Omnibus Budget Bill 229, schedule 6.

[trimmer21]

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.

[Gilroy]

Well said Trimmer.

[fishermccann]

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

[MikePal]

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.

[werner.reiche]

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.

[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.

[MikePal]

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..

[greatwhite]

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.

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?

[fishermccann]

That there is convoluted thinking.

[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.