afransen
Senior Member
Land value boosts would be moot if we taxed land value more heavily than improvements.
|
|
|
Greenbelt developments
- Thread starter Mongo
- Start date
canarob
Senior Member
It seems like the only thing that's being left in the greenbelt in this area is the land in Rouge National Urban Park and where land is undevelopable because of creeks, etc.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,539
- Reaction score
- 9,536
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
That’s okay. There’s more room for warehouses in Pickering that the admin can then add to the UT database.
AlxOptimism
New Member
I just want to point out that the proposed net density on this lands is almost identical to Toronto's total density, so the PC's are at least giving some credence to the idea that sprawl is bad. From the sounds of the proposal there will be MZO's and multi-family is very profitable so I can see this density happening. The 905 has significantly less density than Toronto, this new developments shouldn't be bad policy from a fiscal point of view.
Environmentally on the other hand it's a hot mess. As the mayor of Ajax pointed out in the Star, there are non-agricultural environmentally insensitive greenbelt lands that could be safely developed, but the PC's are definitely going to muck this up encroaching upon ecosystems. Also density does not preclude car dependency.
Environmentally on the other hand it's a hot mess. As the mayor of Ajax pointed out in the Star, there are non-agricultural environmentally insensitive greenbelt lands that could be safely developed, but the PC's are definitely going to muck this up encroaching upon ecosystems. Also density does not preclude car dependency.
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
Well the more we get of this:
the more we'll have of this.
I dislike the low proposed density: 50,000 units over 7,400 acres works out to just under 7 units per acre. This is very low for a new build subdivision; 7 units is essentially postwar suburban density.
I know this isn't the net density because roads, sidewalks and community facilities occupy space. But it's still very low. It should be at least triple with plexes, narrow roads and urbanized "skinny" semi's/detached.
the more we'll have of this.
I dislike the low proposed density: 50,000 units over 7,400 acres works out to just under 7 units per acre. This is very low for a new build subdivision; 7 units is essentially postwar suburban density.
I know this isn't the net density because roads, sidewalks and community facilities occupy space. But it's still very low. It should be at least triple with plexes, narrow roads and urbanized "skinny" semi's/detached.
Amare
Senior Member
^Well according to Ford: "We have a housing crisis today that we didn't have four years ago"
This guy is an absolute imbecile and deluded clown. Really now, people werent struggling to find housing of any kind anywhere in Ontario 4 years ago and the problem just magically crept up? While at the same time, I thought he got rid of rent control because there "wasnt enough rental units being built". Which one is it bozo the clown?
How in the planet did people give this guy another 4 years; he's absolutely clueless to the housing issues we're facing and the fact that we gave him the keys to screw this province's housing situation even more than it already is, is really beyond me.
This guy is an absolute imbecile and deluded clown. Really now, people werent struggling to find housing of any kind anywhere in Ontario 4 years ago and the problem just magically crept up? While at the same time, I thought he got rid of rent control because there "wasnt enough rental units being built". Which one is it bozo the clown?
How in the planet did people give this guy another 4 years; he's absolutely clueless to the housing issues we're facing and the fact that we gave him the keys to screw this province's housing situation even more than it already is, is really beyond me.
Northern Light
Superstar
What's important to say is that there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of whitebelt acres of land where development is already permitted but not moving ahead.
Its not moving ahead because it can't be sold at a profitable price, and because of labour shortages, developers prioritize projects with better returns.
A bit of an over simplification; but nonetheless, an urban boundary expansion does nothing in the next decade to create net new housing.
In the event any of the newly designated land is built out, in the near term, it will be instead of building out something denser, closer to built up areas, not in addition to those.
A non-solution, to a real problem; and a real problem in its own right.
Last edited:
Amare
Senior Member
Hamilton is a prime example of what you just described. There are hundreds of sites ripe and ready for development in that city, but yet the province wanted/wants to expand that city's municipal boundaries to "accommodate" more growth even though it can more than accommodate enough growth within its already massive city limits.
toraerach
Active Member
Given this, what are the chances that little development occurs on the recently unprotected land prior to a new government swooping in and re-establishing these areas as Greenbelt? If fairly good, I could see this potentially becoming a major local issue in 905 battlegrounds come 2026, when the province finally wakes up to this government's shenanigans (a guy can dream...). I would encourage those who plan to participate in the OLP and ONDP leadership races to hold candidates' feet to the fire on this.
Northern Light
Superstar
I really can't say, we don't know who the various benefiting owners are just yet, I would hope that will come out shortly. Those who were just in to flip will likely move to do that quickly if restrictions are lifted; and further movement depend on who they sell to; if directly owned by a development group, it will really depend on where the property is in terms of their landbank, whether they had written it off its development potential when it became part of the Greenbelt, and what urgency they may have to get it through; and also, of course, whether the land is municipally serviced already (to the edge of the property) /
canarob
Senior Member
The Markham landowners (as of 2014 anyway) can be seen on this map:
Northern Light
Superstar
We have the list of names for the benefiting owners of the proposed trashing of the Greenbelt:
Amare
Senior Member
Love the unearthing of this, nice work by the CBC. Now if only we could find which Members of Parliament (including the Premier himself) and their families are directly benefiting from this in some way, shape and form.
The lengths to which this government has gone to bend over backwards to developers means IMO there's something in it for them as well. This has gone way beyond just pandering for votes and election contribution money.
The lengths to which this government has gone to bend over backwards to developers means IMO there's something in it for them as well. This has gone way beyond just pandering for votes and election contribution money.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Also a reason why the Conservatives (provincial and federal) do not like the CBC, and why some like to reduce funding to the CBC.
Ditto for some mild-mannered reporters at great metropolitan newspapers.
Last edited:
Memph
Active Member
There were issues prior to 4 years ago, but the mismatch between population growth and new housing builds has been significantly worse in the past 4 years. I think the rise in unaffordability was actually worse in the smaller Ontario cities like Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Hamilton, Niagara Region, Brantford, Barrie, London, where unaffordability is a more recent problem, whereas in Toronto it's been getting gradually worse since the mid 00s.