Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Omnibus Budget Bill 229, schedule 6.

  1. #21
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #22
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by fishermccann; December 7th, 2020 at 03:40 PM.

  4. #23
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.

  5. #24
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by fishermccann; December 7th, 2020 at 04:19 PM.

  6. #25
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishermccann View Post
    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.
    Society needs to stop bending to the will of the delusional.

  7. #26
    Has too much time on their hands

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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

  8. #27
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by fishermccann; December 8th, 2020 at 10:57 AM.

  9. #28
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishermccann View Post
    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.

  10. #29
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishermccann View Post
    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.

  11. #30
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •