Well the Province has announced a great new greenbelt for the Golden Horseshoe - as you can imagine the developers are crying fowl. Oh well!
Fresh air is better than greed.


Click here to see PDF maps of the proposal:
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_22141_1.html



Today's Globe and Mail:

Ontario orders greenbelts

By RICHARD MACKIE
Globe and Mail Update

The 10 million people who are expected to live in the Greater Toronto Area in the next couple of decades will increasingly find it difficult to find an affordable house and will be concentrated more in condominiums and townhouses under a sweeping plan to protect another one million acres as a greenbelt around urban areas.

The plan, announced yesterday by Premier Dalton McGuinty, would try to focus growth along transportation corridors and would encourage redevelopment of underused land within cities.

”Within the greenbelt area, our plan will set strict limits on where urban boundaries can and cannot expand. Areas not currently zoned for urban development will be protected,” he told reporters at Queen's Park.

”This means no new subdivision paving over our valuable farmland. It means no new shopping malls carved out of our forests.”

Municipal Affairs Minister John Garretson acknowledged that the plan is ambitious, but he warned that it is essential to combat urban sprawl that has chewed up farms and forests over the past few decades.

Representatives of the development industry warned that limiting urban growth will inevitably push up prices for homes, especially for prized single-family dwellings.

Mark Parsons, president of the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association, said developers will co-operate with the government but warned that the plan runs counter to the basic desires of homeowners.

”Sixty-five per cent of Toronto and suburban GATE residents polled [by the association] said they would like to move into a single-family home,” he said.

Including the 800,000 acres (3,240 square kilometres) now protected in the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment, the Greenbelt will add an area the size of Algonquin Park – bringing its size to 1.8 million acres (7,280 square kilometres).

It will run from Rice Lake, which is southeast of Peterborough, to the Niagara Peninsula. The Green Belt will include and protect agriculture land, such as the grape areas of the Niagara Peninsula, recreational areas, rural communities and important environmental areas, such as major lakes, rivers and marsh lands.

About five million people now live in the communities enclosed by the proposed Green Belt. Another four million are expected to move into the area over the coming 25 years.

The plan won widespread support, largely from those who have been consulted in its development.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said, ”Preserving our green spaces, fighting gridlock and urban sprawl are essential to maintaining the quality of life we enjoy in central Ontario.”

Jim Faught, executive director of Ontario Nature, called the plan ”an important measure toward protecting vital green space in the Golden Horseshoe and ensuring the health of the province's citizens.”

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
October 28, 2004
MCGUINTY GOVERNMENT GREENBELT TO PROTECT ONE MILLION NEW ACRES IN GOLDEN HORSESHOE
Plan Will Curb Urban Sprawl

QUEEN'S PARK -- Protecting greenspace in the Golden Horseshoe will curb unplanned urban sprawl, improve quality of life today and preserve Ontario's natural heritage for future generations, said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.

"Our Greenbelt Protection Plan will help protect a total of 1.8 million acres -- an area the size of Algonquin Park -- forever," said Premier McGuinty. "We're protecting a million new acres from Rice Lake to the Niagara Peninsula. Preserving our greenspaces will help build stronger communities, improve our health and protect our water and air."

The plan adds one million new acres to the 800,000 acres in the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment that are currently protected.

The plan will set strict limits on urban boundaries. Areas not currently zoned for urban development will be protected. The plan will deliver policies and guidelines for how lands can be used, including policies on:
Agricultural protection -- to protect lands that grow specialty crops, such as the Niagara Peninsula tender fruit and grape areas and the Holland Marsh
Environmental protection -- to protect the quality of ground and surface water and to maintain essential natural connections between the Oak Ridges Moraine, Niagara Escarpment, Lake Simcoe, Lake Ontario and major river valleys
Recreation and tourism -- to support sustainable tourism and to provide settings for sports, leisure and recreation opportunities
Rural communities -- to sustain the character of the countryside and promote strong and prosperous rural communities
Infrastructure and natural resources -- to provide for sustainable use of resources critical to the region's environmental, economic and growth needs.

The draft plan is based on the advice received from the Greenbelt Task Force and the advice of municipalities and stakeholder groups. The government will consult with the public and stakeholders and intends to have a final plan ready by December 16, 2004.

"Our plan will strike a balance between protecting our greenspaces and meeting the needs of growing communities," said Premier McGuinty. "It will help us build the kind of Ontario we all want to live in -- and that we can be proud to leave to our children."

Great news...I hope the Liberals can keep stuff like this up.

Curbing the blight of spawl is a worthy objective.

A program to reabilitate brown fields could also give the city itself alot more room for new developement.

Fresh air is better than greed.

Why is it you assume all developers are working for 'greed'? Do policement police cuz of greed? Do farmers farm cuz of greed? These umbrella statements that are so often heard saying developers are just greedy is ridiculous.

Residential Construction is the largest industry in the province, employing over 250,000 people and contributing $33.6 billion (2003) to the provincial economy (over 5% of total provincial GDP) - I guess all those people are just greedy...

Land prices and therefore housing prices are going to steadily march upward (when the moritorium on land was announced Dec 15, 2003 - serviced lot prices around the GTA shot up by ~20% almost overnight) making new homes much less affordable - which we should all be worried about. Also slowing the economy should be a big worry for the provincial government as well.

Hopefully a careful balance between the environment, social needs and the economy will be found. It's kind of like our society is a three legged chair - it needs all 3 of those factors to stand up.

This is absolutely fantastic!

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said, ”Preserving our green spaces, fighting gridlock and urban sprawl are essential to maintaining the quality of life we enjoy in central Ontario.”

HA HA HA! Whoo! Who is she to talk? Holy crap!

Why is it you assume all developers are working for 'greed'? Do policement police cuz of greed? Do farmers farm cuz of greed? These umbrella statements that are so often heard saying developers are just greedy is ridiculous.

Developers exist because they can make money. That is their primary objective. They are a business. So you can't compare them to the police, which is publically funded and exists for our safety.

Developers exist because they can make money. That is their primary objective. They are a business. So you can't compare them to the police, which is publically funded and exists for our safety.

I work with developers quite often. It's all about the bottom line.

Why is it you assume all developers are working for 'greed'? Do policement police cuz of greed? Do farmers farm cuz of greed? These umbrella statements that are so often heard saying developers are just greedy is ridiculous.

The only developer I know who is not for greed is Habitat for Humanity.

Curbing the blight of spawl is a worthy objective.

Yes, unfortunatley a green belt will do nothing in regards to sprawl -- nor is is supposed to. Plenty of land on the other side, including some cities that are anxious to grow towards toronto (KW, Barrie, Newmarket, Pickering, Oshawa...).

I'm anticipating a part B to their plan which will encourage higher densities and increased infill developments, which will curb sprawl.

In the case: The only reason why we do anything is because of greed. It's the foundation of our capitalistic society. How would you like it if your boss told you that he was cutting your hard-earned paycheck in half? ...because you like the money, therefore you are greedy... I guess for the Cops, it's not about the money, but rather for the good of society. Pleeeeeeease!

In the case: The only reason why we do anything is because of greed. It's the foundation of our capitalistic society. How would you like it if your boss told you that he was cutting your hard-earned paycheck in half? ...because you like the money, therefore you are greedy... I guess for the Cops, it's not about the money, but rather for the good of society. Pleeeeeeease!

Cops salaries are not really high, so if cops don't do it for the good of society, our safety is in serious trouble. There would be rampant corruption and wrong arrests.

Virtually every profession when it comes down to it is about the money (so why are developers often singled out?). I work with a lot of developers and while the bottom line is important it isn't everything. These people give a lot back to society - it just irks me when people continually bash them as if they are out to rape and pillage all the land in the name of greed.

the problem with the greenbelt is that it merely extends urban sprawl to the other side of it, and increase the actual commuting distance. This is happening in Ottawa, where there is a real and extensive greenbelt - bedroom communities such as Barhaven were built on the other side, and existing towns such as Orleans and Manotick became bedroom communities. To service them the city built bigger and longer roads. The tree space doesn't suck up all of the extra exhaust caused by the extra 5 or 10 kms added to the commute. I can see this happening to Guelph, Barrie, Kitchener, etc. The real answer lies in proper urban planning. The reason the Greater Vancouver Area was successful was not because of any greenbelt but because it mixed uses long before Toronto got on that bandwagon. We need density, mixed uses, and convenient, pedestrian friendly street shopping much like we find in the older neighbourhoods in Toronto (i.e. Danforth). I would rather see an end to big box power centre than houses!

Residential Construction is the largest industry in the province, employing over 250,000 people and contributing $33.6 billion (2003) to the provincial economy (over 5% of total provincial GDP) - I guess all those people are just greedy...

Land prices and therefore housing prices are going to steadily march upward (when the moritorium on land was announced Dec 15, 2003 - serviced lot prices around the GTA shot up by ~20% almost overnight) making new homes much less affordable - which we should all be worried about. Also slowing the economy should be a big worry for the provincial government as well.


And the jobs will disappear if the developers are forced to intensify? I'm sure Trump is doing just fine even though he can't build subdivisions in Manhattan. The homebuilders could easily adapt to building multi-unit with the same profits they make today. And as long as the population grows the demand for new buildings will not be impacted by this just a switch in format.

I suspect the only developers that care about this are those that bought land in anticipation of rezoning to residential from agricultural. Too bad for them. To me this is no different than buying a condo with a view that later gets blocked by another condo. Tough luck but buyer beware.

The fact is the province needs to do what's best for all the people of the province not just those that want a house with a lawn. The reality is as Toronto grows more people will have to give up on the idea of a lawn unless we want all of southern Ontario to resemble suburbia. All major world cities experience this. Just because you want a house with a lawn doesn't mean you should be able to buy it cheaply. I'd like a Jag but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

"The reason the Greater Vancouver Area was successful was not because of any greenbelt but because it mixed uses long before Toronto got on that bandwagon."


Successful at what...being more sprawled and less centralized? Urban planning utilized mixed-use far sooner and to greater success in Toronto than Vancouver...even in the 1970's with places like St Lawrence. Not to mention a much better transit system. Of course the manufacturing sector in the GTA is far, far larger than Vancouver's....development consists of more than just houses.






KGB

Yes, unfortunatley a green belt will do nothing in regards to sprawl -- nor is is supposed to. Plenty of land on the other side, including some cities that are anxious to grow towards toronto (KW, Barrie, Newmarket, Pickering, Oshawa...).

I'm anticipating a part B to their plan which will encourage higher densities and increased infill developments, which will curb sprawl.


I guess that this point did not occur to me. The part B that you speak of would make alot of sense and would compliment the greenbelt plan.

the problem with the greenbelt is that it merely extends urban sprawl to the other side of it, and increase the actual commuting distance.

The province has taken the Ottawa example to heart and I don't think you have to be worried about development jumping past the Greenbelt.

It's huge. It is protecting a vast area of land (1.8 million acres) - That's an additional 1 million acres on top of the 800,000 protected by the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraire Protection Act.

Leapfrogging past the greenbelt isn't an issue given the shear size of it.

And the jobs will disappear if the developers are forced to intensify? I'm sure Trump is doing just fine even though he can't build subdivisions in Manhattan. The homebuilders could easily adapt to building multi-unit with the same profits they make today. And as long as the population grows the demand for new buildings will not be impacted by this just a switch in format.


It's all about infill baby! Just think of what Stinson did with that tiny piece of land at 5 King St. West.... my own backyard is bigger than that! (well, almost)

Ed007,

I agree with most of what you have to say. Builders are going to have to adapt and most are willing to do so - the problem lies with the consumers (who ultimately dictate what types of housing builders provide). GTHBA has done extensive polling over the last month and found that the public for the most part doesn't want to live in intenisfies areas. (Yes I know most of us on these forums 'have seen the light' and are very pro urban - I am one of those pro urban people) - but the fact it most people aren't and they aren't about to switch gears in mass droves and start buying intensified housing. Combine that with the NIMBYism against most intensification outside the downtown core and a lot of the provincial goals will be very difficult to meet.

I'm not saying these goals aren't good in principal - but when it comes to implementation there are going to be problems. The housing industry will slow down, prices for new homes are going to continue to increase, reducing affordability and putting home ownership out of reach for tens of thousands more Ontarians (including me). This will have a negative effect on the provincial economy. There are pros and cons to the greenbelt.

Some exerts from the GTHBA/Navagator (independent pollster) poll
65% prefer single detached homes in the suburbs
55% agree that high density, high rise development only appropriate in downtown toronto
Regardless of where they live 61% believe that high density housing is not appropriate for thier community
81% believe that if the province restricts traditional suburban development, housing prices will rise
74% want expanded public transit, road and highways

The province has taken the Ottawa example to heart and I don't think you have to be worried about development jumping past the Greenbelt.

Hate to tell you this, but in many cases it already has jumped the GreenBelt and is developing on the other side.

Ed007,

I agree with most of what you have to say. Builders are going to have to adapt and most are willing to do so - the problem lies with the consumers (who ultimately dictate what types of housing builders provide). GTHBA has done extensive polling over the last month and found that the public for the most part doesn't want to live in intenisfies areas. (Yes I know most of us on these forums 'have seen the light' and are very pro urban - I am one of those pro urban people) - but the fact it most people aren't and they aren't about to switch gears in mass droves and start buying intensified housing. Combine that with the NIMBYism against most intensification outside the downtown core and a lot of the provincial goals will be very difficult to meet.

I'm not saying these goals aren't good in principal - but when it comes to implementation there are going to be problems. The housing industry will slow down, prices for new homes are going to continue to increase, reducing affordability and putting home ownership out of reach for tens of thousands more Ontarians (including me). This will have a negative effect on the provincial economy. There are pros and cons to the greenbelt.

Some exerts from the GTHBA/Navagator (independent pollster) poll
65% prefer single detached homes in the suburbs
55% agree that high density, high rise development only appropriate in downtown toronto
Regardless of where they live 61% believe that high density housing is not appropriate for thier community
81% believe that if the province restricts traditional suburban development, housing prices will rise
74% want expanded public transit, road and highways

Isn't the point of all this to force the consumer? 'Want a brand new house in King City? Too bad chum.'

This is a government control.

oh, btw... if anyone wonders where the last place for reasonable house affordability is in the Golden Horseshoe, it's Hamilton. And you don't have to settle for suburbia, we're talking victorian, urban dwellings. I walk to the GO station. I set my upper limit at 150k, which left alot of room for choice. Buy now while it's cheap, because with this greenbelt, it won't be cheap for long.

:)

Virtually every profession when it comes down to it is about the money (so why are developers often singled out?). I work with a lot of developers and while the bottom line is important it isn't everything. These people give a lot back to society - it just irks me when people continually bash them as if they are out to rape and pillage all the land in the name of greed.

Then why do developers oppose the greenbelt? If they worry prices will go up for consumer, why don't they lower their profit margins and build higher densities? We're not singling out developers, for the whole business world is fueled by greed, but apparently they are at the wrong end of public opinion (at least in this forum) on this issue.

We're not singling out developers, for the whole business world is fueled by greed, but apparently they are at the wrong end of public opinion (at least in this forum) on this issue.

There are two kinds of executives -- those who can adjust to change and come out roaring (these companies often enforce innovation and change internally -- Context, 3M, IBM (pre 80's), and Ford come to mind); and there are those executive who find a pattern that kinda works and will try to fit everything into it.

The developers who are complaining are in the second category, but I'm expecting several unique (for this area) projects to appear within the next year or so that will not only accomplish the goals of the province, but take it further to create a product "everyone" could want.

Context is a good example of a developer that has jumped the gun and generated a great name for themselves.

these people are not too dumb, look at what they ask from people. barbarian orks. they didnt ask about the greenbelt directly, smart orks.

Some exerts from the GTHBA/Navagator (independent pollster) poll
65% prefer single detached homes in the suburbs
55% agree that high density, high rise development only appropriate in downtown toronto
Regardless of where they live 61% believe that high density housing is not appropriate for thier community
81% believe that if the province restricts traditional suburban development, housing prices will rise
74% want expanded public transit, road and highways

nice builders, going to develope in a nice area with mountain and pond setting, how nice:

http://www.filmz.de/film_2001/der_herr_der_ringe_die_gefaehrten/galerie/11.jpg

"74% want expanded public transit, road and highways"

How are you going to expand the TTC without density? Bleh!

The transit systems in the suburbs are becoming less and less effecient because of sprawl. You just have to look at the budget stats for Mississauga Transit for proof of this. Transit users suffer and property owners suffer too because they have to pay higher taxes.

Residential property taxes in the suburbs in the 905 are actually higher than in 416.

Remember the property tax increases recently? Toronto had an increase of 3%, while in the suburbs, Mississauga got an increase of 3.8%, Brampton 5.8%, and Oshawa 15%. All higher increase than Toronto which already had lower residential property taxes to begin with.

So yeah, Mike in TO, houses are more affordable without the greenbelt but sprawl is costly as well.

I seem to recall Vaughn getting 9% last year and expecting to that again next year and possibly the year after as well.

there is no question that this green belt is necessary. sure, it may mean increased property prices and more high rise living. However, if people want the conveniences of living close to the city, they will have to pay for it and make some sacrifices. This is the only way to keep Toronto attractive and liveable, and compete internationally.

I agree with most of what you have to say. Builders are going to have to adapt and most are willing to do so - the problem lies with the consumers (who ultimately dictate what types of housing builders provide). GTHBA has done extensive polling over the last month and found that the public for the most part doesn't want to live in intenisfies areas.

Surveying consumers means nothing. Ask how many would like a free Jaguar or Loblaws to give food away. I'm sure 100% would say yes. Ask them if they would like a house on Bridal Path for $100,000. I'm sure all would say yes.

The fact is just because this is what they want doesn't mean this is what they should or will get. The greater good of all the citizens is more important than their "wishes". This is not meant as a pro-urban post on my behalf (though I live in a condo downtown). If they want a house with a lawn then they will have to pay for it. Letting them get what they want means all of us, including those of us like me and you who live efficiently in the city, will have to pay for their privileges.

Consider it tough love. Or growing pains. People will have to pay more (housing), some will lose money (property value within the greenbelt). Regardless, it's a huge boost for urbanity in the GTA, and we should all be pretty excited.

This weekend the globe had an article that represented a different view. Apparently farmers around the GTA quite often have to borrow against the worth of their farmland every year to stay alive. Because of the greenbelt, their property values will plummet, and they may not be able to borrow any more money. Which of course means bankrupcy.

An interesting perspective, and certainly not a good effect. Like I said though, tough love. It'll be worth it.

I like the idea of the greenbelt protection. The thing I like about the greenbelt plan is that in Hamilton 40 percent of development must be infilling or intensification. That means projects will have to be developed downtown and throughout the lower city before new homes and commercial development can proceed further south on Hamilton Mountain.

But then again developers don't like to be forced.

I like the idea of the greenbelt protection. The thing I like about the greenbelt plan is that in Hamilton 40 percent of development must be infilling or intensification. That means projects will have to be developed downtown and throughout the lower city before new homes and commercial development can proceed further south on Hamilton Mountain.

But then again developers don't like to be forced.

Hamilton has huge potential for infill in it's downtown. Plus, it's road infrastructure can handle way more than it does right now.

This weekend the globe had an article that represented a different view. Apparently farmers around the GTA quite often have to borrow against the worth of their farmland every year to stay alive. Because of the greenbelt, their property values will plummet, and they may not be able to borrow any more money. Which of course means bankrupcy.

An interesting perspective, and certainly not a good effect. Like I said though, tough love. It'll be worth it.

This is a good point. You might all be surprised to know that the people making the most noise at provincial consultations throughout the summer were not the developers, but the farmers. The farming community was out in huge numbers with very strong opposition against the greenbelt at virtually all the consultations.

Surveying consumers means nothing. Ask how many would like a free Jaguar or Loblaws to give food away. I'm sure 100% would say yes. Ask them if they would like a house on Bridal Path for $100,000. I'm sure all would say yes.

The fact is just because this is what they want doesn't mean this is what they should or will get. The greater good of all the citizens is more important than their "wishes". This is not meant as a pro-urban post on my behalf (though I live in a condo downtown). If they want a house with a lawn then they will have to pay for it. Letting them get what they want means all of us, including those of us like me and you who live efficiently in the city, will have to pay for their privileges.

Exactly. Prices are going to go up and put home ownership out of reach for a lot of people. These price increases are going to go a long way to curb sprawl, however it will have negative effects on the economy.

Infilling and intensification is great and it will work in a lot of areas in and around the GTA. However many consumers just aren't going to go for it, resulting in decreased activity in the housing market. Housing is the largest industry in the province and it no doubt will have an effect on the economy.

Overall I think the greenbelt is a great concept. I've reviewed most of the mapping and reports and this has been a very comprehensive effort by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I'm just making the point that everything is not going to go smoothly and there will be some problems. For those that hate sprawl it isn't about to disappear - there is still a supply (province says 20 year - industry says about half that) of greenfields for more development around the GTA. I just hope that the new greenfield development has increasing densities to be more sustainable in the long run.

what happens when development meets the greenbelt, because it will eventually happen.

Hamilton could definately use some development and increased property value. Maybe downtown won't look like a ghost town anymore

what happens when development meets the greenbelt, because it will eventually happen.

Lands in the greenbelt can be taken out of the greenbelt as long as an area of at least equal size is added to the greenbelt elsewhere - so there is room for some manipulation.

There will also be a ten year review of the greenbelt down the road.

The greenbelt also allows for some development in the 'protected country side' designated lands that aren't within 'natural heritage systems'. So essentially if Toyota wanted to invest a couple hundred million dollars to build a plant inside the greenbelt it could be done.

Also within the greenbelt are many towns and villages - these are designated 'Settlement Areas within the Protected County side". Development is allowed in these communities however the water and wastewater facilities must all be local - so there can be no lake based expansions of infrastructure facilities to these communities. Also the only type of development not allowed are "Estate Subdivisions".

So essentially some restricted development is allowed within the greenbelt.

There will also be a ten year review of the greenbelt down the road.


Let's not hope this is not another 407 type greenbelt.

[QUOTE=Mike in TO]Why is it you assume all developers are working for 'greed'? Do policement police cuz of greed? Do farmers farm cuz of greed? These umbrella statements that are so often heard saying developers are just greedy is ridiculous.
QUOTE]


To reply - not only do I think the developers are greedy, but more so are the farmers. The farmers are complaining that they won't be able to retire because they won't be able to sell their farms off for development.

Well too bad.

Since when did farmers start growing ashphalt? If there's no money in running a farm - get out of the business. But what gives farmers the right to be nothing more than land speculators? We should limit their rights.

As for developers, I understand that they're in it for the money. Good urban design costs money, it's cheaper for them to simply put up cookie cutter designs. They have no interest in social engineering - they just want to make a quick buck - but there are huge social costs and infrastructure costs that all the taxpayers get the tab for down the road.

Anything that limits growth is good for all citizens - and consumers. What's good for the individual may not always be good for all of society. Sure everyone wants a single detached home on 10 acres of land, but we can't afford to offer that.

The initial cost spikes of the greenbelt will be offset by lower operating costs for cities.

Just visit some of the older 'burb cities like North York and Scarborough - and you can see the infrastructure is in need of replacement - how much will it cost to pave and re-plumb all of the cul-du-sac's with their 10 homes lining it?

hey Mike in TO, how do you know so much about the greenbelt?

Let's not hope this is not another 407 type greenbelt.

Nope. Quite different this time -- They're going with lucky number 13 instead of a 7.

they just want to make a quick buck

The land development business is anything but about the quick buck. It is a very slow and costly business full of red tape and other hurdles that often take years and years to result in a buck. That statement you just made clearly demonstrates you don't know very much at all about the business.

The new housing industry is the most heavily regulated and taxed industry in Canada behind alcohol and tabacco. It is not an industry that is about a "Quick Buck".


hey Mike in TO, how do you know so much about the greenbelt?

I've been involved in the provincial consultations throughout the process.

The new housing industry is the most heavily regulated and taxed industry in Canada behind alcohol and tabacco. It is not an industry that is about a "Quick Buck".

How many more rolls of government red tape will we need to wrap the industry with to curtail the sprawl?^^

I've been involved in the provincial consultations throughout the process.

Do you think it's possible to stregthen the Greenbelt... make it a bit tighter? I did notice that there's still alot of land left that isn't protected. Why wait 10 or 20 years? Why not start the process now?

I once wrote a paper on how to reverse sprawl. One of my ideas was to amalgamate the entire GTA into one political body (like the old metropolitain government), so that taxes could be rigged to favour urban development over suburban.... your thoughts?

Do you think it's possible to stregthen the Greenbelt... make it a bit tighter?

The greenbelt is very tight. Most of the environmental groups are extremely pleased with the result. All standards for any development will "conform to the greenbelt plan", that leaves virtually no 'wiggle room'. The greenbelt will prevent sprawl from spilling over into it. Some development can occur - which is necessary. For example any villages and hamlets within the greenbelt are permitted for some natural expansion - however estate subdivisions or any lake based sewer and water system expansions are prohibited - all new development must use existing local facilities.

For the Protected country side the greenbelt plan recognizes that there are a lot of land uses - this is a working country side, therefore some development which is condusive to agricultural and tourism uses will be permited.

Specialty crop lands (Holland March and Niagara Tender Fruit Lands as identified by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) have extensive protections. The initial specialy crop designations were done in the 1980s, however new studies have extended protection of these specialty crop lands.

Prime Agricultural Area used existing OPs. However under the greenbelt plan municipalities can't redesignate these lands for any other uses. Anything that is Prime Agricultural is going to be protected.

The can be NO development or site alteration to natural heritage features. Lands designated natural heritage are very extensive within the greenbelt plan.

I did notice that there's still alot of land left that isn't protected. Why wait 10 or 20 years? Why not start the process now?

The greenbelt was kept a certain distance away from ubran areas to prevent overlap. However all ravine and major water systems extending down from the escarpment or moraine into urban areas will have enhanced protection measures with a 60m buffer for the greenbelt plan.

I don't get where you think there is a lot of land left. The greenbelt plan adds 1,000,000 additional acres of protection on top of 800,000 acres previously protected under the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine. This is MORE THAN PROMISED. The province overdelivered with the extent of protection.

The land left over is a buffer to the greenbelt and is needed for development. The home builders and province differ in the opionions on how long this supply of land will last. But both agree it is needed. With 4 million new people expected in the GTA in the next 30 years I think everyone can agree that not everyone is going to be shoehorned into existing urban areas. Greenfield development will continue, however if the supply of land is going to last it will have to occur at increasing densities (I might add that subdivisions built today are at higher densities than 10 years ago, which were higher than 10 years previous - so even suburban development has had an upward trend in densitied over the last 25 years - the greenbelt plan however will certainly force increased densities).

You asked "why wait 10 - 20 years"... well the plan is set to come into effect on December 16th, 2004 and there is discussions of making it retroactive back to December 16, 2003. The plan is extensive and comprehensive in its measures and will have a very strong impact on the growth of the region.

I once wrote a paper on how to reverse sprawl. One of my ideas was to amalgamate the entire GTA into one political body (like the old metropolitain government), so that taxes could be rigged to favour urban development over suburban.... your thoughts?

I mentioned before that the taxes on new housing are only second to Alcohol and Tabacco - and they have been increasing steadily the last couple of years. Amalgamation isn't the answer - there tax system already favours urban development. Development Charges in Toronto increased by over 100% just a couple of months ago, but they are still less then that in suburban areas. DC's are extemely high throughout the 905 area and are making it more and more difficult for people to be able to afford a single family dwelling. The Province intends to review the Development Charges Act next year and will probably add items into it further increasing the tax burden on new housing.

The other problem with amalgamating all of the GTA is that suburban councillors would outwiegh urban councillors and I think that it would create a more suburban mantality and agenda which in my opinion would be detrimental to Toronto and to any 'urban agenda'.

Thanks Mike in TO, you're a wealth of information.

Funny, I never thought of the suburban councillor thing... maybe I had more of a dictatorial arrangement in mind :)

No problem, I'll post some more info latter in the week.


How many more rolls of government red tape will we need to wrap the industry with to curtail the sprawl?^^

Most of us can acknowledge the inherent problems with sprawl. But to stop it outright would cause serious problems for the government. Curbing it and encouraging higher densities is the way to go. You seem to want to halt all new suburban development tomorrow... well first of all removing development rights on already approved land would cost the government billions in compensation. Practically shutting down the largest and most important industry in the province would result in excess of 200,000 lost jobs overnight (300,000+ are employed in the industry). Turning off the tap to development charges would cause property taxes to skyrocket in all municipalities across the GTA. The Province and Feds would lose out in over $3.5 billion from income taxes, and over $800 million from PST and over $200 million from land transfer taxes - so you can say goodbye to the gas tax for Toronto and municipalities, say goodbye to new health care and education investments and say hello to more provincial deficits. Then of course the federal government also recieves billions of dollars from lost GST, EI Premiums and CPP.

Yes sprawl is dangerous and the province is taking steps to curb it, but to suggest we need more and more taxes and red tape will only hurt the industry and the province.


For those interested in learning more about the greenbelt there are public meetings from 7-10pm at the following locations.

Nov 10, Oakville Convention centre - 2515 Wyecroft rd
Nov 15, Ontario Science Cenre, 770 Don Mills Road
Nov 16, Burlington Royal Botanical Gardens, 680 Plains Road W
Nov 18, Stoney Creek, Liuna Gardens Convention, 526 Winona Rd N
Nov 23, St Catharines, Quality Hotel, 327 Ontario St
Nov 25, YMCA Durham (Oshawa) 1 McGrigor St.
Nov 29, Caledon Community Centre, 6215 Old Church Rd.

I'm curious... does it take more construction workers to build more homes for a thousand people, or does it take more construction workers to build a condo for a thousand people, because you keep suggesting that an excess of jobs will be lost. I don't know who HK does it, but they're only building condos & their housing industry is not smaller than TO.

I'm curious... does it take more construction workers to build more homes for a thousand people, or does it take more construction workers to build a condo for a thousand people...

Good question. Regardless, there is a shift in the jobs to be done. More concrete, metal, and glass work; less roofing and wood framing.

^Like the double cohort, some things just have to be done~

I'm curious... does it take more construction workers to build more homes for a thousand people, or does it take more construction workers to build a condo for a thousand people, because you keep suggesting that an excess of jobs will be lost. I don't know who HK does it, but they're only building condos & their housing industry is not smaller than TO.

A shift can take place but not overnight. One of the main problems for the housing industry is the speed that the change is taking place.

The skilled trades who build high-rise is a totally different group of people than low-rise. High-rise tends to be unionized ICI workers, while low-rise is a different skill set. So it is not a smooth transition from one to another. Sure people can learn and gain experience. But restrictions that the government is placing on the industry is essentially asking the largest industry in the province to shift gears over-night. And the average age of those skilled trades is increasing - there are more in their 50s and 60s and retiring than new young people and/or immigrants entering into the industry.

The people out in the field actually building the homes don't have the skill sets to shift into high-rise construction and one of the largest issues facing the construction industry not only in the GTA, but Canada wide is a severe shortage of skilled tradespeople. With the shift the higher densities and more high-rises there simply are not enough trades people to keep the industry going.

The people out in the field actually building the homes don't have the skill sets to shift into high-rise construction and one of the largest issues facing the construction industry not only in the GTA, but Canada wide is a severe shortage of skilled tradespeople. With the shift the higher densities and more high-rises there simply are not enough trades people to keep the industry going.

Just get the frigging airport finished and there will be 10 more crews available for Condo construction.

A shift can take place but not overnight. One of the main problems for the housing industry is the speed that the change is taking place.

The skilled trades who build high-rise is a totally different group of people than low-rise. High-rise tends to be unionized ICI workers, while low-rise is a different skill set. So it is not a smooth transition from one to another. Sure people can learn and gain experience. But restrictions that the government is placing on the industry is essentially asking the largest industry in the province to shift gears over-night. And the average age of those skilled trades is increasing - there are more in their 50s and 60s and retiring than new young people and/or immigrants entering into the industry.

The people out in the field actually building the homes don't have the skill sets to shift into high-rise construction and one of the largest issues facing the construction industry not only in the GTA, but Canada wide is a severe shortage of skilled tradespeople. With the shift the higher densities and more high-rises there simply are not enough trades people to keep the industry going.

I'm not sure it's asking the industry to change drive overnight, for there is still land within the greenbelt to develop. Instead of building detached, they should focus more on townhouse developments/infills & any other development that takes up less lot size per unit. That way, the land within greenbelt wouldn't dissapear as fast, & can buy more time to train more construction workers for highrise construction(including helping those in lowrise construction workers get certification in highrise building). The housing industry needs to do more to attract skilled workers to enter the construction field, for it's usually not the first choice for able teens.

Maybe if guidance counselors were more direct with students by telling them if they only get a honours bachelor degree in arts, they will undoubtedly work for no more then $10-15 an hour to start (undoubtedly in a call centre or sales centre of some sort), if they have no business connections that is. That'll get some people looking at the trades a little more closely.

The skilled trades shortage is a major issue in the industry today.

Unfortunately the completion of Pearson isn't a magical solution, actually it won't change much.

Yes guidance councillors could do more. Young people and their parents tend to have a negative veiw of the skilled trades.

Hower the average weekly wage in Ontario's construction sector is 16% hiogher than the overall average industry wage in Ontario - so there are good opportunities in the trades.