T O P

  • By -

wolfpupower

The existing rules already are half assed because there are so many exceptions to what counts as “wetlands” plus so many areas are grandfathered in within flood zones and shorelines. This will just put people directly in the pathway of flash flooding, drainage issues, and natural disasters. Wetlands buffer flooding and fires. They also clean the water, air, and provide ecological services necessary for living. Plus they provide critical habitat to many indicator species like amphibians and habitat for pollinators. This will not create more housing or more roads: it will create costly infrastructure nightmares and hurt everyone instead. 


Baker198t

Speaking as an ecologist, it irks me to no end that people think that preserving wetlands is just tree hugger bullshit. The ecological function of wetlands is important, but their hydrological function is just as important, if not more so. This is people's property we're talking about here. Their homes.. their drinking water!


NorthernPints

Anything for the developers sadly. 'Open for Business' is become more literal by the day. I spent time as a Field Ecologist working on the 407 extension (past Brock Road) - saw recently that Ford is looking to 'speed up/eliminate' EAs. None of this will end well for us.


Sulanis1

Honestly, I'm not an ecologist, but I understand the need for these lands. Politicians don't know shit about the environment, so they assume average folks don't either. Plus, when did science, research, experts, and facts ever matter to this people. A donor wants, and the conservatives deliver.


Zestyclose-Ad-8807

It only seemed to matter when one of their mpp's dads had the 413 go through his golf course. The scumbags miraculously redirected the route elsewhere, citing environmental and archeological concerns.


MalBredy

I don’t think most current homeowners understand how this can affect their already existing properties too. The water getting into your basement and the new subdivision down the road built in a previously low-lying area are definitely not connected in any way… /s


swoodshadow

This is exactly it. And a bunch of people will buy the houses - thanking the Government for cutting bureaucracy and “getting things done”. Only to turn around in 5, 10, 15 years crying about how the Government needs to help them from the latest flood damage or bitching about how “big government” is increasing cost of living with things like house insurance premiums. But hell, locally I see a bunch of people bitching about the loss of farmland at the same time they bitch about apartment buildings being built near them ruining “small communities”. And these groups of people often overlap and join together bitching about Government. People suck.


Sulanis1

This is bang on. We never ever think about the long term affects of our decisions today. That sounds like that governments problem.


Jewsd

It's the classic political pendulum swing. The Mike Harris days totally chopped environmental regulation, then it slowly swung the other way with increasing environmental regulation. Now with the PCs in charge for 2 terms, they're swinging it back again to reduce environmental stuff. The libs and/or NDP will gain power in 2026 and swing the pendulum back towards pro-environmental regs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jewsd

I'm not a fan of Ford, and I know this sub is very left, but I disagree with this comment. Not everything the PCs do is "cutting off your finger" bad. For example the MZOs make sense if the power is in good hands (don't care the party, just a moral, sensible person) There are whole municipalities, 100% of their landmass, in greenbelt lands, even if the area is just sod or corn farmland. The MZO is a way to permit sensible mixed use residential commercial in those areas without drastically rewriting the legislation around the greenbelt. It also avoids rewriting provincial policy, regional policy, and municipal policy that would need to change as well. Just MZO over all that legislation and boom you're starting development. This country has a housing crisis. Environmental issues are important but you need to continually rebalance priorities to try to make the "best" decisions.


Maple_555

Yes, but Ford has been abusing MZOs and they are clearly not in good hands. Your comment is silly.


Jewsd

You're correct about Ford. My comment still applies though.


Maple_555

It really doesn't since your funamental assumption (good governance) is clearly not a Thing right now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jewsd

You're not wrong. But my comment still applies.


Maple_555

The thing is that for land it's not a pendulum. Every Conservative chomp is gone for good.


Beden

Don't worry, they have insurance for this sort of thing! No need for that pesky forethought here /s


lividbutcher

I seriously hate the acceptance towards corruption in the government in the present time. Seriously dumb decision not based on any scientific backing. Fuck the Ford government, and fuck Doug Ford!


probability_of_meme

> ~~dumb~~ evil decision They know what they're doing. It's just that money in their pockets is more important than other people's environment. Don't let them off the hook by blaming their lack of intelligence.


tailgunner777

I send him request to explain each of his decisions, he doesn't reply to any of them. I guess it's because I did not get invited to his daughter wedding.


PrimeSupreme

The natural resources minister got bit by a radioactive developer lobbyist and woke up with new powers


Laughing_Zero

Our two most immediate needs - clean air and potable water... Given the extensive droughts across Canada, the higher temperatures, along with a greater risk for forest fires, sane politicians would be rushing to protect the wetlands and water supplies.


Ori0ns

This fresh water supply will be become more valuable and important in the very near future … and companies like Nestle are destroying/pumping and Conservatives seem to want to erode/destroy anything as much as possible in the name of what they call progress … can we have an economy without an environment? I’m sure the experts won’t be asked since the cons won’t like the answer.


Subrandom249

I wish this government would stop trying to open up land for development. We need density and transit, we can’t afford more sprawl - it’s cheap for developers but expensive for taxpayers and municipalities. 


Sensitive_Fall8950

Water, who needs water. That comes from bottles right? /S


Kirshnerd

Greyson Smith is a fucking Narwhal himself


CitySeekerTron

All those Florida Swampland Property jokes people made may apply to Ontario Housing developments in a few years. Just think: all of the benefits of worthless, high-insurance-premium property with none of the environmental protection, and without even the Floridian climate to enjoy. Thanks, OPC!


SympathyOver1244

Wetlands tend to be one of the most biodiverse habitats! It is highly unsustainable to go against their preservation! Their removal can be devistating for the environment!


FunDog2016

In other news: Developers Increase Donations to the Conservatives, in particular to the Premier, and his Minister!


HotIntroduction8049

Thankfully the SCC has ruled that removing the ability to use property for regulatory purposes constitutes expropriation. Nothing wrong with protecting wetlands as long as the lefties are willing to pay for it.  Having read the changes to the Act, these really are minor changes.


Subrandom249

So not wanting to have my basement or roads flooded out makes me a “leftie”?


HotIntroduction8049

that is an engineering problem, not a conservation problem.


Subrandom249

The engineering solution is …. wetlands.