In what way is a “new luxury townhome” built in the greenbelt probably starting at $800, 000 going to solve the housing issue? In addition to that, the dependency all those new home owners will have on a car to do anything due to the lack of infrastructure and access, is clearly being overlooked for some reason
A house is a house. Increasing supply will off vent some demand. No one likes living near apartment buildings so it's likely easier to build in new land vs pushing thru land development. Lots of people who are complaining about the development will also complain about apartments lowering their land values. As apartment bring congestion parking issues etc.
@vrc666 unlikely but that's your opinion. Where I live the bi law states nothing can be built anywhere not zoned for medium density. So all development must be done thru variance. And if you've ever been to one of those meeting. There's entire associations that pop up to fight it. As that's just reality.
Props to CBC for keeping the comments open. Eventually, Ontario will recognize that this OG fiasco was a crime beyond all imagination. Doug Frod won’t care: the only Ontarians who are helped by this are donors and developers. I hope y’all remember this next election
When it looks and smells like collusion, and the Premiere says, there's nothing to see or sniff here, it looks and smells even worse. Who has the agency to call for an investigation into a coverup!?
Why is this even a discussion, OF COURSE THEY SHOULDNT!! Build up, not out. The amount of single family homes being built instead of multi resident condos/apartment buildings is ridiculous. Can’t farm the land if everyone is taking it all up for there homes
@@michaelk2459 Ya that part I thought was odd. Oh it will cast a shadow. I never even thought about apartments near houses as a bad thing. But I live in a city all my life. But I have relatives in the country and do know country life as well. Still, the people who are poor and in need of more housing opportunities would never complain about a building casting a shadow on their home. They would just be glad to have a food and heat and running hot water.
@@marcol869 Ya my family is from Europe and my mom would tell me how life was there. So different here. In fact if kids lived with parents longer and saved for the future and planned out their prospective direction in life they may even not end up in debt as much. Here everyone goes out at a young age and knocks everyone up and have abortions problem solved let's go party and get stoned and drunk and ignore our elders. Sorry ... mini rant there.
For decades government environmental agencies would pick and choose parcels of land owned by private citizens and they would classify it environmentally protected. Once this was done a once valuable piece of property became virtually worthless. Now all the sudden because developers scooped up tens of thousands of acres of once environmentally protected land enough money has slipped across the premiers desk to suddenly remove the environmentally protected designation and reclassification as residential development.
The only land chosen for protection is land that is part of a natural heritage system of forests, rivers and wetlands. It is vital to protect groundwater as most rural comnunities, rural businesses and farms depend on it for drinking water.
CHANGE ZONING TO MIXED USE in SINGLE FAMILY ZONING areas. this is the what holds multiple level housings in most communities. Residential areas need mixed use to be a truly functional community. Politicians play with numbers exchange Mother nature needs her watershed expanses to feed us clean water. Condense currently developed areas, raise up and mix uses. save our green. the infrastructure is already established
Ontario needs approx 200,000 new homes per year to account for our immigration quotas. Towers take several years to construct. Sad to say this, but we need more land to build for housing. I say this as a person who cares about the environment. We have a rapidly growing population and housings already completely unaffordable. Time to cut some trees down.
Interesting idea however I don’t think the government is smart enough to think of that the government interest are beheld in arms of capitalism not the people
I’m gonna say no. Should really focus on infill and transitioning a lot of workers to work from home. Converting part of the office buildings into affordable housing
“nobody wants to see their neighborhood of single family homes transformed into a jungle of dense megastructures” first of all having higher density in a neighborhood doesn’t necessarily mean constructing skyscrapers. developing 2-5 story residential/ mixed use neighborhoods can double or triple the density while staying calm and quiet, especially if you implement measures like traffic calming. also, if you genuinely think preserving soulless, isolating, backwards, environmentally horrendous car-dependant suburbia is a good idea, look at yourself.
Suburbia subsidies needs to end, it's a fact that Suburbia drains city resources and its more expensive to maintain its infrastructure. If the NIMBYS are so worried about their so call "neighbourhood character" they need to pay for it, it should not be up to the city to cover for unsustainable neighbourhoods
@@SaliskyIts definitely appealing but it is also inefficient use of land and leads to more sprawl. Municipalities benefit from denser communities (more concentrated tax base) and denser communities are more livable in the end. We need to move on from focusing on single family housing.
Build mixed-use, high-density. Build 5-6 stories, lowest two floors for commercial and offices, 3-4 floors of residential. Replace single-family detached. Higher density means walkability, less need for cars. Less parking, less road… still more land for building. Any scheme to address affordability that doesn’t include building more stock is nonsense. Banning foreign buyers. Banning speculation. Money will find a way if stock fails to meet demand. Build enough to sink housing costs then speculator money will trip over itself to exit the market for other speculative markets. Or that money will have to do actual work like funding innovation.
Though I agree with you that banning speculation and foreign buyers are not solutions...high-density building is not the answer either as our infrastructure is not build effectively. in this country anymore for the most part (look at the gridlock at Sheppard/Yonge in Toronto or around Promenade in Thornhill with those left turns as examples)..more high density means more gridlock...we need high speed rail to fix our current gridlock...
a lot of people don't want to live packed like rats in on top of each other. And good luck fitting a family into a 500 sq.ft. single bedroom condo...that is if they can come up with the million dollars it would cost them to buy it.
the govt should look at building more low cost housing. Currently people buy condos and rent them out to low cost families because it is guaranteed income because the govt directly sends the owner the cheque for rent. The owner doesn't need to rely on the renter to pay. So owners buy condos rent them out and collect full market value for the rent. Build more low cost housing to move people out of condos that should be put on the market for buyers will create more supply or free up supply available for buyers and at the same time provide housing for low income families.
I know the detached homes they plan to build in my city won't have driveways and will be in an area where they will expand the roads in the future and is right near the airport. Also we are worried about the homes built after 2018 not being protected by rental controls. I can't find any updated info on that to see if that was temporary or still stands today in 2023.
@@kookoo6128 So much land where? No one wants to drive 2 hours to get to their workplace. The government should build high rise affordable apartment units for the people, not for the investors.
The core problem is that Ontario and its municipalities believe they have the right to develop Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee land without their consent. Ontario knew that First Nations would not take well to Bill 23, and lo and behold the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, Mississaugas of the Credit, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island have all voiced their disapproval.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Could u enlighten us with more details, as to y the First Nations are reluctant in the face of the challenges of our times (more people -> people need to live) ? If they do understand, then r municipalities plans unsustainable for the environment? Thanks for reading
And yet Trudeau's immigration policy is to bring 400,000 immigrants to Canada every year. Where are they going to live? Obviously, they are going to live on the land stolen from First Nations. Not only should the federal policy be zero immigration due to this issue but a policy of non-First Nations returning to their countries of origin should be embarked upon.
@@hermitlife4all490 there's more to it that meets the eye. If u look up it must be on the Govt of Canada website. Just search with a open mind. News channels have their own agenda (clicks), so I wouldn't trust them without thought.
No building on the greenbelt, and investigate the sale of land prior to announcement of zone change. Impeachment of premier, no dictatorship. Hamilton Ontario Canada 16/1/23
Those developers got some kind of tip. Nobody is spending $50 to $80million on greenbelt land just before the provincial government opened them up for development.
As the Ford govt's own housing task force noted there is no need to build housing in the Greenbelt. Towns and cities have planned for growth to 2051 without touching the Greenbelt. Why is there a housing shortfall right now? Ask your municipality how many houses are approved waiting to be built- in York Region its 50,000- Waterloo 30,000. Is the development community holding back supply to keep prices high?
The housing shortfall right now? Answer: Skilled labour shortage. The Green Belt should be left alone to serve it's purpose as a environmental habitat and natural carbon recycler. This is the solution to our carbon footprint . The rural plan fits for the development trends towards organic fruit and vegetable production farms.
Do you like to eat, breathe clean air, drink good water? Think about it! I will never support a government that does this deal. I voted for Ford. Not again if this happens!
Same. My mom kept defending Ford when I started not and now even she sees that Ford is making huge mistakes or at least decisions that screw over the poor and people who depend on nature food and water and cannot afford to filter everything.
IF THE DEVELOPMENT continues in the OG, I would love to see modern agriculture farming technology within the concept to revive and support local investment, local consumption, and protection of the ecological areas that the OG was intended to protect .
It's sad to see that the government that so many of us voted for decided to do the easy thing that won't fix our housing shortage, rather than implement some slightly more complex reforms that would actually make an impact. It's a sad betrayal.
Actually when the green belt was unilaterally imposed by Dalton McGuinty, developers jumped to Barrie. They gobbled up thousands of acres of farmland and other important regions and built thousands of homes. That produced a huge bedroom community for Toronto. Hence the 50+km stretch of hwy 400 became traffic congested & stop & go putting commuters on the road for an hour each way. That's only part of what DMcG's shortsighted greenwashing did.
You feel bretrayed that Doug Ford sided with big developers? LOL WTF did you think was going to happen? This was so predictable if you know anything at all about Doug Ford and the Conservatives.
The TACC Group speculated when purchasing the farmland in the early 2000's in hopes of developing it. They lost when the 2005 greenbelt act foiled their plans and have since been litigating/lobbying government to allow them to develop on the land. They find success in Ford, who carefully spins it as if it's a matter of adding supply to address the housing crisis, which he claims will get only worse throughout this decade as we get an influx of immigrants (a clever little double-entendre for him as he also gets to take a shot at federal liberal immigration policies). Issue is...the land they're opening up for development will not add density - which is what we need in the GTA and throughout towns in Ontario - as the TACC Developments focuses on luxury single family town houses (which will result in sprawl as these communities need local infrastructure). Also - if we're expecting a population increase....we need food/agriculture right? We should be increasing local agricultural capacity if anything, especially after recent experiences (closing of borders during the pandemic, supply chain issues, and inflation). This issue has added unnecessary stress to the conscience of Ontarians over the last few months so i thank you for making such an excellent video to raise awareness on the topic. It's a clear-cut case of corruption and sets a dangerous precedent for future encroachment on the greenbelt. I hope for the sake of our democracy that these plans are stopped and all involved face the appropriate consequences.
the new developments will all be car dependent which means the province, city and federal government will all lose money yearly paying for the maintenance costs and replacement costs of the road. single family homes simply don’t bring in enough tax revenue to pay for the road in front of the home
It is hard to take development proposals seriously sometimes. Next block over from my 15 storey apartment in Brampton there are two 48 storey building proposed. I'm sure they won't end up anywhere near as tall, since the last development finished last fall ended up at 26 storeys.
Ya, I have been suspicious ever since I heard of the law that was passed a few years back about homes built after 2018 (believe Nov) not being protected from rent increases. Not sure if there was an end to that but previous "affordable home" claims did not help and even more now than ever are homeless (including my brother who lost his job just before Christmas) right in Windsor.
@@youngscott9970 sorry I should had said that Canadians want something different than your city with lower density, parc, less traffic on the road and I can assure you that no Canadians want to have people homeless.
I wonder just how many homes could be built in the area designated for the casino? Casino vs greenbelt? Time to reevaluated priorities, like "build up, not out." And as for the "insider information," if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.....
Agreed. I think they should build on golf courses, there's plenty of land there. Well, maybe not, most of these politicians and developers, are on golf courses many times a week.
Leave our greenbelt alone. If you need more land , which Ontario wouldn't need, if there weren't so many people coming here. So if they need space, why not build on the GOLF COURSES.😡 There are plenty of those.
What's the second side!? Isn't it the platform Ford has, and that this investigation is responding too? Ford hasn't had an opportunity to speak on the issue? Or is the second side speaking openly on collusion? Maybe, as it is with insider trading, to get the real scoop you have to be undercover because illegal behaviour isn't usually reported openly.
@@MyMonkeyMind7 Well, to begin with, it would be nice had they interviewed someone in favour of Ford's plan, and/or Greenbelt development in general. In addition, there can be more than two sides to an issue, you know? The folks interviewed are clearly opposed to any Greenbelt development, while Ford wants 7,400 acres developed. That's a miniscule fraction of the Greenbelt (less than 0.4%), enough to build only a few thousand homes (recall that this land is mostly in low-density regions), which you could argue is not enough to solve our housing crisis. So that's a third "side", if you will - the idea that Ford's plan didn't go far enough. A fourth one could be that a different, perhaps less valuable, collection of 7,400 Greenbelt acres should be developed, since not all land is created equal, and Ford's government is implicitly assuming that it is by "replacing" Greenbelt land. Then, of course, there are those opposed to the concept of a Greenbelt altogether. Despite being around for less than 20 years, it’s seen by some as completely sacrosanct. Again, many sides to this complex issue, but the CBC is not exploring it as deeply as they could.
This is the side hardly heard, that is why. Like one commenter said (and I quote): @slloydswail9052 3 weeks ago As the Ford govt's own housing task force noted there is no need to build housing in the Greenbelt. Towns and cities have planned for growth to 2051 without touching the Greenbelt. Why is there a housing shortfall right now? Ask your municipality how many houses are approved waiting to be built- in York Region its 50,000- Waterloo 30,000. Is the development community holding back supply to keep prices high?
Honestly the green belt should be bulit because you know what 70% of ontario did not vote and only 34% of ontarins voted and now doug ford basically can do whatever he wants with 76 seats we always point the finger at ford when reality we should be pointing it at us we reap what you sow when most of us didnt go out and cast a ballot
The greenbelt should be built on because those ridings are liberal. The liberals are the ones bringing in 500k immigrants a year. They should be the ones housing them.
Why they do not build proper infrastructure in this country is beyond me...Canada is the only G7 nation without high speed rail (trains running at 250km/h or faster)...there are NO plans to build high speed rail anywhere in the country...in comparison Japan is building a 600km/h Maglev line between Osaka and Tokyo (just under 400 km in distance). There are 18 nations in the world with high speed rail including the United States, Uzbekistan, and the United Kingdom. Especially with all the carbon taxes and gas taxes Canada has collected over the years, we should already be planning to build a high speed rail line as that is what those gas and carbon taxes should be used for. Toronto to Sudbury is 400km in distance...building a Maglev line between them means it would take around 40 minutes to travel between the two cities...the average price of homes sold in Sudbury in November 2022 was $439,158 according to google. Affordable housing PLUS saving the greenbelt could BOTH happen if high speed rail was built in this country, so again, it frustrates me that we are not building high speed rail here as there is NO EXCUSE to not doing this (especially with the feds planning to build a new airport in Pickering (instead of doing the sensible thing and building a high speed rail link between Pearson and Munro (in Hamilton) along the highways 407/5/52ish/65ish corridor...which would cost $10s of billions LESS than a new airport))...high density residential (what the government is planning) along our roadways is a recipe for increased gridlock...
I think it is truly asinine that rail lines are being paved over or removed today. There is no thought for the future anymore. We also have the worst healthcare in the G7.
Yes with certain conditions: 1) only high rise apartment buildings 2) the roof of these buildings need to house grass, plants, even trees....mostly taking care of what's being lost and 3) parking is only underground to limit the amount of natural landscape lost
Ok but theres a bunch of unnoccupied housing because people are holding onto them like poker chips. So building more seems irrelevant. Also I am glad canada is a place where the people who live in a location get a say in what happens to that location. Especially since most people can be bought out. If I moved somewhere to live without extreme population density, that density moving in without without me having any control would defeat my reason for moving there. I would thefor move somewhere I DID get a say. The housing crisis isnt happening because of a lack of housing. It happening because we are lowkey suffering from what happened to Australia, where housing was viewed as a "safe investment". The houses on the greenbelt are for a few specific extremely rich people, who could afford to live anywhere anyway. Also, this was great reporting. Ty for bringing us around and familiarizing us with whats going on.
Densify the suburbs instead. Do away with US-style carcentric developments, then proceed to build and connect all new developments around the new GO Transit stations.
Talking taxing and taxing and taxing us to save the climate and environment, and you want to destroy a great green belt. Stupidity to even think of it.
Ya, makes you realize we are just told thing to get us to bend which ever way the government wants to allow them to do what ever they wanted to do all along. We agree to certain things, not even realizing we were manipulated to agree to it full-heartedly.
Charles III came up with the Carbon Tax at the gas pump. He is a Racketeer Criminal as British Mafia and is not Royalty. The Royalty of Canada is Hollywood Royalty. Natalie Helferty Queen of Canada who inherited the Racketeering Problem in Canada by Britain since 1902.
Some things don’t make sense to me in Toronto. Why don’t we build or expand near existing transit? Warden Station has been around for like forever but there have been no TOC or development proposals to develop the surroundings yet. Baffles me quite frankly. Every station along the TTC subway lines should be a high density/high rise development location. Beats me why that’s not being done.
Not In My Back Yard. Simply rezoning single family suburbs to multi story mixed use neibourhoods near existing train stations would solve everything, the housing crisis, and we could keep the green belt, but it would face huge opposition from the existing boomers.
What else is new? They've been building on the best farm land in Southern Ontario since the 50's...gone are all the apple/pear orchards....Build on everything Toronto -GTA turn everything into an urban concrete jungle.
It’s interesting that the same people who yak on about planting a trillion trees, banning forestry, keeping oil in the ground, reducing carbon footprints and all that other eco-propaganda have nothing to say about increasing urbanization, building in the green belt, and using limited arable land for housing. Could it be that people who believe a city is preferred human habitat would rather impose their environmental standards anywhere but where they live?
No. If the pandemic has taught us anything, that food security should be a national issue period. No matter whose land it is, the lack of emphasis on a 100km sourced food supply is insane. If you build more calorie towers, expect to intensify food production accordingly. Duh.
Our Canadian politics also day by day become like other currupt countries. Every one make free easy money. Canadian government always talk about environment and so on.when time to action they try to gives so many excuses. Province government follow same foot step.
I disagree with the conclusion at the end of the video. This is not complicated at all. Tell Ford's corrupt government to get their hands off the greenbelt. Find another plan. Stop the urban sprawl, there is plenty of development land left in Ontario.
The real estate speculators seem to have better access to the Ford government than the general public. It may not be Ford specifically who has been compromised, but he should be careful to ensure that the government is being corrupted. Ontario has plenty of non-green space to build upon. Streamlining administration would be a good place to start
Building 800 thousand dollar homes and million dollar condos will not help average Canadians to own a home. So ruining our greenbelt for greed is unexceptable.
While I agree it won't be affordable, the theory is that if enough houses are built, it will eventually lower the average house price. More supply =less demand
@@Salisky What really needs to be looked at is why the price went up so drastically in such a short time. To fix something, you look for the cause first and fix that. Not patch it up with another solution unrelated to the cause.
At the present time, Canada gets most fruit and vegetables from California and Florida. However, California is flooded in many areas currently producing nothing and Florida is said to be sinking into the ocean and in the near future no longer will grow anything except seaweed and fish. The green belt will become extremely important to Canadians as fruit, vegetable and grain producing area. It has the best soil for growing crops according to farmers. Building houses can be done on almost any land.
100% no we definitely need that keep more green places instead of less there's so many other parts of Canada or people can build houses. Like 98% of Canada.
No , it should be built in the near north. Places like North Bay , Subury, Owen Sound . Go where land costs are lower but infrastructure is in place and is expandable.
Housing should not be built on the green belt. There are lots of places that could be built on..there is tons of run down old buildings in the city that should be knocked down..there is property all over..also the government of ontario had a full town out of the city they had demolished in the past 10 years..they had cfb edgar they demolished.there is so many places other then the greenbelt..once you build on it you can't put it back..
Informative and thanks for navigating and explaining the issues facing our communities and their members. 🤔 something to seriously think about in making a sound decision when it comes time. 💯✊🏽
100% best summary. Nothing the government says can be taken as 100% truth. I mean, even taxes were supposed to be temporary to help out the economy after WWII and we still pay taxes. Any way future plans can be slid in, will be. Even under the promise of helping people afford homeownership.
The Pickering Airport was cancelled as it was on the Agricultural Preserve of the Greenbelt. Evil One Chuck Cherniak was spinning claptrap about the Airport. Pearson has no planes landing anymore. Quantum Leaping is how people travel nowadays. They are carried by their Spirit.
In my city they have torn down buildings that are only 10 years old for these elaborate schemes instead of focusing on housing in the city. Outside the city they seem to be claiming land before surrounding areas claim them. And it is mostly about money and future profits.
Makes me wonder what is the REAL reason for wanting to open up more Greenbelt for building on. Like one commenter said (and I quote): @slloydswail9052 3 weeks ago As the Ford govt's own housing task force noted there is no need to build housing in the Greenbelt. Towns and cities have planned for growth to 2051 without touching the Greenbelt. Why is there a housing shortfall right now? Ask your municipality how many houses are approved waiting to be built- in York Region its 50,000- Waterloo 30,000. Is the development community holding back supply to keep prices high?
In what way is a “new luxury townhome” built in the greenbelt probably starting at $800, 000 going to solve the housing issue? In addition to that, the dependency all those new home owners will have on a car to do anything due to the lack of infrastructure and access, is clearly being overlooked for some reason
$$$$$$
A house is a house. Increasing supply will off vent some demand. No one likes living near apartment buildings so it's likely easier to build in new land vs pushing thru land development. Lots of people who are complaining about the development will also complain about apartments lowering their land values. As apartment bring congestion parking issues etc.
@@caliph20 that's a completely wrong analysis.
@vrc666 unlikely but that's your opinion. Where I live the bi law states nothing can be built anywhere not zoned for medium density. So all development must be done thru variance. And if you've ever been to one of those meeting. There's entire associations that pop up to fight it. As that's just reality.
@@caliph20 How about those Tesla homes, I wouldn't touch any of the Greenbelt.
Props to CBC for keeping the comments open. Eventually, Ontario will recognize that this OG fiasco was a crime beyond all imagination. Doug Frod won’t care: the only Ontarians who are helped by this are donors and developers.
I hope y’all remember this next election
I will remember !
I hate that the cbc picks and chooses which videos can and cant be commented on. It damages their credibility.
Why elections? Canada isn't set up for elections to happen again....
@@marcol869 same here
When it looks and smells like collusion, and the Premiere says, there's nothing to see or sniff here, it looks and smells even worse. Who has the agency to call for an investigation into a coverup!?
Why is this even a discussion, OF COURSE THEY SHOULDNT!!
Build up, not out. The amount of single family homes being built instead of multi resident condos/apartment buildings is ridiculous. Can’t farm the land if everyone is taking it all up for there homes
Tell that to these Nimby conservationists who will fight tooth and nail to block any development of a ten story apartment next to their houses.
@@marcol869 I agree
@@michaelk2459 Ya that part I thought was odd. Oh it will cast a shadow. I never even thought about apartments near houses as a bad thing. But I live in a city all my life. But I have relatives in the country and do know country life as well. Still, the people who are poor and in need of more housing opportunities would never complain about a building casting a shadow on their home. They would just be glad to have a food and heat and running hot water.
@@marcol869 Ya my family is from Europe and my mom would tell me how life was there. So different here. In fact if kids lived with parents longer and saved for the future and planned out their prospective direction in life they may even not end up in debt as much. Here everyone goes out at a young age and knocks everyone up and have abortions problem solved let's go party and get stoned and drunk and ignore our elders. Sorry ... mini rant there.
For decades government environmental agencies would pick and choose parcels of land owned by private citizens and they would classify it environmentally protected. Once this was done a once valuable piece of property became virtually worthless.
Now all the sudden because developers scooped up tens of thousands of acres of once environmentally protected land enough money has slipped across the premiers desk to suddenly remove the environmentally protected designation and reclassification as residential development.
Just follow the money!
That is corruption and it should be delt with. If that's what's happening he should be charged
The only land chosen for protection is land that is part of a natural heritage system of forests, rivers and wetlands. It is vital to protect groundwater as most rural comnunities, rural businesses and farms depend on it for drinking water.
Ford is not the one who implemented the useless greenbelt, that was McGuilty and his little henchmen (Wynne)
@@Disgruntled_Canadian the green belt is not useless. Greenbelt help the environment and create a home for wildlife.
CHANGE ZONING TO MIXED USE in SINGLE FAMILY ZONING areas. this is the what holds multiple level housings in most communities. Residential areas need mixed use to be a truly functional community. Politicians play with numbers exchange Mother nature needs her watershed expanses to feed us clean water. Condense currently developed areas, raise up and mix uses. save our green. the infrastructure is already established
Well said 👍🏽
THIS!!! ☝️☝️☝️
and reduce the power of NIMBYism.
Ontario needs approx 200,000 new homes per year to account for our immigration quotas. Towers take several years to construct. Sad to say this, but we need more land to build for housing.
I say this as a person who cares about the environment. We have a rapidly growing population and housings already completely unaffordable. Time to cut some trees down.
Interesting idea however I don’t think the government is smart enough to think of that the government interest are beheld in arms of capitalism not the people
Or scrapping some rules regulating land density use like Montreal. Existing rules force people to go car.
I’m gonna say no. Should really focus on infill and transitioning a lot of workers to work from home. Converting part of the office buildings into affordable housing
Good idea and better for the environment too.
“nobody wants to see their neighborhood of single family homes transformed into a jungle of dense megastructures”
first of all having higher density in a neighborhood doesn’t necessarily mean constructing skyscrapers. developing 2-5 story residential/ mixed use neighborhoods can double or triple the density while staying calm and quiet, especially if you implement measures like traffic calming.
also, if you genuinely think preserving soulless, isolating, backwards, environmentally horrendous car-dependant suburbia is a good idea, look at yourself.
I don't hate suburbia. There's something about having a big backyard with a BBQ and a pool with a big lawn that is so appealing.
Suburbia subsidies needs to end, it's a fact that Suburbia drains city resources and its more expensive to maintain its infrastructure. If the NIMBYS are so worried about their so call "neighbourhood character" they need to pay for it, it should not be up to the city to cover for unsustainable neighbourhoods
@@SaliskyIts definitely appealing but it is also inefficient use of land and leads to more sprawl. Municipalities benefit from denser communities (more concentrated tax base) and denser communities are more livable in the end. We need to move on from focusing on single family housing.
Nah I'm good, you can chose to live in your "high density neighborhood" if you want. I'd still rather own my own car and single family house.
Build mixed-use, high-density. Build 5-6 stories, lowest two floors for commercial and offices, 3-4 floors of residential. Replace single-family detached. Higher density means walkability, less need for cars. Less parking, less road… still more land for building.
Any scheme to address affordability that doesn’t include building more stock is nonsense. Banning foreign buyers. Banning speculation. Money will find a way if stock fails to meet demand. Build enough to sink housing costs then speculator money will trip over itself to exit the market for other speculative markets. Or that money will have to do actual work like funding innovation.
You’d get my vote
Though I agree with you that banning speculation and foreign buyers are not solutions...high-density building is not the answer either as our infrastructure is not build effectively. in this country anymore for the most part (look at the gridlock at Sheppard/Yonge in Toronto or around Promenade in Thornhill with those left turns as examples)..more high density means more gridlock...we need high speed rail to fix our current gridlock...
a lot of people don't want to live packed like rats in on top of each other. And good luck fitting a family into a 500 sq.ft. single bedroom condo...that is if they can come up with the million dollars it would cost them to buy it.
the govt should look at building more low cost housing. Currently people buy condos and rent them out to low cost families because it is guaranteed income because the govt directly sends the owner the cheque for rent. The owner doesn't need to rely on the renter to pay. So owners buy condos rent them out and collect full market value for the rent.
Build more low cost housing to move people out of condos that should be put on the market for buyers will create more supply or free up supply available for buyers and at the same time provide housing for low income families.
No one wants condos anymore, NO ONE. There’s just people (who think they’re special) who want other people to live in condos.
No
Plain and simple, NO
Hell no!! Protect the damn Greenbelt! This shouldn't even be discussed right now.
Ontario should build multi storied affordable houses instead of million dollar detached homes.
I know the detached homes they plan to build in my city won't have driveways and will be in an area where they will expand the roads in the future and is right near the airport. Also we are worried about the homes built after 2018 not being protected by rental controls. I can't find any updated info on that to see if that was temporary or still stands today in 2023.
Exactly. Learn from Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York
They know that but they don't do it. If there is a housing shortage you would build vertical not horizonta
@@invoker7826 that makes no sense..why? there is SOOO much land...i cannot find renters for vertical investment properties..people want homes..
@@kookoo6128 So much land where? No one wants to drive 2 hours to get to their workplace. The government should build high rise affordable apartment units for the people, not for the investors.
The core problem is that Ontario and its municipalities believe they have the right to develop Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee land without their consent.
Ontario knew that First Nations would not take well to Bill 23, and lo and behold the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, Mississaugas of the Credit, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island have all voiced their disapproval.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Could u enlighten us with more details, as to y the First Nations are reluctant in the face of the challenges of our times (more people -> people need to live) ? If they do understand, then r municipalities plans unsustainable for the environment? Thanks for reading
And yet Trudeau's immigration policy is to bring 400,000 immigrants to Canada every year. Where are they going to live? Obviously, they are going to live on the land stolen from First Nations.
Not only should the federal policy be zero immigration due to this issue but a policy of non-First Nations returning to their countries of origin should be embarked upon.
@@hermitlife4all490 Could it be federal funding reqd for development?
@@hermitlife4all490 there's more to it that meets the eye. If u look up it must be on the Govt of Canada website. Just search with a open mind.
News channels have their own agenda (clicks), so I wouldn't trust them without thought.
Word!
I've lived in Stouffville, Ontario for 11 years and builders haven't stopped building here yet!
9:20 start here, this is why Canada has housing crisis. not because there are no more lands to build
Canada has a housing crisis because of immigration and nothing else.
great reporting BTW. Keep up the good work to keep our leaders accountable.
No building on the greenbelt, and investigate the sale of land prior to announcement of zone change. Impeachment of premier, no dictatorship. Hamilton Ontario Canada 16/1/23
Those developers got some kind of tip. Nobody is spending $50 to $80million on greenbelt land just before the provincial government opened them up for development.
As the Ford govt's own housing task force noted there is no need to build housing in the Greenbelt. Towns and cities have planned for growth to 2051 without touching the Greenbelt. Why is there a housing shortfall right now? Ask your municipality how many houses are approved waiting to be built- in York Region its 50,000- Waterloo 30,000. Is the development community holding back supply to keep prices high?
Thanks for the info.
The housing shortfall right now? Answer: Skilled labour shortage. The Green Belt should be left alone to serve it's purpose as a environmental habitat and natural carbon recycler. This is the solution to our carbon footprint . The rural plan fits for the development trends towards organic fruit and vegetable production farms.
No. No No. Doug Ford should go!!!
Do you like to eat, breathe clean air, drink good water? Think about it! I will never support a government that does this deal. I voted for Ford. Not again if this happens!
Same. My mom kept defending Ford when I started not and now even she sees that Ford is making huge mistakes or at least decisions that screw over the poor and people who depend on nature food and water and cannot afford to filter everything.
IF THE DEVELOPMENT continues in the OG, I would love to see modern agriculture farming technology within the concept to revive and support local investment, local consumption, and protection of the ecological areas that the OG was intended to protect .
No! Absolutely not. There are other solutions to housing other than destroying what little greenery there is in large cities.
No no no no! But of course Ford will just go ahead with it!
Of course he will. Just like Trudeau just goes ahead and does things.
Lol how does a few $800,000 homes solve anything?? Suburban sparwl will only make traffic even worse.
Guess people prefer houses. You can do whatever you want in a house compared to a condo.
Respect: This is Native American land!
It's sad to see that the government that so many of us voted for decided to do the easy thing that won't fix our housing shortage, rather than implement some slightly more complex reforms that would actually make an impact. It's a sad betrayal.
He is not doing it because it is EASY. He is doing this for his buddies to make money. It’s ALWAYS about money.
@@catherinewilson1079 Yep...Ford and his money hungry buddies will do anything for greed.
Actually when the green belt was unilaterally imposed by Dalton McGuinty, developers jumped to Barrie. They gobbled up thousands of acres of farmland and other important regions and built thousands of homes. That produced a huge bedroom community for Toronto. Hence the 50+km stretch of hwy 400 became traffic congested & stop & go putting commuters on the road for an hour each way. That's only part of what DMcG's shortsighted greenwashing did.
I think the better solution is just to open the entire green belt except few sensitive areas. All u can build.
You feel bretrayed that Doug Ford sided with big developers? LOL WTF did you think was going to happen? This was so predictable if you know anything at all about Doug Ford and the Conservatives.
The TACC Group speculated when purchasing the farmland in the early 2000's in hopes of developing it. They lost when the 2005 greenbelt act foiled their plans and have since been litigating/lobbying government to allow them to develop on the land. They find success in Ford, who carefully spins it as if it's a matter of adding supply to address the housing crisis, which he claims will get only worse throughout this decade as we get an influx of immigrants (a clever little double-entendre for him as he also gets to take a shot at federal liberal immigration policies). Issue is...the land they're opening up for development will not add density - which is what we need in the GTA and throughout towns in Ontario - as the TACC Developments focuses on luxury single family town houses (which will result in sprawl as these communities need local infrastructure). Also - if we're expecting a population increase....we need food/agriculture right? We should be increasing local agricultural capacity if anything, especially after recent experiences (closing of borders during the pandemic, supply chain issues, and inflation).
This issue has added unnecessary stress to the conscience of Ontarians over the last few months so i thank you for making such an excellent video to raise awareness on the topic. It's a clear-cut case of corruption and sets a dangerous precedent for future encroachment on the greenbelt. I hope for the sake of our democracy that these plans are stopped and all involved face the appropriate consequences.
Excellent research and agree with you
Your comment should have more thumbs up and be showing up at the top of all the comments! Well said and accurate!
Hello
Good afternoon
No I do not agree with building on green belt .shamfull
The thing is the downtown core of Toronto is not fully developed yet. But those land are not crown owned so government cannot sell them for money.
the new developments will all be car dependent which means the province, city and federal government will all lose money yearly paying for the maintenance costs and replacement costs of the road. single family homes simply don’t bring in enough tax revenue to pay for the road in front of the home
Andrew--I like the way you told this story. Easy to understand. ty
Facts
It is hard to take development proposals seriously sometimes. Next block over from my 15 storey apartment in Brampton there are two 48 storey building proposed. I'm sure they won't end up anywhere near as tall, since the last development finished last fall ended up at 26 storeys.
Sometimes I wonder if they just propose building to "save" the location for future prospects.. :(
Thank you for bring this to our attention
I had to watch this for school it was a nice nap
Yes. Keep Comments OPEN!!
Affordable homes, I doubt that very much .
Ya, I have been suspicious ever since I heard of the law that was passed a few years back about homes built after 2018 (believe Nov) not being protected from rent increases. Not sure if there was an end to that but previous "affordable home" claims did not help and even more now than ever are homeless (including my brother who lost his job just before Christmas) right in Windsor.
Maybe your best segment yet!
Short answer - NO! We need higher density housing in existing municipalities.
If they are going to proceed with green energy then yes they obviously should build up not out in big cities
I live in a city with 30million people and we don’t have a housing crisis. So maybe the problem is not about land?
How does your city compare to Toronto/Vancouver? Maybe Canadians want better than your city
@@screugneugneu1 If you wanting better means others being homeless, I don't know where the superiority is.
@@youngscott9970 sorry I should had said that Canadians want something different than your city with lower density, parc, less traffic on the road and I can assure you that no Canadians want to have people homeless.
@@youngscott9970 I am still curious what city you live in? Always happy to hear success stories.
He wont say it because it’s 🧢🧢🧢
If only CBC would have 'comments' open on all stories given we pay the 1.4 Billion $ annual budget.
I wonder just how many homes could be built in the area designated for the casino? Casino vs greenbelt? Time to reevaluated priorities, like "build up, not out." And as for the "insider information," if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.....
Agreed. I think they should build on golf courses, there's plenty of land there.
Well, maybe not, most of these politicians and developers, are on golf courses many times a week.
Absolutely not. Where do you think some of your food comes from?... we need farmers, we need clean drinking water.. its a no brainer.
I’ll give you a hint. It doesn’t come from the greenbelt.
@@Disgruntled_Canadian Did you watch the video? 7:20
NO
Turn the CBC BUILDING into housing
@@SnowWhite-hr4ho Uh they were there. It is not for sale.
Leave our greenbelt alone.
If you need more land , which Ontario wouldn't need, if there weren't so many people coming here.
So if they need space, why not build on the GOLF COURSES.😡 There are plenty of those.
This is an important issue, but why did you only interview people on one side of it?
Completely agree. One sided, as usual.
What's the second side!? Isn't it the platform Ford has, and that this investigation is responding too? Ford hasn't had an opportunity to speak on the issue? Or is the second side speaking openly on collusion? Maybe, as it is with insider trading, to get the real scoop you have to be undercover because illegal behaviour isn't usually reported openly.
@@MyMonkeyMind7 Well, to begin with, it would be nice had they interviewed someone in favour of Ford's plan, and/or Greenbelt development in general. In addition, there can be more than two sides to an issue, you know? The folks interviewed are clearly opposed to any Greenbelt development, while Ford wants 7,400 acres developed. That's a miniscule fraction of the Greenbelt (less than 0.4%), enough to build only a few thousand homes (recall that this land is mostly in low-density regions), which you could argue is not enough to solve our housing crisis. So that's a third "side", if you will - the idea that Ford's plan didn't go far enough. A fourth one could be that a different, perhaps less valuable, collection of 7,400 Greenbelt acres should be developed, since not all land is created equal, and Ford's government is implicitly assuming that it is by "replacing" Greenbelt land. Then, of course, there are those opposed to the concept of a Greenbelt altogether. Despite being around for less than 20 years, it’s seen by some as completely sacrosanct. Again, many sides to this complex issue, but the CBC is not exploring it as deeply as they could.
I thought because the other side is well talked about on the news.
This is the side hardly heard, that is why. Like one commenter said (and I quote):
@slloydswail9052
3 weeks ago
As the Ford govt's own housing task force noted there is no need to build housing in the Greenbelt. Towns and cities have planned for growth to 2051 without touching the Greenbelt. Why is there a housing shortfall right now? Ask your municipality how many houses are approved waiting to be built- in York Region its 50,000- Waterloo 30,000. Is the development community holding back supply to keep prices high?
Honestly the green belt should be bulit because you know what 70% of ontario did not vote and only 34% of ontarins voted and now doug ford basically can do whatever he wants with 76 seats we always point the finger at ford when reality we should be pointing it at us we reap what you sow when most of us didnt go out and cast a ballot
The greenbelt should be built on because those ridings are liberal. The liberals are the ones bringing in 500k immigrants a year. They should be the ones housing them.
Insider trading
Leave Green belt alone 😮💨
It's protected for a reason. Build elsewhere.
Thank you so very much for this reporting!
Why they do not build proper infrastructure in this country is beyond me...Canada is the only G7 nation without high speed rail (trains running at 250km/h or faster)...there are NO plans to build high speed rail anywhere in the country...in comparison Japan is building a 600km/h Maglev line between Osaka and Tokyo (just under 400 km in distance). There are 18 nations in the world with high speed rail including the United States, Uzbekistan, and the United Kingdom. Especially with all the carbon taxes and gas taxes Canada has collected over the years, we should already be planning to build a high speed rail line as that is what those gas and carbon taxes should be used for. Toronto to Sudbury is 400km in distance...building a Maglev line between them means it would take around 40 minutes to travel between the two cities...the average price of homes sold in Sudbury in November 2022 was $439,158 according to google. Affordable housing PLUS saving the greenbelt could BOTH happen if high speed rail was built in this country, so again, it frustrates me that we are not building high speed rail here as there is NO EXCUSE to not doing this (especially with the feds planning to build a new airport in Pickering (instead of doing the sensible thing and building a high speed rail link between Pearson and Munro (in Hamilton) along the highways 407/5/52ish/65ish corridor...which would cost $10s of billions LESS than a new airport))...high density residential (what the government is planning) along our roadways is a recipe for increased gridlock...
I think it is truly asinine that rail lines are being paved over or removed today. There is no thought for the future anymore. We also have the worst healthcare in the G7.
Ya and yet Japan and China have so many more people in a smaller area. We should look to how other countries handle housing.
the answer is almost always MIXED USED ZONING!!!!!
Yes with certain conditions: 1) only high rise apartment buildings 2) the roof of these buildings need to house grass, plants, even trees....mostly taking care of what's being lost and 3) parking is only underground to limit the amount of natural landscape lost
if there was grocery stores etc nearby then that would actually be a great place
@@gruntlord6 the ground floor should be an affordable grocery store and other needed retail as well as walk in clinics.
FK NO
If they wanna make housing affordable, just following the recommendations from the housing task force. But the Ford government isn't doing that
Exactly. :( THIS should be the top rated comment for this video.
Ok but theres a bunch of unnoccupied housing because people are holding onto them like poker chips. So building more seems irrelevant.
Also I am glad canada is a place where the people who live in a location get a say in what happens to that location. Especially since most people can be bought out. If I moved somewhere to live without extreme population density, that density moving in without without me having any control would defeat my reason for moving there. I would thefor move somewhere I DID get a say.
The housing crisis isnt happening because of a lack of housing. It happening because we are lowkey suffering from what happened to Australia, where housing was viewed as a "safe investment". The houses on the greenbelt are for a few specific extremely rich people, who could afford to live anywhere anyway.
Also, this was great reporting. Ty for bringing us around and familiarizing us with whats going on.
Densify the suburbs instead. Do away with US-style carcentric developments, then proceed to build and connect all new developments around the new GO Transit stations.
Nice to see narwhal continue to gain a platform! I miss having Fatima host CANADALAND'S backbench podcast
Talking taxing and taxing and taxing us to save the climate and environment, and you want to destroy a great green belt. Stupidity to even think of it.
Ya, makes you realize we are just told thing to get us to bend which ever way the government wants to allow them to do what ever they wanted to do all along. We agree to certain things, not even realizing we were manipulated to agree to it full-heartedly.
Charles III came up with the Carbon Tax at the gas pump. He is a Racketeer Criminal as British Mafia and is not Royalty. The Royalty of Canada is Hollywood Royalty. Natalie Helferty Queen of Canada who inherited the Racketeering Problem in Canada by Britain since 1902.
And you wonder why the cost of housing is so expensive. Completely self inflicted.
Because there is a CLIMATE CRISIS - Ummm hummm! Contradictions abound! I agree 100% with the solid logic presented by McIntosh and Syed.
Just subscribed to The Narwhal
Thank you for this program. We can’t give up the green belt.
Some things don’t make sense to me in Toronto. Why don’t we build or expand near existing transit? Warden Station has been around for like forever but there have been no TOC or development proposals to develop the surroundings yet. Baffles me quite frankly. Every station along the TTC subway lines should be a high density/high rise development location. Beats me why that’s not being done.
Not In My Back Yard. Simply rezoning single family suburbs to multi story mixed use neibourhoods near existing train stations would solve everything, the housing crisis, and we could keep the green belt, but it would face huge opposition from the existing boomers.
NOOOOOO
What else is new? They've been building on the best farm land in Southern Ontario since the 50's...gone are all the apple/pear orchards....Build on everything Toronto -GTA turn everything into an urban concrete jungle.
Exactly. But try to open a gravel pit so the concrete in that concrete jungle will hold together and there is hell to pay.
It’s interesting that the same people who yak on about planting a trillion trees, banning forestry, keeping oil in the ground, reducing carbon footprints and all that other eco-propaganda have nothing to say about increasing urbanization, building in the green belt, and using limited arable land for housing. Could it be that people who believe a city is preferred human habitat would rather impose their environmental standards anywhere but where they live?
Leave greenbelt green.
No. If the pandemic has taught us anything, that food security should be a national issue period. No matter whose land it is, the lack of emphasis on a 100km sourced food supply is insane. If you build more calorie towers, expect to intensify food production accordingly. Duh.
Yup and food costs will keep going up if Ford has his way
amazing job girls! don't stop! 🙌
Hell no….? Fkd …D.F
No absolutely not. There should be no building on the green belt.
Eye opening. Thank you!
Our Canadian politics also day by day become like other currupt countries.
Every one make free easy money.
Canadian government always talk about environment and so on.when time to action they try to gives so many excuses.
Province government follow same foot step.
Omg SO CORRUPT
100% and so many people do not realize it until as they age they see more and more and realize the corruption but are not listened to.
Hands off the green belt. No exceptions !
I disagree with the conclusion at the end of the video. This is not complicated at all. Tell Ford's corrupt government to get their hands off the greenbelt. Find another plan. Stop the urban sprawl, there is plenty of development land left in Ontario.
Sadly Ford isn't listening.
NO!!!
The real estate speculators seem to have better access to the Ford government than the general public. It may not be Ford specifically who has been compromised, but he should be careful to ensure that the government is being corrupted. Ontario has plenty of non-green space to build upon. Streamlining administration would be a good place to start
No! Keep the Greenbelt green
Building 800 thousand dollar homes and million dollar condos will not help average Canadians to own a home. So ruining our greenbelt for greed is unexceptable.
While I agree it won't be affordable, the theory is that if enough houses are built, it will eventually lower the average house price. More supply =less demand
@@Salisky What really needs to be looked at is why the price went up so drastically in such a short time. To fix something, you look for the cause first and fix that. Not patch it up with another solution unrelated to the cause.
At the present time, Canada gets most fruit and vegetables from California and Florida. However, California is flooded in many areas currently producing nothing and Florida is said to be sinking into the ocean and in the near future no longer will grow anything except seaweed and fish. The green belt will become extremely important to Canadians as fruit, vegetable and grain producing area. It has the best soil for growing crops according to farmers.
Building houses can be done on almost any land.
Hell no!!
well done ladies
I enjoyed this as well. Important info
Yea they were well spoken and gave excellent information!
Wow! Thank you,Andrew. This is so clearly a situation of Doug Ford rewarding his cronies! A public inquiry is needed here.
100% no we definitely need that keep more green places instead of less there's so many other parts of Canada or people can build houses.
Like 98% of Canada.
When can animals go to court with their layers!!! Never!! Shame on greedy people’s, thank you Ford and friends!!!
No , it should be built in the near north. Places like North Bay , Subury, Owen Sound . Go where land costs are lower but infrastructure is in place and is expandable.
Housing should not be built on the green belt. There are lots of places that could be built on..there is tons of run down old buildings in the city that should be knocked down..there is property all over..also the government of ontario had a full town out of the city they had demolished in the past 10 years..they had cfb edgar they demolished.there is so many places other then the greenbelt..once you build on it you can't put it back..
Insightful reporting! Would love to see this level of depth and quality on all cbc (and narwhal) stories.
No, and Ford should stop trying to cover up and quit lying. He needs to go.
The clue is in the name.
@18:44 Doug Ford seems to not bat an eye on Greenbelt use. His focus is full force, Build more homes.
Informative and thanks for navigating and explaining the issues facing our communities and their members.
🤔 something to seriously think about in making a sound decision when it comes time. 💯✊🏽
WE ARENT GOING TO TOUCH THE GREENBELT. but we are gonna take a big chunk and open it up and build on it. - -Doug Ford.
100% best summary. Nothing the government says can be taken as 100% truth. I mean, even taxes were supposed to be temporary to help out the economy after WWII and we still pay taxes. Any way future plans can be slid in, will be. Even under the promise of helping people afford homeownership.
There is 10,000 acres in Pickering Air port land un developed
The Pickering Airport was cancelled as it was on the Agricultural Preserve of the Greenbelt. Evil One Chuck Cherniak was spinning claptrap about the Airport. Pearson has no planes landing anymore. Quantum Leaping is how people travel nowadays. They are carried by their Spirit.
It’s ridiculous that houses cost like they can last 100 years, but last more like 50 years
In my city they have torn down buildings that are only 10 years old for these elaborate schemes instead of focusing on housing in the city. Outside the city they seem to be claiming land before surrounding areas claim them. And it is mostly about money and future profits.
So, what's the point of a greenbelt if it's going to be built on?
Makes me wonder what is the REAL reason for wanting to open up more Greenbelt for building on. Like one commenter said (and I quote):
@slloydswail9052
3 weeks ago
As the Ford govt's own housing task force noted there is no need to build housing in the Greenbelt. Towns and cities have planned for growth to 2051 without touching the Greenbelt. Why is there a housing shortfall right now? Ask your municipality how many houses are approved waiting to be built- in York Region its 50,000- Waterloo 30,000. Is the development community holding back supply to keep prices high?
Move people out of the cities to rural towns! There are so many homes and jobs available in smaller towns.