Budget boost for GTA transit

[cdl42]

"Note that the entire south half of Caledon is exempt from greenbelt protection. A good chunk of the morraine land to the north was pre-approved for development prior to passing of the Greenbelt legislation.
Goodbye Caledon, I knew you well."

Okay... that's just plain wrong. Where did you read it? About 3/4 of Caledon is covered by the moraine and the escarpment, both of which are the basis of the greenbelt. Caledon town council is anti-development, with the town plan allowing for development only in Bolton, Caledon East, and Valleywood.

Caledon is larger than the entire City of Toronto and it isn't going anywhere.

 

[dan e 1980]

how will the 427 extension and the development it brings effect the humber river?

 

[FutureMayor]

Major Announcement for Mississauga Transit

Rumor has it that Mississauga will be a major winner in tomorrow's budget.

I suspect that the Mississauga BRT and the Hurontario LRT will become priority projects and will be fully funded by this government.

Louroz

 

[adma]

Caledon Village almost seems like a top candidate for subDuanyPlaterZyberk "satelliting" (cf. Brooklin)

 

[TdotTrickyRicky]

Cdl42,

I admit I was being overly dramatic (and unfortunately this discussion is tangent to the actual thread), but if you look at the greenbelt plan for caledon approximately 25 percent of Caledon was purposely left out from protection. It will likely be irrelevant that the town is anti-development because developers will automatically bypass the municipal goverment as they have in the past. With the greenbelt plan in place they actually have a stronger argument to the province to do this by stating that growth demands of the GTA region should take precedent over municipal concerns. The other 75 percent is divided into three jurisdictions: the Niagra Escarpment plan area, the Oak ridges Morraine area, and the protected country area. I used to live in the Oak Ridges Morraine segment in the North Eastern Part. So from experience I know that approximately half this land area is already developed into estate lot subdivisions. Land owners did their homework prior to the adoption of the greenbelt plan. A sizable chunk of the land was already approved for additional estate lot development. If you go there today you can see that development continues unobstructed. The development is more suburban to exurban in nature but the landscape is changing completely. I am not personally familiar with Caledon' west end which may not be influenced as strongly be development pressures (but probably will be with future highway expansion).

 

[cdl42]

It's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

If you check out the Places to Grow report maps, you're right that the greenbelt leaves 1/4 of Caledon uncovered, but the parts uncovered aren't designated as "settlement areas", "designated greenfield development areas", nor "future growth areas" (except for Bolton). The growth "blob" ends at Mayfield Road. Caledon should be safe, developers will have no case if they try to take it to the courts.

As for estate lots; sure they change the landscape, but they don't even compare to subdivision development in scale or effect. Hopefully the new laws will put brakes on it but I wouldn't worry about it too much. These things have always been scattered all over Caledon.

The Libs have made a good plan, but it's all pointless unless whoever's in power decides to enforce it.

 

[Mike in TO]

^ You also have to consider that the growth plan (Places to Grow) reflects the next 30 years. Eventually that land will come under pressure and be developed (we're talking decades from now). The GTA is a rapidly growing region and it is the responsibility of government to ensure that we have an adequate supply of land for housing and employment in the future.

The greenbelt plan as well as the NEP and ORMCP ensure that lands that are environmentally sensitive will be protected (unless approvals were granted prior to the implementation of those plans). The government went through extensive consultations and based the mapping of the greenbelt on scientific classification of farmland and environmentally sensitive lands.

The lands that were left outside the greenbelt will likely eventually be developed. That does not mean it will happen iminently, but in order to adequately plan for future population growth one must look at planning horizons in the span of decades rather than years. In the mean time hopefully infrastructure planning will be better funded than recent decades and that densities of new greenfield development increase soas to optimize the land resources that we do have. Generally even greenfield suburban growth densities have been increasing over the past three decades. Given tight land supplies in the GTA and rapidly increasing lot prices (primarily due to the greenbelt), the pressure to use land optimally and reduce lot sizes will reduce development pressure on lands in areas such as Caledon.

When the time comes to develop these lands under discussion hopefuly it is years down the road and that the development is completed based on solid planning principals.

 

[cdl42]

Quite right.