Let’s continue this conversation and demystify the planning process to make it make sense for the climate justice movement.
Look, I understand the problems with development, urban sprawl, and digging up wetlands. I know how these contribute to climate change and make us more vulnerable to the impacts of it. I understand the changes we need to make to prepare for worsening climate chaos. I’m sure you do too.
Finding out about individual projects in my county, city, neighbourhood, is a whole different matter. For one, you need to know the actual name of the development or project to look for info about it. I’ve been paying attention to Barrie’s Official Plan – I read through the draft, I provided some feedback via the website. I know the Plan wasn’t enough, but I found I could only understand this in general terms – I couldn’t address the specifics of planning, the specifics of what exactly needed to be pushed for.
We know we must pressure provincial and local governments for bold climate action (we say ‘bold’, but we really just mean ‘adequate’, which means very bold for the status quo). We can name things like better public transit, investing in renewable energies and retrofitting buildings, naturalizing our parks, etc. But it’s hard to figure out what’s happening inside the process to actually make these things happen (or not happen).
But here’s the thing – there’s so much about planning that isn’t so readily shared. I’ve been realizing that there’s so much more going on. I’ve found out about so many development projects, many right here in Barrie. See, I knew development hurts ecosystems and drives climate change (literally drives it, in cars), but it just seems so ubiquitous – how do we stop corporations and councils from developing land when it’s so hard to get clear information about specific projects?
Okay, so you see construction for a development project. You know it’s probably for-profit and won’t come close to meeting any climate standards. What do you do? Stopping projects once they’re started is hard, especially when our entire system is built to do everything for profit, no matter the real cost. This is why putting on the pressure during planning is so important.
These projects get sorted and contracts get signed long before the Earth gets dug and construction signs go up. This part is not so visible to the public. Sure, the councils must make some of this publicly available, but you really have to know what to look for and understand what the technical reports, bylaws and zoning stuff mean to do anything.
It’s like they make planning as uninteresting and seemingly inconsequential as possible so that people don’t actually get involved. A citizenry that’s not informed can’t participate very well.
Governments have failed to act to protect our communities and the futures of our children and grandchildren, and they continue to treat our environment as if it’s incidental to life, rather than a foundation for it.
We need strong community organizations to fight for our future, now more than ever.
Please consider donating to support our work. It’s people like you who make us possible.
An example – the MCR, or Municipal Comprehensive Review. I hadn’t really heard much about it until recently and information on it is vague and bureaucratic. Cool, so if I’m not a planner, why should I care? Turns out, the MCR is a big review of Simcoe County’s planning until 2051. It will determine how the County will plan and develop for the next few decades.
AKA, it will determine whether or not Simcoe County meets the 2030 and 2050 climate targets.
That’s a simplification to be sure, and only one implication of the MCR, but that’s a pretty big deal that people should know about. How did I not hear about this sooner?
And there’s other examples: MZOs (or Municipal Zoning Orders) basically let the province override local rules to push through development projects without the public consultation or environmental assessment parts of planning – two of the main parts of the planning process. The Ontario government has ordered a lot of these for private developers here in Simcoe County, and some are going to cut into local wetlands and other habitats that should have been protected.
Planning for climate change means planning within an ‘settlement boundary’, which is a limited amount of space that can be used to build new buildings and roads. This stops urban sprawl and the creation of new subdivisions or commercial areas that require more roads and cars to get to, and protects the land that we have left from being dug up for development.
Many current development projects aim to change the ‘zoning’ or categorization of land from ‘farming’ or ‘environmentally protected’ to ‘industrial’ so that it’s allowed to be developed. This means that we’re losing ecosystems and farmland that we need to protect to make our communities resilient to climate change and avoid flooding and food shortages.
My point is that learning about how planning works is important because it helps us get climate justice happening on the local level. It helps us understand how these changes can actually play out through local government.
But there’s a lot to learn and not a lot of clear information, so how can we learn more?
Let’s continue this conversation and demystify the planning process to make it make sense for the climate justice movement.
Kelly, signing off.
P.S – I think of these blog posts as an ongoing discussion. You can share your comments below, on social media (links below!) or get in touch with me at kelly@simcoecountygreenbelt.ca.
SCGC Youth Engagement Lead
Discover the benefits of smarter planning in Simcoe County. Learn how strategic planning can lead to a more sustainable and vibrant community. Explore our initiatives and join us in shaping a greener future.”
Local MPPs complicit in $8.3 billion dollar Greenbelt land grab.
It is increasingly clear that policies that promote increased vehicle traffic should be seen as a last resort, and implemented only where no other options are possible.
Recent moves by Ontario’s government seem likely to create conditions for a number of crises in the next few decades that, when combined, are greater than the sum of their parts. This is what’s known as a “polycrisis”, a term popularized by economic historian Adam Tooze.
…value in the context of a community is achieved through livability, which in turn drives economic and social dynamism. Propinquity, or the accessibility of the areas we inhabit, whether that’s for people we socialise with or for consumer good or employment, is the key metric to achieve in this regard. Build communities for people and good things happen.
Highways are the gateway drug for sprawl and the Bypass is a perfect example. Developers own over 3000 acres of land around this highway waiting for the greenlight to destroy more farmland and wetlands.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
Ramara has requested a MZO for developments in the Rama Road Corridor. Without an official letter from the municipality rescinding that request it remains in play.
As you are aware, we have grave concerns about the power of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZO) – how they cut out public consultation and undermine the role that environmental studies play in ensuring developments don’t result in a net loss of value to the public, being two key issues.
The use of a tool that is as blunt and powerful as a MZO is especially concerning in places where landscapes and watersheds are shared, with their ecosystems or flows extending beyond a single jurisdiction.
To ensure development provides a benefit to the community, by which we mean both our human communities and the natural communities that we are a part of and rely upon, it is crucial that they meet a high level of rigour in determining their ‘fitness’ in a given location. Projects such as what is proposed for the Rama Road Corridor must, at minimum, meet the requirements set out under the Planning Act process.
Confusion remains, however, regarding whether a MZO has been requested by Ramara for projects in the Rama Road Corridor. Our coalition was relieved to hear, during the Orillia special meeting this week, that Ramara does not want to proceed with a MZO request.
It is important to be very clear that the Township of Ramara has initiated a MZO request, and that until and unless Council officially rescinds this request with a letter to the Minister, this request stands.
The fact that Ramara has initiated a MZO request, which is all that is required since there is no formal application process outlined under Section 47 of the Planning Act for MZOs, is evidenced by the following:
First, a motion was passed by the Township of Ramara on November 2, 2020. In item 6.1 of the agenda council passed a motion to allow Mayor Clarke to sign a letter to accompany the Rama Road Economic Employment District package. Although the letter does not mention a MZO application in its body, within the package the request for a MZO for this project was bluntly stated:
“The municipality is requesting that the Minister enact a Minister’s Zoning Order for the three proposed developments in order to commence the growth and development within the Rama Road Corridor.”1Township of Ramara. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting Dated: Monday, November 2, 2020. (Emphasis added.)
With a motion of council to endorse this package, it most certainly can be considered an official municipal request for a MZO. Further, it doesn’t state it wants to explore a MZO discussion or open up the feasibility of a MZO, but enact one.
Second, a request was made by the Township of Ramara to the County of Simcoe Council to endorse Ramara’s MZO request.
It first went to the Committee of the Whole on November 10, 2020. Mayor Clarke moved a motion “that the County of Simcoe supports the letter dated November 3, 2020, titled Rama Road Economic Employment District.”2County of Simcoe. Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting Dated: Tuesday, November 10, 2020. As a reminder, this letter accompanies the Rama Road Economic Employment District package which explicitly requests a MZO to be enacted.
Next, this recommendation was brought forward to County Council at a Joint Committee of the Whole and Council Meeting on November 24, 2020. From there, Resolution 2020-705 was passed by County Council which resulted in a letter dated December 7, 2020 to MMAH Minister Steve Clark from the County of Simcoe. The body of this letter further outlines that, in fact, a request to enact a MZO was made by Ramara Township AND that County Council supports their request:
“Recommendation CCW-132-20
“That the County of Simcoe supports the letter dated November 3, 2020, titled Rama Road Economic Employment District.”
The County of Simcoe is pleased to inform you [Minister Steve Clark] that County Council supports the above proposal within the Rama Road Corridor, in the Township of Ramara, and their request for a Minister’s Zoning Order.”3County of Simcoe. Letter to Minister Clark – Subject: Township of Ramara – Rama Road Economic Employment District: Request for Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO
Ramara’s MZO request now has two – township and upper tier – of the three approvals it needs to proceed. The only approval authority remaining is the province.
Evidently, if Ramara is reconsidering its MZO request for the Rama Road Corridor, then it is clear that the procedural motions that have been put in place need to be rectified.
Officially, regardless of intent, two levels of government have endorsed this MZO request. Saying otherwise is disingenuous to the process both councils have undertaken since November 2, 2020.
Public platitudes about intention do not rectify the official acts of council that have been completed thus far. Therefore, we are requesting that the Township of Ramara rectify this situation officially to align with its comments publicly that a MZO was not applied for. Specifically, the Township of Ramara should reopen the issue before council and pass another motion to send written correspondence to the province directing it to disregard its Rama Road Economic Employment District package and that Council will proceed with these lands through the standard process outlined in the Planning Act, not through a MZO.
Further, since the County of Simcoe is the recognized planning authority in the region, its endorsement of the MZO must also be rescinded. We suggest that a recommendation be made within the Committee of Whole for County Council to notify MMAH that County Council is revoking its support of the Rama Road Corridor MZO letter it sent to Steve Clark dated December 7, 2020. From there, County Council must adopt this recommendation and send formal written correspondence to Minister Clark.
We hope that the Township of Ramara does not break faith with its public comments in the media and in front of a neighbouring council about not wanting a MZO for these properties. By not officially undoing councils’ actions, this MZO request will still be considered by the province. Further, the developers of this project will still have two levels of endorsement for their projects under a MZO and therefore the province could proceed with the MZO request without further input from either the County or Ramara.
Finally, we must go on record that regardless of the MZO application for the Rama Road Corridor, this project, as it stands, is incompatible with a net benefit for Lake Couchiching, Ontario’s significant wetlands, climate, residents of the Lake Couchiching area or the long-term fiscal health of Ramara Township.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to council actions that ensure this MZO application does not proceed.
…learning about how planning works is important because it helps us get climate justice happening on the local level. It helps us understand how these changes can actually play out through local government.
But there’s a lot to learn and not a lot of clear information, so how can we learn more?
Public platitudes about intention do not rectify the official acts of council that have been completed thus far. Therefore, we are requesting that the Township of Ramara rectify this situation officially to align with its comments publicly that a MZO was not applied for.
Ramara Council must uphold its duty to the public it serves by acknowledging the MZO request, by rectifying it with a motion that would send a letter to the Minister revoking the MZO request, and re-committing to a planning process done in good faith, with full public participation and due diligence paid to environmental and other necessary studies to ensure no negative impacts.
In Innisfil, the proponent of a controversial development, The Orbit, has successfully sought backing from council to seek a Minister’s Zoning Order, or MZO, from the province.
If the province grants this request the developer gets a short cut through rules meant to ensure the public is consulted, environmental impacts are studied, and financial consequences understood.
We hope that the City of Orillia will take a stand for the interests of its residents and the lake and officially oppose the MZO application request.
…if this government is truly committed to these initiatives, by which we mean that they are not being used as cheap politics to deflect from the criticism, fully deserved, that they are receiving with regard to the policy changes noted above, then we expect the following
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
Ramara is pushing large developments in what’s known as the Rama Road Corridor, which was designated an employment district by the previous Liberal government. The township has requested a MZO for the developments, but has denied this is the case, claiming the request was simply meant to open dialogue with the province regarding the proposal.
Ramara Township is pushing for developments along the Rama Road Corridor, and has requested a MZO from the province.
The developments – three are currently included in the proposal – would impact Lake Couchiching, including both on-land and shoreline/shallow water wetlands categorized as provincially significant.
The Township has said that it hasn’t requested a MZO, but they have, evidenced by two motions in council, at Ramara and at Simcoe County, as well as by a staff report recommendation.
The public deserves to participate in decisions that will affect their communities.
Ramara Council must uphold its duty to the public it serves by acknowledging the MZO request, by rectifying it with a motion that would send a letter to the Minister revoking the MZO request, and re-committing to a planning process done in good faith, with full public participation and due diligence paid to environmental and other necessary studies to ensure no negative impacts.
The Township officially revoked the MZO request. The town may continue to pursue the development via normal planning processes.
The MZO request stands, after approval for the request letter to the Minister from both the Township and the County.
Until the Township officially revokes its request the MZO can be granted by the Minister.
The Township has not officially revoked its request.
Parataxis Design And Development Corporation. 280 High Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. M6P 2S7
This is the meeting at which the Ramara mayor and CAO state that Ramara is not seeking a MZO.
Public platitudes about intention do not rectify the official acts of council that have been completed thus far. Therefore, we are requesting that the Township of Ramara rectify this situation officially to align with its comments publicly that a MZO was not applied for.
Ramara Council must uphold its duty to the public it serves by acknowledging the MZO request, by rectifying it with a motion that would send a letter to the Minister revoking the MZO request, and re-committing to a planning process done in good faith, with full public participation and due diligence paid to environmental and other necessary studies to ensure no negative impacts.
We hope that the City of Orillia will take a stand for the interests of its residents and the lake and officially oppose the MZO application request.
Dear Mayor Clarke and Ramara Council.
Please end the confusion regarding use of a MZO in the Rama Road Corridor and send a letter, passed by Council, to the Minister that officially rescinds any possible outstanding request.
The proper route to proceed with development is through the planning process, ensuring that it includes full and transparent public participation done in good faith.
Sincerely.
Dear Mayor Clark and Orillia Council.
Please take a stand to protect the health of Lake Couchiching and the water that we rely on for drinking as well as for recreation.
I ask that you send a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stating that Orillia opposes the use of a MZO in the Rama Road Corridor.
Sincerely.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
A giant development proposed along the GO Train line in Innisfil. This mega-project is slated to pave over farmland and radically change how Innisfil grows for decades to come. It will also place a great burden on nearby Lake Simcoe.
Update August 9, 2021: MZO order issued by province; Development proceeding.
In Innisfil, the proponent of a controversial development, The Orbit, has successfully sought backing from council to seek a Minister’s Zoning Order, or MZO, from the province.
If the province grants this request the developer gets a short cut through rules meant to ensure the public is consulted, environmental impacts are studied, and financial consequences understood.
Issuing a MZO effectively eliminates public input and reduces oversight into the net benefit of a development.
Innisfil council should affirm the principle that the voice of residents – your voice – matters when its comes to how their community develops, and require developers to follow the rules in place without any shortcuts.
The debate around the carbon tax frequently misses its broader economic and environmental benefits. By effectively addressing the externality of carbon emissions, the carbon tax stands as a critical component of Canada’s strategy to combat climate change and promote sustainable growth. Clear communication and understanding of the policy’s benefits, including the progressive rebate program, are vital in navigating public concerns and fostering support for this essential environmental initiative.
Every month we send out our newsletter, in which we include a poll, as well as results from the previous month’s poll. Open polls, as well as completed ones, are below.
Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss out!
Join us for an hour-long conversation, including a question and answer session, that will cover topics including the current state of Canada’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions, how we can think about progress to combat climate change in the presence of political uncertainty, and the role of women in public life, particularly in an era that seems to be one of increasingly toxic discourse, including around gender.
Discover the benefits of smarter planning in Simcoe County. Learn how strategic planning can lead to a more sustainable and vibrant community. Explore our initiatives and join us in shaping a greener future.”
Our approach to our work has always been how we can make an impact in long-lasting and effective ways. We hold ourselves to high standards — how can we create better rules, better systems and better communities?
Internally, that means we reflect to ensure that we’re putting our values into practice. This year, we decided to adopt a different way to assess our impact.
Official Plans are among the most important components of planning and building our communities, the places where we live, play, and work. They deserve to be given the highest level of consideration, which includes the best possible process of deliberation.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
We hope that the City of Orillia will take a stand for the interests of its residents and the lake and officially oppose the MZO application request.
This letter was sent to the Mayor and Council of Orillia on January 12, 2021.
The undersigned is writing to you today with grave concerns about a MZO application recently submitted to the province by the Township of Ramara and supported the County of Simcoe. We strongly believe that this development is not in the best interest of Lake Couchiching, the environment writ large or the City of Orillia and its residents.
As you can see from the graphic below, a large portion of this development resides within a provincially significant wetland (PSW) and infringes on others. Currently, development within a PSW is prohibited under Ontario’s planning laws. A MZO would remove these prohibitions.
Figure 1.
In Figure 2, it is clear to see how the developments will also infringe on water intake protection zones as well as significant forests.
Figure 2.
For clarity, the development proposal would include 3 separate developments. The MZO is asking for all three of the development applications to be approved including:
258 room hotel, an additional 1,678 mixed units proposed
Creating 6,414 additional feet of frontage (through harbours and canals) mostly in the midst of a provincially significant wetland which is also one of the last, large intact wetlands on Lake Couchiching
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
This application is problematic for the City of Orillia for several reasons.
Whether it be for drinking water for residents, recreation or supporting Orillia’s economy via its downtown and tourism, Orillia is highly dependent upon the wellbeing of Lake Couchiching.
A MZO application does not currently require environmental assessments to be completed, as per Section 47 of the Planning Act.
Although Ramara Township references a 1,400 page Environmental Assessment that has been done, it is our understanding that this EA only applies to a portion of the development that is proposed, and that this EA was completed in the early 2000s.
A lot has changed since then.
What we know about the necessity of shoreline wetlands to the health of a lake has also increased.
There is a reason why there aren’t policies within Ontario’s planning regime that guide how development should be done within a provincially significant wetland – because it isn’t allowed.
Since there are no statutory requirements within the Planning Act to complete environmental assessments as part of a MZO and there aren’t policies to guide how building on top of a PSW should be done, it is hard to understand how these wetlands will be protected through a MZO or through this development application at all.
And in the case of these particular shoreline wetlands, they play a significant role in flood mitigation and water filtration of Lake Couchiching.
Impairing these wetlands by building in the heart of them and directly infringing on other parts, squarely puts the health of the lake at risk.
MZOs cut out several key pieces of the Planning Act process, but most importantly, it removes the statutory consultation and appeal process.
Not only is this process for the public, but also for other stakeholders, such as neighbouring municipalities, to weigh in on shared assets and key issues.
Considering the significant impact this development could have on Orillia’s shoreline, water quality and recreation opportunities, the City of Orillia should be able to have meaningful opportunities to engage in the process and protect its interests.
With a MZO, the approvals are already given and Ramara Township would only be able to handle issues via site plan controls and permitting.
What meaningful process will the City of Orillia have under that system?
If issues do arise, what mechanisms will the City of Orillia have to outline its interests if approvals have already been given?
A large development such as this should have sober second thought, especially within a changing climate and biodiversity loss, but the idea of truncating the process by cutting out consultation through a MZO is unacceptable.
Of course, there are other issues that may be meaningful to members of council such as climate action.
Removal of forests and wetlands is directly incompatible with these goals.1Protecting wetlands and forests can reduce climate adaptation costs2Fighting climate change with conservation3The Role of Wetlands for Climate Change Mitigation and Biodiversity Conservation
The increased boat traffic could also impact shoreline residents on the west side of the lake and historical sites such as the Mnjikaning fish weirs, which are one of the oldest remaining human developments in Canada and a national historic site.
Again, there are many impacts that need to be fully considered, which underscores why a truncated MZO process, which removes meaningful community consultation, is not in the best interest of area residents or other stakeholders.
The City of Orillia has prided itself on its port and Couchiching shorelines. Consequently, council should consider itself a steward of the Lake and deem applications such as this as problematic – especially when utilizing a MZO.
We hope that the City of Orillia will take a stand for the interests of its residents and the lake and officially oppose the MZO application request.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
…if this government is truly committed to these initiatives, by which we mean that they are not being used as cheap politics to deflect from the criticism, fully deserved, that they are receiving with regard to the policy changes noted above, then we expect the following…
This letter was written after the Province passed Bill 229, which came after a huge outcry from the public, from environmentalists, from Conservation Authorities, and from municipalities, among others, and which prompted the resignation of seven members of the Province’s Greenbelt Council.
There has been much attention paid lately to the future of our Conservation Authorities – one of the last regulatory bodies designed to protect our environment. In a response to the public outcry regarding the neutering of Conservation Authorities’ ability to protect water, wetlands and public health, Minister Clark made a series of statements and announcements:
First, was the promise of $30 million dollars to “create, restore and enhance wetlands” across Ontario;
Second, was a promise to improve the “quality and quantity of the Greenbelt”.
The timing of these announcements is troubling and does not add to our confidence in the government’s commitment to protecting the environment coming, as it has, on the heels of eight members of the Greenbelt Council quitting in protest over provincial policy changes. Changes that former Toronto Mayor and, until he resigned this past week, Chair of the Greenbelt Council, David Crombie outlined as “high-level bombing”.
But we are willing to accept these announcements in good faith, and we look forward to hearing more about these initiatives. To be very clear, however, if this government is truly committed to these initiatives, by which we mean that they are not being used as cheap politics to deflect from the criticism, fully deserved, that they are receiving with regard to the policy changes noted above, then we expect the following:
That no more MZOs will be issued that allow development in provincially significant or locally significant wetlands. It makes no sense to commit to restoring wetlands and putting taxpayer money towards that, while simultaneously destroying or impairing other wetlands. Refusing to do this would be creating a boondoggle for developers, using public money to offset wetland destruction.
Any MZO that is issued in the Lake Simcoe watershed will clearly outline how the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan policies will be adhered to, in order to ensure conformity with said policies as MZO conditions.
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which will be reviewed in the new year, will be strengthened by building on proven existing policies (e.g. phosphorus loading targets and WWTP moratoriums), demonstrating the government’s commitment to protect the environment with policies that protect more high quality natural cover, including wetlands and forests. This should be a zero loss target and policy structure, meaning that there should be no reduction in the quantity and quality of natural cover going forward. Currently, the target in the LSPP is 40% high quality natural cover – a target that we are failing to meet.
The $30 million Wetland Restoration Fund will be money invested by the Government of Ontario and not “blood money” that comes from developers paying a fee to permit the destruction of wetlands. If it is based on offsetting, this is a “pay to pave” mentality that has been proven disastrous for watershed health in other jurisdictions. Funding wetland restoration through the destruction of other wetlands would be disingenuous to the government’s commitment and breaks faith with Ontarians who rely on wetlands for flood mitigation, drinking water purification and recreation.
Growing the Greenbelt includes keeping the existing Greenbelt strong. We don’t want to see a bait and switch where more Greenbelt is added in exchange for current Greenbelt lands being removed from protection. The Greenbelt, its farms and communities, contribute $9.6 billion of economic impact and $3.2 billion of environmental services to Ontario every year. As a region that is growing we will be relying on the services it provides far into the future. Dismantling it through land swaps threatens its ecological functions, and, consequently, its contributions to our collective prosperity and wellbeing.
The province, if it is genuine in its commitment to growing the Greenbelt, will base new included areas on science and public health, not just land ownership. Following such a process means that all source water areas (highly vulnerable aquifers, significant recharge areas, moraines and locally significant wetlands) in Simcoe County should be added to a bigger Greenbelt, at minimum. Simcoe County residents are highly reliant on groundwater for their daily needs. If we don’t protect these areas soon, the public’s health is at risk.
We hope that your government is genuine in its commitment to these ends. We are sure you would agree that using environmental policy as a ploy is dangerous to our public health and erodes faith in our democratic institutions and your governments’ commitment to acting in the best interest of all Ontarians.
Ultimately, it is in no one’s interest that a government fails – such an event has real life consequences for the people of Ontario, including to their health and wellbeing. We are committed to helping where we can to find success in the above noted expectations, but we will not betray our knowledge and understanding, born by evidence, of the actions required to create a more just, prosperous, and sustainable Ontario. We will be watching closely to ensure that you stick to the commitments you have made and do so in a genuine manner.
Governments have failed to act to protect our communities and the futures of our children and grandchildren, and they continue to treat our environment as if it’s incidental to life, rather than a foundation for it.
We need strong community organizations to fight for our future, now more than ever.
Please consider donating to support our work. It’s people like you who make us possible.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
The Ontario government wants to build more highways. We talk with Laura about whether these are needed and appropriate in the midst of a climate emergency. (Hint, they aren’t and absolutely are not.)
On this episode of the Tree Planters Podcast we talk with Laura Bowman, of Ecojustice, about the province’s plans to build new highways in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
One concern is that this will be a boondoggle waste of taxpayer’s money, with an estimate price tag for just one of the highways running past the $6 billion dollar mark.
Compounding this cost is the fact that highways tend to reinforce a development pattern — sprawl — that is highly wasteful.
Building infrastructure for more cars siphons resources from projects that could make our communities more sustainable and cost effective.
Mass transit options for commuters helps create more efficient transportation options for commercial goods by reducing the number of cars on the roads, which frees up space for trucks and other delivery vehicles, enabling goods to move faster and with fewer emissions.
Preserving ecosystem services of the green spaces that will be paved over provides benefits, such as cleaner air and water, flood water protection, and habitat for wildlife, which provide a great deal of value year in and year out.
Furthermore, highways do not have a good track record of easing congestion, which is what the stated goal of these projects is. For one, the 413, the estimated time that a commute will be reduced is roughly 60 seconds. $6 billion is a heck of a price tag for this small return.
Show links:
Map of where the Bradford Bypass is proposed.
Map of where the 413 is proposed.
Notice exempting the Bradford Bypass from an environmental assessment.
Governments have failed to act to protect our communities and the futures of our children and grandchildren, and they continue to treat our environment as if it’s incidental to life, rather than a foundation for it.
We need strong community organizations to fight for our future, now more than ever.
Please consider donating to support our work. It’s people like you who make us possible.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
The content on this website, by
the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition,
is licensed under
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Hi there!
Use this form to send an email to our general inquiries address.
Hi there!
Use this form to send Adam an email.
Hi there!
Use this form to send Julie an email.
Will you give a small amount to help us continue to do the work that we do?
As a small, grassroots environmental organization, each contribution we receive truly makes a big difference.
A monthly missive, full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, community polls you can vote on, and deep dives into key topics.
Friends. Online censorship by unaccountable tech companies, combined with an all-out assault on the Greenbelt by Ontario’s developers/government, make this a perilous time for the future of democracy and the power of the people in Ontario.
We need to build new ways of empowering those who believe in accountability, in a healthy environment, and in communities ready to thrive in the economy of tomorrow.
Join our supporter network and stay informed about efforts and actions to protect the Greenbelt, to build communities that support the health and well-being of people, and to lay the foundations of a resilient, climate friendly future.
