First, hello to those in this city forum. I have lived in Ottawa for one year, but I am from Vancouver. Thanks for the link waterloowarrior.
First I have issue with the some of the language(in the link):
"The strongest argument in favour of developing portions of the Greenbelt is to foster “sustainable development”. "
Just so were clear on my interpretation of sustainable development: -development that balances social, economic, environmental demands today without sacrificing the ability to meet future needs.
Fostering more sustainable development by densifying city areas is the right approach, but why the protected green belt? The outlying communities should be densified with rapid transit connecting them to each other and the inner urban area. With no stopping between inner and outer urban areas, a high speed (pick your favorite technology) would be better. I believe the continued expansion beyond the greenbelt in the 70s was a mistake, but the residents of these areas shouldn't have to suffer(commute etc). The housing and commute issues are driving this agenda on the political side.(will be popular with many of these residents)
The need for this land in the future in its current state is evident (food prices). I would call the proposal's environmental impacts understated with no mention of mitigation of heat island effect and carbon sink. I hope the environmental assessment will be about whether an area should be developed or not, and not just what mitigation is necessary for approval.
The social element should focus on more affordable housing stock in the inner urban area. Less commuting = more time at work or home. More people will still be driving from these communities given the current or proposed infrastructure.
The economics are simple. Many people can not afford to live close to where they work. Building new developments on existing city infrastructure as proposed has lower marginal cost and maximizes the utility (no pun intended
) Greenbelt is irrelevant in this calculation. The city wants to increase tax base, which is not bad. Arguing lack of tax base from these areas as a burden is erroneous. Create higher densities on either side. To be fair, most Canadian cities are in great need in infrastructure investment without adequate revenue sources.
I mention a few things here. Many items in the report(webpage) show positive economic, social and potentially environmental outcomes. Just because the report covers all three subject areas does not make it sustainable development. Urban development of land is linear we use the land to build on and recycle the built environment (eg. brownfields), but we do not return the land for 'green use'. This is land needed as is in the future.
Note: The transportation plan should be incorporated with any land-use development plans.