Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi
THe Greenbelt does NOT cause sprawl and the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. That's clearly caused by poor planning decisions and people's bad habit of driving everywhere. In fact, the answer to offsetting the pollution and carbon emissions could very well lie in keeping the Greenbelt green. If commuting is the problem then solve it by extending less polluting electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt, and stop widening the roads. It seems to me, attacking the Greenbelt is yet another way for Ottawa city hall to avoid admitting its responsibilities and simply blame things on the NCC's decisions.
Are the green open spaces and farms that offensive? No.
Are there plenty of ugly, rundown areas within the city that should be redeveloped? Yes.
Is there enough land for development for years if we use it wisely? Yes.
|
Are you saying that there is enough development land inside the greenbelt to last 10 years? If you are, do you have anything to back that up?
I'm in favour of infill and intensification, but I think that it's not the total solution to a growing population and growing demand for housing. Assuming that there is some portion of development that will occur in what is currently farm fields, why would you want that development to be at the fringes of the city when you could intensify the Greenbelt?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting they just sell the whole thing off to Ashcroft et al. But if they set very aggressive targets for intensity, and mandated a transit-oriented development then I would be in favour. I don't want Barrhaven North, and if that's the only current option then I would keep the land as it is until the situation changes.
What bothers me is people like John Baird who dismiss the idea out of hand as a complete non-starter. Protecting those suburban fields instead of rural fields seems to me to be the suburban large lot fantasy writ large.