[bizorky]

Re: Greenbelt trust

The motive of the landowner is irrelevant; it doesn't matter if it's a farmer or speculator. The landowner holds rights to the land. The "right" I keep referring to is the right to use one's land however one wishes, with the caveats I mentioned above.

Actually, the motives of the land owner are relevant once they act on them. The market and other external fores determines the value of the land, and the government determines the land use. I still don't see any case for compensation. The land has not been lost.

 

[maxy505]

Re: Greenbelt trust

You have to differentiate between imposing costs on others (bad and not allowed), and removing unearned benefits from others (tough luck for the others).

Building subdivisions creates negative impacts on neighbours. Traffic, congestion, visual obstacles, etc.

A billboard looming over a neighbour is an imposition which should be (and is) restricted. Cutting down a tree on my own property will remove the pleasure you got from looking at it, but you had no "right" to that pleasure -- it was just nice while it lasted.

It removes farmland from production.

Should farmers be forced to farm? That's called serfdom.

How is this different? Land owners expected the land to be zoned for development plus city services to the property to eventually be built. They aren't going to gain what they expected. Until the approvals are all there it only pure speculation what the land might be worth and might be able to be used for. In actual terms the land owners lost nothing. They bought farmland which can be used for farming. They still own farmland which can be used for farming.

Expectations are not the basis for compensation, rights are.
Eglinton landowners have no inherent right to be supplied with a subway, so they are owed no compensation. Farmers/speculators/landowners have the inherent right to use their land as they see fit, so they should be compensated. Expectations have nothing to do with it at all.

It is a fact that zoning and property right restrictions are a part of the current method by which our whole society works. Ownership of land takes away the public rights of land. The right to own property takes away public rights to property. The laws preventing crime take away the rights of those who wish to do things that are against the law. For every right gained there is a right taken away. It is a balance of rights that exist in every facet of law and unless the rights are changed (which in this case development rights did not yet exist when all laws are totalled up) then no compensation should be due.

I agree, under Ontario law nothing illegal has been done and nobody's "rights" were trampled on. However that's only because the public has decided that it holds all rights to land, and will only grant rights to landholders as it deems proper. Where is the public's "right" to all land derived from? Simple -- might makes right.

I believe that this is a tyranny of the majority, it is morally wrong, and we would all be better off to recognize the greater right of a landowner than the right of the 10 million people living around him, not one of whom lives on the land or pays a dime for it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: Greenbelt trust

maxy:

I agree, under Ontario law nothing illegal has been done and nobody's "rights" were trampled on. However that's only because the public has decided that it holds all rights to land, and will only grant rights to landholders as it deems proper. Where is the public's "right" to all land derived from? Simple -- might makes right.

And how does the land owner get to hold rights to the land? They are either granted such rights or bought it from someone, knowing that there are legalistic limits to what they can do with it under our current system. Caveat emptor - if they don't like it, they don't have to buy/take ownership of it.

I believe that this is a tyranny of the majority, it is morally wrong, and we would all be better off to recognize the greater right of a landowner than the right of the 10 million people living around him, not one of whom lives on the land or pays a dime for it.

Until someone next door decided that their rights is also paramount and to hell with the public good, etcetra.

AoD

 

[bizorky]

Re: Greenbelt trust

I agree, under Ontario law nothing illegal has been done and nobody's "rights" were trampled on. However that's only because the public has decided that it holds all rights to land, and will only grant rights to landholders as it deems proper. Where is the public's "right" to all land derived from? Simple -- might makes right

So the individual should have the exclusive right to do whatever he or she wishes to do? Where did that "right" originate from, in your view? If you are going to argue property rights as being exclusive to the individual, you won't mind if I buy property next to you and set up a radioactive waste dump, do you?

In a broad sense, the rights of individuals are derived from the "public." These rights are founded upon reason and enshrined as law. So long as everyone tries to practice, respect, transmit and defend those rights, they continue to exist.

 

[EnviroTO]

Re: Greenbelt trust

A billboard looming over a neighbour is an imposition which should be (and is) restricted. Cutting down a tree on my own property will remove the pleasure you got from looking at it, but you had no "right" to that pleasure -- it was just nice while it lasted.

I don't see the difference other than the rules that exist to govern what is accepted or not. Why is building a housing subdivision which imposes on all of us by introducing new traffic, noise pollution, air pollution, social costs, etc a "right" in your mind where a billboard on my front lawn is not.

Should farmers be forced to farm? That's called serfdom.

Who is forcing them to farm. They can sell the property to someone else who wants to farm. That is like telling me the fact that my property which can only be used for residential use and can only be 3 storeys restricts me from doing anything but lying around the house all day. Just because I can't open a restaurant on my residential property doesn't mean I can't open one somewhere else. These people bought farmland and by buying farmland they bought land which can be used for farming. I buy a home in a residential neighbourhood and what a surprise it is supposed to be used for residential purposes.

Farmers/speculators/landowners have the inherent right to use their land as they see fit, so they should be compensated.

They do not have the inherent right to use their land as they see fit anymore than anyone else does. I cannot operate a restaurant in a residential area. I cannot add four floors on the top of my house. I cannot pave my entire front lawn and use it for pay parking. There are a ton of restrictions on every property in the province and what can and cannot be done with it. Residentially zoned property can only be used for residential purposes. Land zoned for farming can only be used for farming. You can apply for zoning changes but that doesn't mean it will be approved. Land prices rising due to the expectation of what zoning change approvals might be granted in the future and what that property might be worth when it happens is simply land speculation.

I believe that this is a tyranny of the majority, it is morally wrong, and we would all be better off to recognize the greater right of a landowner than the right of the 10 million people living around him, not one of whom lives on the land or pays a dime for it.

Then why do you believe that I should not be able to put a billboard on my front lawn? I own my front lawn. If you don't want to look at the big McDonalds ad on my front lawn you don't need to look in that direction. What is the real difference between my enjoyment looking out the window which may include your tree or untouched rolling hills, and your displeasure looking at a billboard on my front lawn. Who decides that a billboard or a subdivision is imposing or not if it isn't the majority?

 

[maxy505]

Re: Greenbelt trust

The essential difference is this:

I cannot avoid looking at the billboard on my neighbour's lawn. (It would be unreasonable to ask me just not to look over there).

I can avoid looking at a subdivision. With reasonable zoning rules, it won't be more than 10m in height, so the only person with right to comment would be the immediate neighbour. Living 5km away, it doesn't impose anything on my view.


Anyways there are many more points to address, but I didn't intend to get into a big debate about it. Suffice it to say that there are reasonable answers to your objections (which would no doubt raise more objections, ad infinitum). I believe that the system I advocate would result in an improved system for all Ontarians. I disagree with your view (and the view of the Law in Ontario) but I recognize it's foundations and implications, limitations and benefits.

bleh... back to work!

 

[EnviroTO]

Re: Greenbelt trust

I can avoid looking at a subdivision. With reasonable zoning rules, it won't be more than 10m in height, so the only person with right to comment would be the immediate neighbour.

With zoning rules? That is the system you seem to have a problem with since it restricts free use of property and now you are talking about the limits that system is going to impose on the land owner in a defence about property rights. Would it make sense that the immediate neighbour would be able to deny a housing subdivision while the will of the entire province could not?

 

[maxy505]

Re: Greenbelt trust

Would it make sense that the immediate neighbour would be able to deny a housing subdivision while the will of the entire province could not?

Yes, perfect sense. A landowner's actions do affect his neighbours (that's why billboards aren't allowed just anywhere), but they usually do not affect people 100's of kms away. When they do, zoning rules are appropriate. So no garbage dumps next to towns, due to smell. But a garbage dump in the middle of nowhere, near nobody -- no problem.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: Greenbelt trust

maxy:

Not quite true - pollutants do have a tendency to creep beyond one's property, often times showing up in water/airsheds quite a distance away.

Using the greenbelt as an example; paving over the Moraine could affect the quality of groundwater and as well as resulting in runoff at local rivers, which would adversely affect communities downstream. Not to mention building of the subdivisions require infrastructural connections (e.g. water and sewers; transit, powerm etc) from locales beyond - all of which carries effects beyond the site in question.

AoD

 

[spmarshall]

I wrote:

The basic exclusion of south Simcoe and Dufferin Counties and Southeast Wellington County was a mistake. Guelph, Eramosa, Puslinch, Erin Townships in Wellington should have been included, as should have most of West Gwillimbury, Essa, New Tecumseh and Adjala-Tosorontio in Simcoe, and Mono and East Garafraxa Townships in Dufferin.

And look what the feature story in the Star today is:

Sprawl hits above the belt

The province created a well-intentioned greenbelt to help curb urban sprawl north of Toronto. But on the belt's upper fringes, local councils are bucking recommendations meant to prevent leapfrogging development, Peter Gorrie writes
Mar 10, 2007 04:30 AM

BOND HEAD – At first glance, this is just a quiet crossroads about 45 minutes northwest of Toronto.

There's a scattering of aging brick houses, a tiny church, a gas station and restaurant, and a couple of variety stores where Highways 27 and 88 intersect amid open fields and forlorn patches of trees. The last big change happened about 40 years ago, when a small subdivision went in just west of the old village core. With it, the population grew to around 500, and there it sits.

But not for long. This sleepy hamlet is at the heart of a development boom, and the new official greenbelt that curves across the Greater Toronto Area appears unlikely to stop it, despite the provincial government's best intentions.

The 720,000-hectare band of farmland and natural spaces is supposed to curb urban sprawl north of Toronto and make development beyond it impractically distant for potential commuters. The problem is, it takes less than 10 minutes to cross the greenbelt on Highway 400.

Just beyond that protected strip is Bond Head and the rest of Simcoe County, a rolling, mostly rural area bisected by the expressway. It starts just north of the Holland Marsh's rich, black soil and runs past Barrie and Orillia up to Severn Bridge, where the Canadian Shield begins. To the east, it stretches to Lake Simcoe; to the west, Collingwood.

While the province didn't include Simcoe County in the greenbelt, it has tried, using a maze of policies and regulations, to control the county's growth.

But developers have been snapping up land anyway, particularly in the lower half of the county south of Barrie. They're proposing projects that, if approved, would nearly triple the population to 1.2 million, says county planner Ian Bender. They'd also cover large swaths of fertile land with industrial parks, shopping malls and roads.

The county is the "Wild West" of development in Ontario, says Rick Smith, executive director of Toronto-based Environmental Defence.

Most local politicians and business people are eager for economic growth and insist it can be managed without destroying the county's environment and its relatively tranquil lifestyle.

But environmentalists complain the boom is proof the greenbelt isn't working: Instead of containing growth, it's simply leapfrogging a few kilometres north.

It's a long and interesting article. Here's the link for the whole story:

Sprawl hits above the belt

 

[Degnaw]

They should really make the greenbelt like this, and in the process making it a guelph/waterloo/kitchener/barrie/etc greenbelt.

Heck, just make all of Ontario a greenbelt (actually, i don't see much wrong with that)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

They don't need to necessarily extend the Greenbelt; just make sure the OMB rulings have to comply with a PPS that explicitly state that preventing leapfrogging development and protecting agricultural lands is a priority.

AoD

 

[wyliepoon]

I've proposed this before- the best way to plan against sprawl is not to tell developers where not to build, but where they are allowed to build. Instead of zoning off regions as "greenbelt", maybe we can zone areas around cities and towns as "development belts" and satellite cities which are the only non-urban areas where urban or suburban development could take place.

This kind of planning hasn't happened in large jurisdictions such as Ontario (at least not that I know of), but small city-states, short on green spaces, plan in this way. Both Hong Kong and Singapore concentrate their development on dense satellite cities outside the urban core. 23% of Singapore consists of natural reserves, and only 25% of Hong Kong's area is developed (40% of HK's area is zoned as parkland).

(Source: Wikipedia... hopefully the people there have done their homework)

 

[EnviroTO]

They know where the province wants them to build. The Places to Grow plan tells them exactly where the province would like development to go and not go. The issue is that development will not go where the government wants without blocking them from going elsewhere. I imagine that part of the issue is that speculators are already sitting on the land in the desired growth locations pushing other speculators to look further out. Sprawl will continue until development is prevented out to a distance the population working in the GTA are unwilling to drive out to.

 

[Degnaw]

Why is development already leapfrogging the greenbelt anyways when there is still plenty of developable land within the greenbelt?