Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ontario's greenbelt a model for the world

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:48 AM EDT 10/04/08

Toronto-area protected zone earns high marks for its vastness, strong government support ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. The Wight from Canada writes: Finally, some common sense from Toronto. Just prior to me leaving Ontario in 2000, I was involved in a protracted fight to keep development off the Niagara Escarpment, which was a key part of the local water table and supplied much of the fresh water to the GTA. That they would even consider cutting their own throats for development was just astounding to me. I'm happy to see the escarpment included in a no-development area like the green belt. Bravo!
  2. George S from Toronto, Canada writes: Sad watching former farmland turn into town home developments and sometimes I see detatched home developments where farmland used to be! I am glad Ontario has set aside such a large portion so that 'developers' can't ruin for some quick money. I am glad that some of the green belt will be set aside for farmland as well- I worry about how are we going to feed our growing population if farmland keeps getting developed.
  3. J Law from Canada writes: I too applaud this decision. I was in the Brampton/Halton Hills area last year and was amazed at seeing some of the best farmland anywhere being bulldozed and housing being put on it at lightning speed. I was sure the Credit River was going to be covered over for housing and those in power would cover all the good farmland and then tell the farmers to grow on the Shield.

    Good for the powers that be for a very good decision.
  4. Brendan B from Vancouver, Canada writes: Great initiative. I wonder how they'll prevent development from just jumping the greenbelt and continuing, as has happened in Ottawa.
  5. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: Greenbelts are like National and Provincial Parks. They're fine as long as they don't just draw lines on maps dividing land into the completely untouchable and the completely touchable. Then you simply have islands of green hemmed in by vast stretches of concrete which come right up to them. Not exactly the right way to go either. And the problem isn't just how to keep undeveloped land - its also a question of how to avoid the architecture crimes of `house farm' syndrome, where cookie-cutter subdivisions of stultifyingly boring cookie-cutter houses are built on land stripped of all vegetation. Each house too large for its plot. Each sudvision more boring than the last.
  6. Dieter Birk from Niagara Escarpment, Canada writes: The GreenBelt is great PR for governments, and the green colour on maps looks impressive. But tourists 'entering' the Greenbelt as they drive from the GTA along QEW will be puzzled by the signs. Wall-to-wall factories and housing between QEW and Lake Ontario shows very little greenery. You must drive off the highway to see a fruit tree or vineyard between the towns and industrial sites. The Niagara Escarpment 'ecosystem' is already largely urban. Wildlife is limited to the same urban rabbits, racoons and squirrels that populate suburban Oakville. When the Harris government downloaded the maintenance of rural roads to small towns by creating 'amalgamated' communities such as the 'Town of Lincoln' out of the villages of Beamsville, Jordan, Vineland - and then the Queen's Park geniuses declared the 'GreenBelt', they created a financial nightmare for local communities. No growth in industrial tax base, no growth in housing, yet an increased demand for road maintenance, urban water and sewer, etc. The property taxes for small bungalows in Niagara are higher than those of monster homes in Oakville. Oakville meanwhile was allowed to expand north of the QEW and double in urban population in the past decade - they have the industrial base and the housing. For them to embrace now, the concept of 'GreenBelt' is a joke. Toronto's first 'GreenBelt' became the 407. It is all just a political game to allow expropriation of private property for future mega-projects. Talk has already started on a new major highway along the Niagara Escarpment. Watch the folks in power turn it into a toll road run by a private consortium. Political payoffs are not far behind. Maybe it will take a 'GreenBelt' at Queen's Park, i.e. some Green seats to get serious about environmental issues.
  7. Snowed in in Barrie from Canada writes: One thing I notice when I fly over Toronto is that, as well as the skyscrapers in the downtown core, there are clumps of tall apartment buildings and condo towers throughout the city. When I fly over most American cities, there is a downtown core surrounded by hundreds of square kilometers of two-storey houses. This tells me that the green belt must be working, encouraging developers to build up, not out.

    Oh, yeah, I know what you'll say...I skipped over the greenbelt. Well I live in a condo in Barrie and when I go to Toronto, which is not every day, I take the Go train.
  8. Stephen Penney from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada writes: What government and especially municipalities should be doing, in addition to their current efforts, is setting a high minimum standard for density. Single-storey, single-family dwellings on private plots should be a thing of the past in the GTA. I remember reading somewhere that even Montreal's neighbourhood's of three-storey triplexes and sixplexes have very high density (which are very attractive) - it doesn't have to be concrete towers to be dense.
  9. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: I knew an Ottawa area farmer that left his fields fallow year after year. The locals chuckled that he had a fine crop of marginal, ie after several years, prime farmland turns into marginal, which can then be developed.
  10. Jeff S from Canada writes: lol. yes, they have done the same in London, UK as well. that's why middleclass can't afford to live there.
  11. charterofrights.ca Canada from Canada writes: The greenbelt -- a wonderful piece of legislation makes everyone feel all 'right' with the world -- those that lost 40 to 60% of the value of their properties might not agree however. I think it is time to get the feds to address property rights.
  12. scamp the from Canada writes:
    I wonder if people have seen how large Canada is :P
    Seriously, for Ontario to have a green belt is ridiculous.

    What they should have really done is made a law insisting on better municipal planning. New laws that mandated having a downtown core, linked with regional transit... That would have made more sense.

    The green-belt is rather pointless legislation that prevents real policy from taking shape.
  13. Colin Nicholson from Ottawa, Canada writes: Oh, great, the (bio)nannies who know what's best for us all are poised to extort our legislature in to making it more difficult to 'leap frog' the greenbelt. Translation: longer commutes, higher commuting costs, more transportation emissions, bigger roads, and more traffic injuries & fatalities.

    The (bio)set with the cash to lead their chi-chi downtown lifestyle will benefit (again); those wanting a decent home to raise a family will pay.

    By-the-way, Toronto has one of the ugliest, dirtiest, least green downtowns I have seen in any major North American city.
  14. Ivan Patrick from Canada writes: If our Greenbelt is considered a success, that is a sad commentary on what is considered green.

    The Ottawa area is experiencing a lot of poor urban growth, but it is a far far greener place to live then around here.

    This is a sad joke. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nature is being raped by poor urban planning. Drive anywhere between Toronto and Barrie, and you can witness massive swaths of Earth being levelled for collasal housing developments, and those ridiculous 'Smart' Centres... But hey, they put in a 1/4 acre park, and an elementary school, and it's called a community...
  15. Politically Incorrect from A UK free from the EU, United Kingdom writes: First, let's stop using this terminology, 'Canada's growing visible minority population,' they are either Canadians or they are not. Second the preservation and expansion of the Ontario greenbelt just makes good common sense. The urban sprawl that is snaking its way down highway 401 is mind boggling and quite sad. At one time there would be tracks of forest and or farmland that separated the communities along the 401 and now each time I go back all I see are strip malls, industrial parks (with many vacant units) and endless suburbs full of identical housing units. It is disgraceful, and was done with absolutely no thought for the environment, or for future generations of Ontarians. Pity. Kudos to Mrs. Whitney for her efforts to encourage the growth of this greenbelt.
  16. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff S from Canada writes: 'lol. yes, they have done the same in London, UK as well. that's why middleclass can't afford to live there.'

    Of course, that didn't have anything to do w/12m people living there, or sever height restrictions on residential buildings, it is because they have parks.

    charterofrights.ca Canada from Canada writes: 'The greenbelt -- a wonderful piece of legislation makes everyone feel all 'right' with the world -- those that lost 40 to 60% of the value of their properties might not agree however. I think it is time to get the feds to address property rights.'

    Who exactly lost property value? People who just found out their house backs onto one of the largest nature reserves in the province? Or people in the rest of the GTA who know bennefit from a reduced supply of real estate? Land prices have actually gone crazy near this thing...

    scamp the from Canada writes:
    'I wonder if people have seen how large Canada is :P
    Seriously, for Ontario to have a green belt is ridiculous.'

    Too bad the average person gets tired of commuting more than 2 hours a day. I get the feeling Timmins - Toronto every day wouldn't be very practical.

    'What they should have really done is made a law insisting on better municipal planning. New laws that mandated having a downtown core, linked with regional transit... That would have made more sense.'

    They did. It is called the places to grow act. It sets out pretty much exactly what you just said. The problem was though that without fixed provincial limits on where development could occur, developers were just demolishing green space to put up new subdivisions. Suburban municipal governments are dependent on new developments for tax revenues, they would never adhere to provincial guidelines.
  17. A A from Canada writes: Colin Nicholson, what are you smoking? Manhattan is not pretty! Sure it has the lights and it's bright but not much green space. Montreal and Vancouver have some pretty scummy spots downtown. Been to Cleveland, Detroit or Buffalo? Toronto may not be as clean as it used to be but still pretty good.

    As for the greenbelt? Canada might be vast but rising fuel costs will make it more expensive to transfer agriculture across the country. Other concern, what's to say that a future government would not reverse the decision on a greenbelt?
  18. A Student from Canada writes: Mr Nicholson- who says the only decent place to raise a family is an obscenely wasteful suburban detached home with a fenced yard? I'd rather live in a centrally located townhouse or low-rise apartment (the Montreal example is a good one), where I can walk to the shops, work, or walk my kids to school. The idea that the only 'decent' way to raise kids is with two incomes, two cars, a big backyard and a bedroom each is just silly.

    I'm gald that they say our greenbelt is going to be effective- even if it makes it hard or impossible for me to own my own home, it means that my great-great-grandchildren might just be able to live here too.
  19. R OBryan from Ottawa, Canada writes: We have ruined in 200 years what it took 2000 years to accomplish in areas of Europe. And this is an accomplishment? The province is still giving areas away from the Rouge River Valley to the north. Do you think that when the demand really hits high in the north that our provincial representatives are going to say NO to billionaire developers???
  20. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: a researcher for the institute who conducted the study. It was commissioned by the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, a non-profit organization funded by the province that was established to promote agriculture in the greenbelt and safeguard its ecological features. Ms. Carter-Whitney's comparison gave high marks to Ontario's greenbelt because it has tough legislative protection, strong support from government, and covers a large area.

    So when studies come out not supporting what they believe alot of posters on here decry that it is a sham. Yet here is something they love because it centers on the environment and two they probably don't own any land within the affected area so this won't cost them. Once again the mighty environmental activists of Canada love their enironmental programs that force someone else to pay the high cost of saving the environment. This study was paid for by 'Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation' which is funded by the provincial gov't. How surprising that they loved the idea and were especially impressed with the STRONG gov't backing. That actually beats the study that I commissioned that found that dutch people are pretty awesome.
  21. need news from Canada writes: What Green Belt?

    the lines were drawn to benefit certain developers, and were put far enough away that urban sprawl could continue at the same pace. The 'green belt' surrounds a huge area. There is little distinction between towns in much inside the 'green belt'. If the government really wanted to slow or stop urban sprawl, it would change its zoning, development laws, policies, and it would limit the amount of green field construction. there is a considerable amount of brown fields that can be re-developed. They would require development that wwas focused on people not cars. look at all the new devlopments that are happening within the 'green belt' they all are still auto-centric.

    the 'green belt' is a good PR activity, but its value is fairly limited. development is far from its edges.
  22. need news from Canada writes: Stephen Penney

    good point. I read recently that Vienna (I think) has one of the highest densities per km2, and it has limited highrises. It has mainly 3,4,5 story buildings, which are cheaper to maintain and support higher densities, while not feeling like you live in a concrete tower.

    There are many alternatives to cookie cutter subdivision and high rise building. none of our elected politicians want to do things differently, as there are so many lobbiest trying to keep the status quo.

    A tax break to convert a single family home into a three units, would go along way in increase density of much of the GTA. Probably would have many social beneifts as well.
  23. Mike M from Shenacadie NS, Canada writes: I drive to Toronto quite often, while not perfect the greenbelt idea idea at least preserves a bit of space surrounding the city. I just wanted to post this before the gang of anti-Ontario anti McGuinty types wake up and provide us with their usual drivel.
  24. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Will Hoacio from Toronto writes: Who exactly lost property value? People who just found out their house backs onto one of the largest nature reserves in the province? Or people in the rest of the GTA who know bennefit from a reduced supply of real estate? Land prices have actually gone crazy near this thing...

    Well Will if you were a developer who owned land in the greenbelt or what if you bought some investment property in the greenbelt under the audspices that you would sell it at a later date for housing? While I agree with the idea of a greenbelt I feel for the people who had to pay for it. The one really good thing in the study stated that gov't should look at compensation. Wanna bet that this will be the one thing the gov't doesn't implement? After all McGuinty is great at making policies that don't cost the gov't or his friends a dime.
  25. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Ok, people are expecting way too much from one piece of legislation. The greenbelt was not meant to solve all of the GTA's urban planning problems. It is meant to accomplish only one thing, preserve whatever areas it designated. Urban planning guidelines are almost exclusively the domain of municipalities.

    Further, I think some people (Carl Nicholson) are confusing the 'greenness' of a city with actual nature reserves. For instance, a park in a city center is not nature, it is just a bit of landscaping on top totally destroyed land. Likewise, the grass in you're backyard is not nature nor are grass medians, trees lining roadways or just about anything else suburbanites usually confuse with 'nature.' In most cases, the more nature you think you are seeing, the less is actually there.

    Yea, don't get me wrong this 'greenbelt' could and should go much further. We should remember why it didn't though. It is easy (& appropriate) to blame politicians, but they are just trying to read public opinion. Judging by some of the disparaging comments on this board, I think they did a relatively good job. Rather than ribbing McGuinty on why the Greenbelt isn't good enough now, we should be trying to convince people about why a larger greenbelt would be beneficial. If he is a politician, he will take the most popular position, sort of like democracy. We need to make sure that this is the popular position, and I am not convinced GTAers would actually support an expanded greenbelt.
  26. Suzanne Crone from Sunderland, Canada writes: I'm a fan of the greenbelt and, dovetailing with that, smart, sustainable development as opposed to swaths of crummy looking houses. The most important thing is to take responsibility for where you live. Whatever you do, don't leave it to your council members, even though you may have elected them to do just that. Our council left us to fight a development that was going to double the size of our town in one go. Thankfully, we had smart, resourceful people leading our fight and we were able to reach an agreement with the developer. Now our council is, and deserves to be embarrassed.
  27. David Simon from Canada writes: Naturally urbanites like greenbelts-its not their land that is being restricted. Its the farmers who get shafted. Urbanites can sell their land to anybody, but not farmers.
  28. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Well Will if you were a developer who owned land in the greenbelt or what if you bought some investment property in the greenbelt under the audspices that you would sell it at a later date for housing?'

    I have absolutely no sympathy for them. I am absolutely sick of seeing these 'communities' pop up all around us. I don't blame McGuinty, Harper, Harris or anyone but the developers in this case. If you want to take perfectly functioning natural environments and pave them into a McCommunity, I have no sympathy when society decides that they don't want to.

    re midrise vs. highrise density -

    I totally understand why people do prefer 3-4-5 story housing, but if you are trying to blame our lack of these structures on government you are barking up the wrong tree.

    At the heart of it is NIMBYism; people love density, in theory. As I am sure you can imagine, 3/4/5 story buildings are much lower density than 30/40/50 stories. The problem with this is twofold.

    Firstly, developers have significant difficulty obtaining enough property to develop a full sized mid rise development. Torontonians are highly reticent to sign over neighborhoods to developers, as a result developers first instinct with property tends to be take what you can get.

    Secondly, residents groups HATE mid rises. They may say they hate highrises more, but once they figure out a highrise has a much lower initial footprint, can be largely ignored and are always positioned outside residential areas, they tend to give up. With mid rises though, the developments have much higher footprints, usually involving side street development, which has become a non starter here. They are building a 6 story condo along Avenue north of Lawrence, the NIMBYs have come out in full force on how this will 'destroy the community' and all the rest. Government doesn't help, but it certainly isnt the cause of this problem.
  29. The choices we make decide our place in life from Canada writes: To the urban masses who think that green belts are good: How happy would you be if the government were to put a bunch of restrictions on your land that limited who you could sell it to and what you could do on it. How happy would you be when these restrictions resulted in a significant reduction in the value of the land. Suddenly your net worth, maybe even your retirement plans, are greatly reduced. Perhaps even shattered. Think of it from this angel. Farmers and rural land owners are living it from this angle. Perhaps the urbanites should be forced to compensate the rural land owners for their precious green belt. After all, it is the urbanites demanding the green belt, not the rural land owners.
  30. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: David Simon from Canada writes: 'Naturally urbanites like greenbelts-its not their land that is being restricted. Its the farmers who get shafted. Urbanites can sell their land to anybody, but not farmers.'

    So... farmers are getting the shaft here because we aren't letting their land get paved over into a McCommunity? Please, the Star has a sympathy article every week about how urbanites are 'taking over' farmers' land and how farmers are being 'crowded out' because of rising landvalues. If we didn't protect this land, you would be painting us as rabid urbanites intent to pave everything. We try to combat that trend, and now we are rabid urbanites intent on preventing farmers from paving everything. Get real.
  31. jack Bauer from Canada writes: Yes leave the natives to illegally occupy land and penalize hard working farmers so the toronto hoards can visit green spaces on Sunday's, this was another example of how Mcguinty screwed Ontario, he did not have the time to deal with the towns and there own green plans to save environmentally sensitve areas, he drew a line, thats it (one sure not to offend his development buddies) , great work ferret face,
  32. D J from Canada writes: The Greenbelt MIGHT be a good idea for some areas BUT the government should then cough up the dough to support it! In Lincoln there is little developeable land now because the greenbelt so they don't have the tax base! Further if the farmers can't grow economically all you will be left with is abandoned orchards. Great use for the land and further depleting the tax base.
  33. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Well Will if you were a developer who owned land in the greenbelt or what if you bought some investment property in the greenbelt under the audspices that you would sell it at a later date for housing?'

    Of course it's perfectly alright when these developers snapped up properties for $20K an acre, knowing they were zoned for agriculture, and made sweetheart deals with municipal leaders to convert them to housing complete with services and highways largely paid for by the municipal taxpayers. Most of the benefits of 'location, location, location' are paid for by taxpayers, and earned by developers when they sell off the land for 50-100 times what they paid for it.
  34. need news from Canada writes: Will Hoaccio

    you raise a good point about a lot of people not liking mid rises. Two points though that would make them a more attractive option.

    1. if they were built in new developments instead of single detached homes I think there would be less negativity towards them.

    2. in areas already developed, if they were designed better there would likely be less resentment to them. Think of how they look in many European cities, they are very attractive and inviting.
  35. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: The choices we make decide our place in life from Canada writes: 'To the urban masses who think that green belts are good: How happy would you be if the government were to put a bunch of restrictions on your land that limited who you could sell it to and what you could do on it.'

    They do, they're called zoning laws. Like how my land is zoned so that I can't start a farm, business or just about anything else on it.

    'Perhaps the urbanites should be forced to compensate the rural land owners for their precious green belt. After all, it is the urbanites demanding the green belt, not the rural land owners.'

    WHAT?! We should be compensating them for NOT being able to buy their land? WTF?!

    D J from Canada writes: 'The Greenbelt MIGHT be a good idea for some areas BUT the government should then cough up the dough to support it! In Lincoln there is little developeable land now because the greenbelt so they don't have the tax base!'

    That is exactly the point, to stop development in these middle of nowhere counties. The weird thing is I am almost positive you would be the first on here to complain when all of Lincoln got paved over and turned into the newest member of suburb clad bedroom communities that ring the horseshoe.

    We need to think big picture here, and quite frankly I would rather see those farm fields turn into empty orchards than Canada's next Vaughan. I would rather anything happen to them then turning into the next paved over parking lot.
  36. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: need news...good point...most NIMBYism is because very few people have actually familiar with GOOD development, so they automatically assume it's going to be ugly and fake-looking.
  37. Bryan Bertie from Toronto, Canada writes: Over the last 50 years there have been many attempts to contain the urban form and create greenbelts, if you will. I think it was the Frost government of the 1950's that declared that Toronto would NEVER expand northward beyond highway 401! Yep, you heard right. The current greenbelt exercise/dictate is potentially just as useless because after 10 years the legislation is open for review - and therefore political meddling. The Barrie area is a disaster waiting to happen because, from a landscape ecology perspective, the same growth management/ development mistakes made within the current urban envelope, are going to occur there also. This is inevitable unless very robust watershed plans are in place before municipal growth plans are developed by the municipalities. This is really what is required if wereally want to maintain an effectively functioning ecosytem that delivers essential ecological services, such as natural flood control measures and natural summer time cooling ( rather than through financially costly man made efforts). An effective greenbelt area will be one in which sustainable agriculture can be practised; efective and enforceable watershed management plans are in place; and, urban geographical boundaries are set permanently. In non greenbelt areas development should occur, subject to normal planning practices but subject to enforceable watershed management plans. Now that would be real progress!
  38. sue boohoo from Canada writes: Is this a joke? Close the barn door after the horse has been stolen. What happened to the 'greenbelt' north of Steeles-
    What happened to the greenbelt that University City is built on- the Huron Indian graveyard-
    What happened to the Niagara Escarpement-
    More mythological thinking.
  39. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes:
    'Perhaps the urbanites should be forced to compensate the rural land owners for their precious green belt. After all, it is the urbanites demanding the green belt, not the rural land owners.'

    WHAT?! We should be compensating them for NOT being able to buy their land? WTF?!

    LOL! Proving my point once again about our brave and noble environmentalists in Canada. You guys are so noble when it comes to having other people pay the economic price for your mighty cause. Somebody should be compensating them for losing the right that everybody else has in this province who owns land outside of the greenbelt. Arbitrarily having your land overnight lose in some cases half its value can be very hard financially. You talk about NIMBY with disdain but whats different about your attitude towards the financial hardship that people had to suffer because of a cause that you agree with.
  40. captain steele royal, mounted from Canada writes: some species have been found in the thames for the first time in 60 yrs. this, in an urban area supporting over 12million people.

    it seems if you want to do the same here you have to expropriate land from millions of hard-working, oppressed farmers, denying them access to billions of dollars from over-worked developers who only want to bring you....more concrete and unlivable suburbia.

    canada doesn't have a lot of arable land. most of it is disappearing under the urban landscape. seems a lot of people think this can go on forever.
  41. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: 'need news...good point...most NIMBYism is because very few people have actually familiar with GOOD development, so they automatically assume it's going to be ugly and fake-looking.'

    Well, isn't it? Paris almost had a revolution after Napolean and Haussmann got through with it.

    need news -

    It depends on where you look, but I have noticed more and more suburbs moving towards this model. I believe Oakville is planning something along this model near their GO station and there have been several town house developments scattered about.

    I'm not sure how it will turn out, but 'downtown' Markham is trying to do something like what you suggest. To my knowledge, it will be the first suburban area designed along new urban principles in awhile.

    http://www.downtownmarkham.ca/view/index.php

    Many people don't know this, but the city does actually have an official plan for growth. It calls for highrise/towers in the 'centers'(downtown, Yonge Eg, ect..) and midrise development only along the 'avenues' (St. Clair, Eglinton, Dufferin, ect...). This sort of fits with you're model, it is also meant to integrate with the city's transit plans.

    http://www.toronto.ca/torontoplan/pdf/unlockopps.pdf

    http://www.transitcity.ca/images/stories/report    map1_800px.jpg

    The city is on record several times specifically opposing clusters of high rises on a subway stop and favoring mid rise development. Torontonians have to actually buy into though.
  42. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'canada doesn't have a lot of arable land.'

    Name a country that has more arable land than Canada.

    Fact is there is no shortage of 'green space' in Ontario. Just look at a map of the province. Everything north of Sudbury is pretty much raw land.
  43. Deirdre Waite from Ottawa, Canada writes: While the Greenbelt is in theory a great idea, the implementation was not thought out. The Niagara Region is made up of small farms growing tender fruit and grapes. Many people would like to get in on the winery boom that is happening in the area. There are (were?, I forget if it was changed after the fact) restrictions on the size of land that could be tranfered in the Greenbelt. Because of the restrictions many people could not buy land for those purposes, nor could farmers sell. While the size requirements make more sense for more standard crops, they do not make sense for the agricultural systems in the Reg.

    Having grown up in the area, I have seen subdivision after subdivision take over orchards and vineyards. Something had to be done, but an understanding of the area would have gone a long way for helping farmers.
  44. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada -

    Firstly, I have yet to actually see that this has reduced anybody's land value. Farmers still get to keep their land, and it is still just as commercially viable as it was before. If anything, this will benefit these farmers as they will be provided with unnatural proximity to their main market. Similar systems of urban agricultural reserves have been in place in Victoria & the rest of BC for awhile and the farmers have been able to remain just as profitable as before, most actually earning more. So right off the bat, I fail to see exactly what their suffering is.

    Secondly, land use planing is meant to occur in the big picture. I can't honestly understand why I am to feel sympathy for a farmer who all of a sudden can't turn his lot into the newest parking lot. I can't very well turn my lot into a farm. With good reason to. The costs of sprawl are extremely well documented, and attempting to limit it is nothing particularly unique or discriminatory. Farmer's will still have an ample market for their land, among farmers. Most of whom would kill for land legally protected from development with convenient access to the major market.

    Indeed, despite operating for nearly 3 years now, farmers routinely complain of the exclusionary pricing on their property caused by excessive suburbanization. In 3 years, I have yet to read a single complaint by a farmer who is no longer able to sell his land.
  45. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'canada doesn't have a lot of arable land.'

    Name a country that has more arable land than Canada.

    Fact is there is no shortage of 'green space' in Ontario. Just look at a map of the province. Everything north of Sudbury is pretty much raw land.'

    Are you a retarded? Have you ever BEEN north of Sudbury? It is a rock, literally.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

    FYI, France, the USA, China, Germany, Russia, Arentina...
  46. need news from Canada writes:
    Toronto is making some headway, uch of their approach is sound. But unfortunately, most surrounding municipalities still favour single family dwellings, that have low densities, with commercial, residential, 'industrial' all seperated. There needs to be a unified approach, allowing for more mixed use that is based on people not cars.

    I was in Monaco last year, and there was 4 or 5 story building, with a travel agent and machine shop, yes a machine shop manufacturing things, on the ground floor, offices and apartments above it.
  47. captain steele royal, mounted from Canada writes: j. c. davies - do you know what arable land is? you can grow crops on it. baffin island is yours for free if you can grow potatoes on it.

    dictionary. buy one, now!
  48. Darren In TO from Toronto, Canada writes: How is this Toronto's greenbelt?? This is mostly all in the suburbs.
  49. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Will have such a city minset you can't seem to understand that outside the city there are more than just farmers. There are people who have owned large parcels of non farming land that now aren't able to develop it the way that they planned. These are people who didn't lose money out of there bank accounts but have now lost the opportunity that they had to parcel this land out once it made financial sense. I personally know of someone who bought land in the greenbelt six months before the greenbelt was implemented. It isn't farmland but it is still protected. Their intention was to let the land sit there for about 5 - 10 years then sell it once it made sense. The value of the land once the greenbelt was announced lost about 40% of its value but that is assuming that someone would actually pay money for land that they can't really do anything with. Will, even the study recommends that people need to be compensated for the devaluation of their land. YOur lack of sympathy is obvious and so is your dogged determination to try and convince everybody that there is no economic hardship for anybody yet the study admits it so perhaps so should you. Also I understand the need to protect farmland but this hamfisted approach is a Dalton specialty. Great optics that cost his gov't absolutely nothing but the burden is carried by someone just not the majority so there is no uproar. You talk about the need to protect this for everybody and I agree with you. The difference is I believe in fairness and the only fair thing is if this is for everybody then everybody should share the economic hardship the same. Which means the gov't must compensate and that you cheapo will have to pay as well once the rules change overnight.
  50. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: need news from Canada -

    I am not sure, but I believe Monaco is actually the densest country on Earth. Toronto is relatively good by N.American urban planning standards (let me stress relativity) but most of the 'burbs are totally stuck in 1960s urban planning models.

    It is cultural, in N. America you are treated like a pariah if you choose to have a family outside of a detached house with a pathetic grass patch of a yard. Condo developers have stopped even bothering to sell to families because they know nobody will buy them.

    Darren In TO from Toronto, Canada writes: How is this Toronto's greenbelt?? This is mostly all in the suburbs.

    yea.. somewhat misleading article as Toronto really has nothing to do with this.
  51. need news from Canada writes:
    Dan,

    I buy stocks too, and if they go done b/c of legislation I can not complain. When you speculate, you take on risk. They new this before they got into the game.

    Most of the corps. in this game, have made a bundle from lax development laws in the past.

    I do not feel bad for land speculators, who have lost out.
  52. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada -

    No, I don't have any sympathy for these people. Who I do have sympathy for are the generations that will inherit this fqcked up maze of suburbs and freeways you seem intent on building. Quite honestly, I don't care if a few thousand people suffer marginal losses on potential earnings compared to the money and infrastructure we have sunk into communities that have absolutely zero future. This is a billion, if not trillion, dollar mess.

    I will be honest, I would rather nuke these areas than let them turn into more concreted highways choking off any potential future the area could have(if you can't tell, that was a hyperbole). Yes, the entire point is to stifle development here. Hell, I would say the same of most of what would now be considered 'city'. These suburbs are absolutely useless. It's simple, I support anything that opposes them.

    We should have done something to prevent this from going as far as it has a long time ago.
  53. Just Me from Ottawa, Canada writes: I lived in Calgary and Toronto. Ottawa's greenbelt is ineffective as the corridor is closer to the core and thinner than Toronto's greenbelt. Of course, one can say if you want the job done incorrectly, get Ottawa to do it; Ottawa's incompetencies rate exceeds Toronto's. Possibly the best world farmland is in SW Ontario and it is sad to see it disappear.

    Calgary may need a greenbelt, especially on the west-perimeter.
  54. Tyler Phillips from Seattle, writes: J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'canada doesn't have a lot of arable land.'

    Name a country that has more arable land than Canada.

    Fact is there is no shortage of 'green space' in Ontario. Just look at a map of the province. Everything north of Sudbury is pretty much raw land.
    ***

    The U.S.A.

    I think you need to look up the definition of arable. Then you need to drive north of Sudbury.

    The 'green space' land includes some of the best agricultural land in the country. Why do you think Ontario became such a population centre in the first place? It was partly because of the amazing agricultural land.
  55. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: I think need news from Canada expressed my views in a less inflammatory way.
  56. captain steele royal, mounted from Canada writes: a friend who is into urban greening told me when she was in nyc she visited, in a group, some of the most unbelievable urban desolation on this planet - block after block totally trashed. it was a small city of abandoned burnt out shells.
    at a later meeting she got to talking about clearing this space for a green zone, small businesses etc.
    she never got past clearing the land. she was met with a wall of stares like she had suggested the u.s. become a communist state! hostility, it's gonna cost money... a wall of 'it ain't gonna happen here.'
    usual resistance to urban greening x 10!
  57. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Need news I am all for those type of neighbourhoods and buildings that they have in Monaco. That seems like a fair and reasonable policy that doesn't treat one group unfairly. The greenbelt to me reminds me of Millers land transfer tax. Instead of making everybody pay the price you unfairly target a small segment of the population for something will is for the greater good. I understand your points about the stocks but from the very beginning this seemed horribley unfair to me as the burden of this noble gesture is shared by too few individuals. And policies like this work because individuals like you and Will love the fact that someone else carried the cost for something that you think is important.
  58. Tyler Phillips from Seattle, writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: ...I personally know of someone who bought land in the greenbelt six months before the greenbelt was implemented. It isn't farmland but it is still protected. Their intention was to let the land sit there for about 5 - 10 years then sell it once it made sense. The value of the land once the greenbelt was announced lost about 40% ...
    ***

    Almost all investments have risk. Land purchases are no different. You're subject to the laws of the land, which can change from time to time. I have no compassion for someone who bought land on speculation. Not all real estate prices go up forever, and it's about time some people realized that.

    No one decides to donate extra money to the government when they're benefited by law changes.
  59. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: Little boxes,
    On the hillside.
    Little boxes,
    Made of ticky-tacky.
    Little boxes,
    On the Hillside.
    Little Boxes,
    All the same.
  60. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Will I think its important that I agree with your goals but I just don't agree with the greenbelt approach. I think that it requires strong gov't to ensure that the sprawl didn't continue but the strong gov't doesn't exist at either a municipal or provincial level(which is where the jurisdiction lies). I think the greenbelt was a simplistic solution for McGuinty and it didn't cost his gov't a dime. That is why I am not a proponent. The cause is indeed noble but McGuinty took the easy way out and put the whole cost of this noble cause onto the back of a few. That to me isn't fair. And while I can sympathize with your lack of empathy I just can't share it.
  61. need news from Canada writes:
    Dan,

    you are correct, it was the easy way out. The right way would be to change zoning laws to ensure there is sustainable development, with a sustainable population.

    That cannot happen right now. too many politicians in bed with developers, land speculators. there is a real need to break the relationship between the two.

    almost every municipal councillor receives money from developers, as do the three main political parties. No way they are going to make them do things dramatically differently when they provide so much finacial support.
  62. James Hinnecke from Pickering, ON, Canada writes: I have zero sympathy for people who bought rural land on spec with the idea of flipping it to developpers who then build more urban sprawl.

    Zoning is all well and good but others have made the point that smaller town politicians are often influenced by develooppers and bend the rules for them. Given the number of municipalities, provincial action was the only way to truly deal with this.

    Greenbelt forces more effective land use within the parts of the gta not covered by the greenbelt. This can't be bad thing.

    Nor do I really think 'jumping' the greenbelt is a huge risk overall because I think there's limited appetite these days for a two hour each way commute - especially with the price of gas. Moreover, based on the article it seemss quite likely that the greenbelt could itself start to expand outwards.
  63. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan Van Gaeldonk -

    You are wrong to pretend like the farmers are the only ones baring the costs of this. As someone currently in the market for a house in Toronto, I can definitely say at least part of me wishes restrictions on density would be loosened. I'm a relatively easy real estate fit as well, the major losers in this are urban families who are sooner or later going to have to realize that a house isn't in the cards for every family.

    As for approach, the Greenbelt does not exist in isolation. It is part of a larger (though IMO still undersized) policy to limit sprawl. Quite frankly, no government policy will go without a victim. It is mathematically impossible, somebody HAS to loose. Despite that, society on the whole gains. McGuinty has tried to put in official growth strategies (see 'Places to Grow Act') and transportation strategies ('MoveOntario 2020'). None of these policies are perfect, and I have complaints for all three. If we keep waiting for the perfect policy to roll around, well, Waterloo will probably be part of the GTA by then.

    Sprawl isn't, in essence, a government caused trend. There isn't much any government can do to address it. All things considered, McGuinty has done a better job of anyone else for no other reason than he has at least tried to address it. The Greenbelt was no where near as simple a solution as you would suggest. The only N. American examples which exists at a similar scale is the Portland growth boundary. This was most likely one of the most heavily lobbied against proposals of McGuinty's first term ('cept the health premium of course) so it would be wrong to pretend as though he snapped his fingers and drew a line. You underestimate the power of the developer lobby.

    Instead of nitpicking over who won and who lost on the greenbelt, we should recognize that society as whole gained and apply the lessons to our next kick at the can.
  64. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think it's rather funny to call Toronto greener than Ottawa. Anyone whose spent time in both places knows better. Ottawa is greener throughout, with lots of parks and trees. In fact I'd say it's the greenest city I've ever seen with 1.5 million people in it.

    While I applaud putting limits on urban expansion and encouraging residential density in core areas, let's be realistic. If people want their own house that's precisely what they'll pressure the system for, and you're simply not going to resist that much pressure from that many people.

    It would be far wiser for us to influence the adoption of integrative design to make residential areas more environmental friendly not just in use of power or waste mitigation, but in making the areas themselves more wildlife friendly.

    For the real wildlife however, nothing can ever replace provincial parks in terms of effectiveness, so clearly there's a balance to be found.
  65. ken g from Canadian in Mexico City, Canada writes: For the few that say they lost money, it is money they never had, just speculation.

    BTW - Mexico City doesn't have a greenbelt but they do have many very large parks which can be used by all and are relatively close to the citizens of Mexico City, for example Chapultepec Park, went there last weekend.
  66. Politically Incorrect from A UK free from the EU, United Kingdom writes: Has any thought been given to tearing down the countless numbers of vacant strip malls, ripping up the miles of unused parking lots, and converting some of the brown fields into parks and woodlands? Yes indeed this is the horse stolen out of the barn scenario as was mentioned in one of the previous comments, but could not some land reclamation take place here? Cannot some land be converted back into irrigable farming land once again? I mean not all of this land is suitable for suburban sprawl, and there certainly is not a need for yet another shopping or strip mall. Use/re-use the available space and leave some nature behind for the wildlife.
  67. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: '... the major losers in this are urban families who are sooner or later going to have to realize that a house isn't in the cards for every family...'

    Goodluck selling that lump of coal. While I agree the nature and size of our homes has to change considerably, if you think people are going to be willing to give up on what has been a prominent dream on this continent for centuries, you're kidding yourself.

    It's why our forefathers all left Europe in the firstplace.

    Each region will find its own answers to our environmental challenges, and you can be fairly sure that personal homes and transportation will remain high on that list.

    Public demand, the real democracy, will enforce it.
  68. joseph Cheng from Toronto, Canada writes: Just make sure the Ontario Tories don't govern Ontario. If they do, this 'greenbelt' will become 'developers' belt' in no time.
  69. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Politically Incorrect from A UK free from the EU, United Kingdom writes: '... but could not some land reclamation take place here? Cannot some land be converted back into irrigable farming land once again?...'

    The expense of remediation of most of these land types is prohibitive, which should tell you something about how stupid urban sprawl really is.

    This is also why sustainable design is more cost effective over the long run despite higher initial costs.

    Unless of course we just leave our mess for future generations to clean up as we've been doing for decades.
  70. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Toronto is a model alright. When does the reclamation of urban wasteland begin. Even in Ft. Mcmurry, when the money has been extracted, they plant some grass and a few trees.
  71. Boreal Moose from Canada writes: The demand of the public is the real democracy, is it Phil? Perhaps, but it is the voice of the developers who build garbage cookie cutter, intergalactically boring and stultifying subdivisions who have the ear and the nuts of local politicians in their hands. They tell the politicians what the public wants, and they will have their voices heard, or there will be hell to pay.
  72. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'I think it's rather funny to call Toronto greener than Ottawa. Anyone whose spent time in both places knows better. Ottawa is greener throughout, with lots of parks and trees. In fact I'd say it's the greenest city I've ever seen with 1.5 million people in it.'

    Well, obviously. Ottawa is 1/10th of Toronto's density...

    Ottawa - 2,778.64 km2
    Toronto - 630 km2

    Ottawa - 812,129
    Toronto - 2,555,000

    'While I applaud putting limits on urban expansion and encouraging residential density in core areas, let's be realistic. If people want their own house that's precisely what they'll pressure the system for, and you're simply not going to resist that much pressure from that many people.'

    Realistically, people do not mind density. You can't typecast a city one way or another, but on the whole Torontonian's realize the bennefits of urban living (as shown by our much smaller footprint to Ottawa). In the future, as gas prices continue to skyrocket suburban living will no longer be a viable option for most.

    'It would be far wiser for us to influence the adoption of integrative design to make residential areas more environmental friendly not just in use of power or waste mitigation, but in making the areas themselves more wildlife friendly.'

    The only proven way of making an area environmentally friendly is not building there.

  73. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Will Hoaccio writes: Sprawl isn't, in essence, a government caused trend. There isn't much any government can do to address it.

    Thats where your wrong. The problem is that alot of what could have been done is in the past so you are partially correct. City planning is important and instead of allowing row upon row of housing municipalities should have insisted on a more sustainable solution such as the one you and News discussed in Monaco.

    Good luck in you trying to find a house. Good news for you there as well. You at least will be exempt from another tax that unfairly targets a small percentage of the population. Millers land transfer tax.
  74. My eyes are open, Are yours? from Canada writes: Phil King,

    Ottawa has all the resources of a Federal Government seat, and it's associated PR budgets, to spend on greening the place up.

    Toronto has High park, the Toronto Islands, the Don Valley and associated ravines, the Scarborough bluffs, the lakefront trail (not at the foot of downtown, but reasonably close), the Beaches and Riverdale farm.

    The Leslie spit is an example of reclamation happening naturally. All that busted concrete and rebar tumbleweeds is actually providing a nesting habitat for birds, and not just the ubiquitious seagulls and pigeons either.

    Where are you looking, the corner of King and Bay?
  75. need news from Canada writes: another thing that no-one has brought up is the OMB,, which is essentially there to ensure developers get there way. even when a municipal goverment says no (either because they actually do not want it, or they want to be able to say they did not but it was forced on them), the OMB always says yes. It is a good tool to let the province and municipalities off the hook, they were not accountable, it was the OMB.
  76. No Sure Things from Canada writes: To everyone who says that the developers are getting a raw deal from their investment in property that ended up in the Greenbelt...they bought that property on speculation. There was never any guarantee that they would be able to turn a profit on it. So, if I make bad investments on spec, and then some new regulation on whatever I invested in tanks that industry, I should be compensated by the government why?

    The reality is that no where is it written that property values always have to go up.
  77. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: No Sure Things from Canada writes: To everyone who says that the developers are getting a raw deal from their investment in property that ended up in the Greenbelt...they bought that property on speculation. There was never any guarantee that they would be able to turn a profit on it. So, if I make bad investments on spec, and then some new regulation on whatever I invested in tanks that industry, I should be compensated by the government why?

    The reality is that no where is it written that property values always have to go up.

    Everybody talks about develops who bought on spec but those aren't the only land owners in the greenbelt. There are people who live on large plots of land probably looked at it as their retirement savings. Focussing on developers alleviates any sense of respsonsibility for people such as yourself. There are alot of everyday people who were affected by this as well. So don't have sympathy for the developers fine but at least have some for the people who were caught in the middle of this. McGuinty took the easy way out as he always does. No work and no cost to him. McGuinty is the king of policies that costs people other than the gov't, him or his friends.
  78. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Phil King is a classic case of people who get 'size of my backyard' and environmental sustainability confused. You're backyard is not nature, a park is not nature, nor is almost anything you would see in Ottawa, Toronto or any other city 'nature'. Density is good for the environment. Not only is density good, it is the only possible option to actually save the environment.

    There is no such thing as 'sustainable design' which does not include drastically higher densities. Anything that suggests otherwise is pure fabrication. Low density equals car dependancy, which equals sprawl. You can't somehow de-link the two. Low Density IS sprawl no matter what title you apply to it. Consider Toronto. You would no doubt view us as an environmental nightmare, no trees for 730km2 right? Ignoring the fact that several of Canada's largest parks are actually in Toronto, if Toronto had followed Ottawa's model of development, 'Toronto' would stretch from Burlington to Newmarket to Oshawa. If these densities were applied to the GTA region, the area would completely urbanize the stretch of land in between Lake Simcoe, London, Peterborough and Lake Ontario. These get more and more fun... If Ottawa were...

    L.A., it would be the size of Sri Lanka
    Seoul, it would be the size of Ireland
    Tokyo, it would be the size of Newfoundland

    way to be 'green' Ottawa.
  79. No Sure Things from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk wrote: There are people who live on large plots of land probably looked at it as their retirement savings.

    Are we talking farmers here? I struggle a bity with the farmers issue because I can see how they would see themselves as unfairly targeted (although I don't really buy that). For them I have some sympathy...although times change and people have to adjust. Globalization and social expectations of cheap food have destroyed the capacity for local farmers to keep land in production in Southern Ontario. The issue here is not 'the government appropriating land from the farmers' (this was claimed MANY times throughout the Greenbelt debate) the issue is that Canada and Ontario needs to develop agricultural policies that will encourage production here, and we need to start making different choices when we decide what food we are going to purchase and from whom.

    As for the rest of the people whinging about the Greenbelt....all I am saying is that anyone who purchases land as an investment should recognize that any investment carries risk.
  80. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada wr