to do more for the planet, Can't say I'm all that impressed with the carnage green policies are leaving in their wake.

If I was still working, you would be lining up with others to......' thank me for my service' , as a front line heath care worker. Stress, I had lots of that in my career. The P.S. is definitely not immune from that.

God knows in coming years as many like him are into their 70s, the need for more of you will be greater than it is today. shame that......Seriously amazes me how Horwath and many in certain arms of healthcare can scream dire warnings about the needs coming with an aging population. But never quite grasp, why. In the first place....

I have no problem acknowleging the need and roles of those in PS. My father gave his life...........Your barking up the wrong tree.
I wonder though, why it is, you and way too many others like you fail to see or appreciate how much you need people to pay your bills, fix your plumbing, invest your money, serve you food, pick up your garbage and on and on...Or at the very least, acknowledge the damage done to them....

Best meme I saw way back in April. Was of a human body. These people are the brains, these the heart, these the muscles, theses the nerves....And the people you think should be bowing to you the backbone.
What happens when the backbone collapses?

Remember that, the next time you think about fairness or this bill.
If ever, we need to find some common sense, and fast track everything we can. For jobs, for wealth creation, for tax revenue so we can keep paying you....

At the expense of our protected areas? It is gone forever, so not worth the monetary short term gains. Is that part of the reset, build everywhere? Dam the future we need money now? Should not the developers world be part of the ‘downturn ‘. Where is their hit?

How do I say this and remain respectful.

If we listened to every agency, every group. Nothing would ever get done Gord. Sometimes you have to make hard choices, and you need to make them now. Not next week or next year. Yesterday.
To put this is some kind of perspective. We still haven't fully recovered from 2008....have we?

~As of the 2020–21 First Quarter Finances, the government is projecting a deficit of $38.5 billion in 2020–21, representing an increase of $18.0 billion from the outlook presented in the March 2020 Economic and Fiscal Update.

~Program expense is projected to be $174.2 billion, $13.1 billion higher than the March 2020 Economic and Fiscal Update

~The net debt-to-GDP ratio is now projected to be 47.1 per cent in 2020–21, 5.4 percentage points higher than the 41.7 per cent forecast in the March 2020 Economic and Fiscal Update.

~The forecast for Total Taxation Revenue has decreased by $10.8 billion compared to the March 2020 Economic and Fiscal Update. This is based on an economic outlook scenario closely aligned with the average of current private-sector forecasts. Furthermore, it takes into account the taxation revenue experience of past economic downturns. This results in a 10.0 per cent decrease in projected taxation revenues, corresponding to a 7.3 percentage point decline in the nominal GDP outlook.

~Corporations Tax revenue is lower by $5.2 billion (34.5 per cent) due to a larger projected decline in corporate profits;
~Sales Tax revenue is lower by $4.2 billion (14.3 per cent) due to a projected decline in household consumption spending;
~Personal Income Tax and Ontario Health Premium combined are lower by $497 million (1.2 per cent) mainly due to lower projected compensation of employees,
~Gasoline and Fuel Taxes combined are lower by $448 million (12.8 per cent) due to lower projected volumes purchased;
~Employer Health Tax is lower by $387 million (5.7 per cent) due to lower projected compensation of employees; and
~All Other Taxes Combined are lower by $75 million mainly due to decreased revenues projected from the Land Transfer Tax.

Curious.
Just how do you expect to pay ( and get paid or all your colleagues) for what we know is coming.........
Were we not short PPE, And PSWs to begin with?
Let alone, so very very very much else. let alone the lowly tax payers just getting reamed these days?
Again, Ill twist your word back at you? At what expense Gord?

Should I mention the fiscal nut house we were in to begin 2020?
2020-21 First Quarter Finances (gov.on.ca)