(2/6) If this amendment to the Provincial Parks & Conservation Reserves Act really werenβt going to lessen safeguards against the removal or selloff of other Provincial Parks, there would be no reason to amend the PPCRA - whose provisions apply to ALL provincial parks - at all.
(3/6) If they weren't trying to create a backdoor for selloffs of other Provincial Parks, the Ontario government would simply be complying with the PPCRA process & asking elected MPPs to approve this specific selloff, rather than attacking the PPCRA, which protects ALL parks.
(4/6) That's because The PPCRA itself allows the disposition of more than 1% of a provincial park as long as the Minister obtains the endorsement of the Legislative Assembly.
(5/6) There is no PPCRA provision that references ONLY Wasaga Beach Provincial Park. All of the sections that restrict the disposition, leasing, or use of Provincial Park land apply to Provincial Parks in general.
(6/6) There is every reason suspect that the government's planned amendments would allow the government to sell off big chunks of Provincial Park lands WITHOUT getting the approval of Ontario's elected legislature at all. That'd be a recipe for corrupt, Trump-style, fire sales.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've had a first look at Bill 185 and the new proposed Provincial Planning Statement and WOW ... there's a reason why the Ontario government spent hours feeding reporters its spin on these laws before releasing their text to the public. Massive dangers hidden in this text. π§΅π
2/? Taken together, the Provincial Planning Statement and "Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act" seem calculated to ensure that the Greenbelt sprawl and real estate scandal spreads and expands into a wave of suburban βGreenfield Scandalsβ.
@envirodefence @CP24 @CTVToronto @globalnewsto @CityNewsTO @CBCToronto @TorontoStar @RadioCanadaInfo @TheAgenda @BonnieCrombie 3/? Together, the new law & proposedPlanning Statement would effectively wipe out the protective Settlement Area Boundaries & Municipal Comprehensive Review processes that prevent low-density sprawl from destroying what remains of farmland and natural areas outside the Greenbelt.
Hi John, as one of the experts quoted in this article, I'm obliged to clarify: neither the Eby report nor the RCPO report takes away from the environmental & housing need to end exclusionary zoning & rapidly densify existing neighborhoods. They show more SPRAWL isnt needed. 1/4
2/4 The info in these reports shows there's no need for Greenbelt land, but it also shows that the # of units "in the pipe" in neighborhoods isn't enough to retrofit them into walkable densities that support cost-effective transit in time to head off runaway climate change.
3/4 The RPCO & Eby reports show just how EXTREME the Greenbelt grab is: EVEN in what'd ordinarily be regarded as the WORST case of status quo slow densification, there's no housing benefit to paving Greenbelt. That doesn't make the former worst case any less AWFUL than it was.
Hi John, I'm one of the experts quoted in this article & I obliged to clarify that neither the Eby or RCPO reports- take away from the environmental & housing need to end exclusionary zoning & rapidly densify existing post-war neighborhoods. They show more SPRAWL isnt needed. 1/4
2/4 The info in these reports shows there's no need for Greenbelt land, but it also shows that the # of units "in the pipe" in neighborhoods isn't enough to retrofit them into walkable densities that support cost-effective transit in time to head off runaway climate change.
3/4 The RPCO & Eby reports show just how extreme the Greenbelt grab is. They show that EVEN in what would ordinarily be regarded as the worst case of status quo slow densification here's no housing benefit to paving the Greenbelt, but that that former worst case is still awful.
@envirodefence & our allies, like ppl in @GGHfriends are DEMANDING a swift end to exclusionary zoning & other obstacles to densifying existing communities. We reject the methodology (the gov's own) that leads to such a low assessment of neighborhoods' capacity for growth.. (1/4)
(2/4) The point of sharing Eby's tally of settlement area capacity using the GOVERNMENT's sprawling, exclusionary planning regime- isn't to now endorse what we've opposed for years. It's to show even their OWN approach wouldn't justify Greenbelt removals.
(3/4) Likewise, our purpose in sharing RPCO tallies of building applications generated by existing zoning and official plans - which we opposed at Council because they weren't adequate to densify existing neighborhoods - isn't to reverse that opposition.
An engaging discussion on @TheAgenda's Twitter Spaces now re: why the public reaction to Toronto's deterioration is so muted. I think the answer has its roots in 2012 when TTC Manager Gary Webster was fired for telling Council that LRT was much more practical than a SSE. (1/?)
(2/?) I'm not old enough to've followed City Hall for decades, but I clearly recall that prior to 2012, it was common for staff to make recommendations plainly at odds with a Mayor's stated preferences, and even to state plainly that the mayor's proposal would cause problems.
(3/?) This kind of plain speaking from City staff gave Torontonians a clear, independent way to tell whether the mayor or their city councillor were to blame for problems that angered them -