News   Dec 04, 2024
Eastgate Square Redevelopment Would Transform Hamilton Mall
 357     0 
News   Dec 04, 2024
News Roundup for December 4, 2024
 381     0 
News   Dec 04, 2024
The Taller One
 711     0 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

Northern Light said:
There are three in the pipeline in Southern Ontario that I'm aware of, 2 decent-sized.

The small one will be day-use only (its 500 acres) at the headwaters of the Humber, it was announced in 2022, but plans since have been fairly hushed.

This year the gov't quietly announced a 'major' new provincial park that will feature camping in central Ontario, but they've been very non-specific about where; meanwhile White Duck Provincial Park is on its way in the Kawarthas, it will be ~30,000acres and feature camping; but its apparently being held up by an interminably long finalization of the settlement w/the Algonquins of Ontario.

I would argue strongly for the following:

A dramatically expanded Bronte Provincial Park
A dramatically expanded Shorthills Provincial Park
A dramatically expanded Darlington Provincial Park
A long called for new park to link Sandbanks Provincial Park to Pres'quille and otherwise expanding Sandbanks.
A large expansion of Forks of the Credit Provincial Park
New/Expanded Parks on the escarpment to link Boyne Valley Provincial Park to Mono Cliffs and add camping
A significant enlargement of Bruce Peninsula National Park to the south and inclusion of a second campground
At minimum, a quadrupling in size of Pt. Pelee Provincial Park to protect/restore additional coastline and add camping
Doubling the size of Awenda Provincial Park
Enlarging Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, including additional beach and group picnic space
A major new provincial Park fronting Lake Simcoe with camping.
A major new provincial Park at Baccus Woods with camping.
Enlarge the Luther Wildlife Hunting area by a factor of 5 (headwaters of the grand river), make it a provincial park.

That would be a decent start.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where both Wasaga and Awenda could expand without some fairly costly expropriations (likely *very* costly in the case of Wasaga).

It would be nice if they could add another park in Muskoka. There are only two with camping; Six Mile Lake in the south and Arrowhead in the north, nothing in the middle where the main lakes are. It would likely be impossible to assembly land on one of the three main lakes but there are a few decently sized lakes to the south and west of the main lakes area that are largely undeveloped and likely still Crown land.
 
lenaitch said:
I'm not sure where both Wasaga and Awenda could expand without some fairly costly expropriations (likely *very* costly in the case of Wasaga).
Click to expand...

Wasaga has two components to it, the beach, and the more natural area along the Nottawasaga River.

The land beyond the park is largely farmland, not an immediate development prospect so far as I'm aware; I see farmland in the area trading in a range of 25k-100k per acre.

So that portion of the acquisition wouldn't be all that bad, add 2,000 acres, 1,600 for nature, 400 for camping; for under 100M plus restoration/development costs.

I'm not sure exactly where the province's land holdings stop, as they own more than shows up on a map here. The Libs added to the park just a few years ago; but the sort of expansion of the natural area I have in mind might look like this:

1681564602140.png


That's ~1,000ha/ 2,500 acres

On the waterfront, I'd be focused on expanding south from Beach 6, and you really only need the water's edge/beach and a bit of extra room for picnics, maybe a parking lot.
The Beach there is already largely public/accessible, but not denoted as PP; and there is limited parking and access from Shore Lane. Homes here range from 600k-1.4M, strategic purchase of 40 or so should provide ample room
Lets say 40M. Its certainly not nothing, but against a provincial budget of 250B its a rounding error.

The waterfront area or near same that I have in mind is here:

1681564747011.png


Object, extend publicaly accessible beach to south-west, offer additional parking, consider acquisition along 51st street, create parking and access from 92

****

I'm less familiar w/your neck of the woods, but I'd think prices would be lower than Wasaga. A quick look on Realtor shows me 50 acres for only 650k within spitting distance of the park. 15k an acre, I'm 100% down w/that cost!

lenaitch said:
It would be nice if they could add another park in Muskoka. There are only two with camping; Six Mile Lake in the south and Arrowhead in the north, nothing in the middle where the main lakes are. It would likely be impossible to assembly land on one of the three main lakes but there are a few decently sized lakes to the south and west of the main lakes area that are largely undeveloped and likely still Crown land.
Click to expand...

The Muskoka Conservancy has a very large holding that I would imagine might be available for a park.

1681564231448.png


www.muskokaconservancy.org

Muskoka Conservancy | Home

Muskoka Conservancy is a registered charity based in Bracebridge Ontario. They are dedicated to securing land for nature conservation throughout Muskoka to prevent environmental degradation from climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss.
www.muskokaconservancy.org www.muskokaconservancy.org


1681564302587.png


Land Holdings or Easements marked by pins, Hiking symbol indicates currently permitted public access w/o permission.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Wasaga has two components to it, the beach, and the more natural area along the Nottawasaga River.

The land beyond the park is largely farmland, not an immediate development prospect so far as I'm away; I see farmland in the area trading in a range of 25k-100k per acre.

So that portion of the acquisition wouldn't be all that bad, add 2,000 acres, 1,600 for nature, 400 for camping; for under 100M plus restoration/development costs.

I'm not sure exactly where the province's land holdings stop, as they own more than shows up on a map here. The Libs added to the park just a few years ago; but the sort of expansion of the natural area I have in mind might look like this:

View attachment 469496

That's ~1,000ha/ 2,500 acres

On the waterfront, I'd be focused on expanding south from Beach 6, and you really only need the water's edge/beach and a bit of extra room for picnics, maybe a parking lot.
The Beach there is already largely public/accessible, but not denoted as PP; and there is limited parking and access from Shore Lane. Homes here range from 600k-1.4M, strategic purchase of 40 or so should provide ample room
Lets say 40M. Its certainly not nothing, but against a provincial budget of 250B its a rounding error.

The waterfront area or near same that I have in mind is here:

View attachment 469497

Object, extend publicaly accessible beach to south-west, offer additional parking, consider acquisition along 51st street, create parking and access from 92

****

I'm less familiar w/your neck of the woods, but I'd think prices would be lower than Wasaga. A quick look on Realtor shows me 50 acres for only 650k within spitting distance of the park. 15k an acre, I'm 100% down w/that cost!



The Muskoka Conservancy has a very large holding that I would imagine might be available for a park.

View attachment 469486

www.muskokaconservancy.org

Muskoka Conservancy | Home

Muskoka Conservancy is a registered charity based in Bracebridge Ontario. They are dedicated to securing land for nature conservation throughout Muskoka to prevent environmental degradation from climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss.
www.muskokaconservancy.org www.muskokaconservancy.org


View attachment 469487

Land Holdings or Easements marked by pins, Hiking symbol indicates currently permitted public access w/o permission.
Click to expand...
The Muskoka Conservancy website doesn't identify the size of their holding blocks but if I had to guess I think many would be fairly small. I'm wondering if the terms of gifting would support recreational park-type use (short of expropriation, which may not be needed since the Crown still holds a lot of land up there).

(Much later) Edit to Add

It would be interesting to know the gifting terms between the land donors and the Conservancy. I suppose that could be nullified by expropriation if the province could make a case for a 'compelling public interest purpose'.

Although not completely unique, Provincial Parks with non-contiguous components are fairly rare.

The mandate of Parks Ontario is not primarily focused on providing a playground for the masses; although activities such as camping would fall under secondary and tertiary purposes. From their website:

Our Vision:​

An exceptional system of provincial parks that inspires people to discover, enjoy, value, and protect forever.

Our Mission:​

To protect provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural landscape and maintain biodiversity while offering opportunities for inspiration, education, health, and recreational enjoyment; this is with the intention that these areas are/be managed to maintain their ecological integrity and preserved for future generations.

Ecological Integrity​

An important component of Ontario Parks operating mandate is to maintain Ecological Integrity of the park’s system. Find out more at www.ontarioparks.com/ecologicalintegrity.

Objectives:​

  • Protection: To permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity, and provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage and to manage these areas to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained.
  • Recreation: To provide opportunities for ecologically-sustainable outdoor recreation and encourage associated economic benefits.
  • Education: To provide opportunities for residents of Ontario and visitors to increase their knowledge and appreciation of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage.
  • Science: To facilitate scientific research and provide points of reference to support the monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape.
It would seem any additional holdings would have to support these principles,. Adding to beach area (and ancillary land) seems to be a no brainer. Plots of separated bush, maybe not so much.
 
Last edited:
lenaitch said:
The Muskoka Conservancy website doesn't identify the size of their holding blocks but if I had to guess I think many would be fairly small. I'm wondering if the terms of gifting would support recreational park-type use (short of expropriation, which may not be needed since the Crown still holds a lot of land up there).

(Much later) Edit to Add

It would be interesting to know the gifting terms between the land donors and the Conservancy. I suppose that could be nullified by expropriation if the province could make a case for a 'compelling public interest purpose'.

Although not completely unique, Provincial Parks with non-contiguous components are fairly rare.

The mandate of Parks Ontario is not primarily focused on providing a playground for the masses; although activities such as camping would fall under secondary and tertiary purposes. From their website:

Our Vision:​

An exceptional system of provincial parks that inspires people to discover, enjoy, value, and protect forever.

Our Mission:​

To protect provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural landscape and maintain biodiversity while offering opportunities for inspiration, education, health, and recreational enjoyment; this is with the intention that these areas are/be managed to maintain their ecological integrity and preserved for future generations.

Ecological Integrity​

An important component of Ontario Parks operating mandate is to maintain Ecological Integrity of the park’s system. Find out more at www.ontarioparks.com/ecologicalintegrity.

Objectives:​

  • Protection: To permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity, and provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage and to manage these areas to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained.
  • Recreation: To provide opportunities for ecologically-sustainable outdoor recreation and encourage associated economic benefits.
  • Education: To provide opportunities for residents of Ontario and visitors to increase their knowledge and appreciation of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage.
  • Science: To facilitate scientific research and provide points of reference to support the monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape.
It would seem any additional holdings would have to support these principles,. Adding to beach area (and ancillary land) seems to be a no brainer. Plots of separated bush, maybe not so much.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you're thinking of these lands as discontinuous fragments. As you noted, many abut MNR controlled property; as well as some existing provincial parks.

Then, of course, there's Limberlost, over 10,000 acres that was donated to the Nature Conservancy of Canada:

limberlostforest.com

Limberlost Forest and Wildlife Reserve

A year round hidden gem!
limberlostforest.com limberlostforest.com

I was simply highlighting that there are lots of building blocks for a new park up there.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm surprised you're thinking of these lands as discontinuous fragments. As you noted, many abut MNR controlled property; as well as some existing provincial parks.

Then, of course, there's Limberlost, over 10,000 acres that was donated to the Nature Conservancy of Canada:

limberlostforest.com

Limberlost Forest and Wildlife Reserve

A year round hidden gem!
limberlostforest.com limberlostforest.com

I was simply highlighting that there are lots of building blocks for a new park up there.
Click to expand...
Discontinuous in the sense that they were individual plots of private property turned over to a charity under a set of terms. True that they might well abut Crown land, or not. Muskoka Conservancy's website says they hold 51 properties representing about 4,000 acres; so averaging 78.5 acres each. Some will be larger - some smaller. Yes, they could be to nucleus of a provincial park.
 

Ministerial mandate letter fight about accountable government, CBC lawyer tells court​

From link.

The CBC’s fight to see mandate letters for Ontario cabinet ministers goes to “the very core” of what freedom-of-information regimes are designed to foster, a lawyer for the public broadcaster told the country’s top court Tuesday.

These elements are an informed public, accountable government and, ultimately, the democratic process, Justin Safayeni argued in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court heard oral arguments concerning Ontario’s attempt to block the release of 23 letters Premier Doug Ford wrote to cabinet ministers shortly after his Progressive Conservative government took office five years ago.

The Ontario government contends the disclosure of mandate letters would reveal the substance of deliberations of the premier and his cabinet, breaching a key tenet of Westminster-style government.

A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court reserved judgment in the case until a later date after hearing from the parties and several interveners.

The dispute began when Ontario’s cabinet office refused the CBC’s freedom-of-information request for the letters, citing a cabinet privilege exemption in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The CBC appealed to the Ontario information and privacy commissioner, who ordered release of the letters to the public broadcaster.

A divisional court dismissed the attorney general’s application for judicial review, and the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

That prompted Ontario to take its case to the Supreme Court.

The information and privacy commissioner had found no evidence the records in question were tabled at a cabinet meeting, weighed the reasons for a particular course of action or spelled out the views or ideas of cabinet members.

As a result, the commissioner found the cabinet office had not shown the letters would reveal the substance of cabinet deliberations.

In a written brief filed with the court, the Ontario attorney general says cabinet confidentiality, candour and solidarity are fundamental to a system where responsible ministers collectively decide government policy.

The attorney general argues the commissioner’s narrow and restrictive interpretation of “substance of deliberations” is an “unwarranted incursion” into the functioning of cabinet.

Although the commissioner characterizes the policy priorities in the letters as outcomes of the premier’s deliberations, “clearly the letters contained more than that,” effectively kick-starting the entire cabinet policy development process, said Judie Im, a lawyer for the attorney general.

Justice Sheilah Martin suggested to Safayeni that the mandate letters could be seen as the start of a conversation about what the premier wants a minister to do, not the end of deliberations.

Safayeni said the mandate letters fall in the middle — between the premier’s deliberative process about marching orders for his ministers and the plans or proposed policies a minister might put before cabinet at a later date.

In its own brief, the commissioner asks the top court to consider whether the decision to order disclosure bears the “hallmarks of reasonableness in terms of justification, transparency and intelligibility, particularly in light of the history of the proceedings, the evidence and submissions presented and the established case law that went unchallenged.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 18, 2023.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top