Is there a term for NIMBYS who want to prevent you from building close by, but also far away in the Greenbelt. In other words they don't want you building period.
While there was degree of NIMBYism involved in the lead-up to theGreenbelt (people often forget that it was Harris and the Tories that brought in the original Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, not because of environmentalists, but because right-leaning 905ers didn't want more house farms near the house farm in which they lived), planners have many non-NIMBY reasons for wanting to preserve the Greenbelt. Reasonable people can disagree, but the arguments in favour of the Greenbelt are overwhelmingly not NIMBY-related. But, yeah, there are still some 905ers whose defence of the Greenbelt is rooted in not wanting more development near their home.
Today's Margaret Wente article G&M has me flipping completely.
Wente is a clickbait robot. All of her columns follow the same formula: she writes on an issue on which she thinks she can stake out a "provocative" opinion, she oversimplifies the facts and ignore contradictory evidence, often misrepresents opposing views, and smugly portrays her usually questionable conclusions as common sense. Sometimes throws in a bit of plagiarism.
But I went back and read today's column (I normally can't be bothered). What a bunch of horsesh*t. She quotes Kotkin, who is ... to put this mildly .. the subject of much criticism and controversy (yet Wente bases most of her column on his "theories", which is okay if one acknowledges that they are not widely accepted ... which of course she did not). I laughed out loud at her San Francisco comparison - she clearly has no understanding of what caused the problems in SF.
We have a lot of serious urban problems in this city, with housing supply and affordability being near the top of the list. The last person we should be looking to for solutions is Wente.
We should start building in some parts of the green belt immediately before we start losing ambitious young professional families that drive the Toronto economy.
So, we'll build a bunch more house farms, resulting in housing which is even more expensive than many suburban alternatives given the desirable location of many parts of the Greenbelt, and the overall number of constructed dwelling units will be a drop in the GTA's housing stock. The CD Howe Institute hasn't adequately explained how opening up the Greenbelt would meaningfully impact stock and prices, other than making some farmers and land speculators rich.
No-one can convince me Canada is running out of farmland, watersheds - its absurb.
The economic and environmental benefits of good quality farm land near cities are clear. And of course we are not running out of watersheds - did you mean a different word?
Sprawl was out of control, but we've swung to far towards over-density and its choking Toronto.
The overwhelming majority of the GTA is developed with low-rise, automobile oriented development. So, no, we have not swung towards over-density. Nobody would describe Toronto and the GTA as over-dense. We are choking on development because almost our entire region is developed with low-rise neighbourhoods that are not designed for any form of transportation other than cars, and where it is impossible to sustain effective higher order transit on any kind of cost-effective basis. And building on the Greenbelt would almost undoubtedly exacerbate that (unless, say, the 905 municipalities were to all decide to permit high and mid density development on the Greenbelt, at a scale which supports walking and cycling, with fast, efficient and convenient transit links - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... oh wait, I just peed myself a bit laughing so hard).
Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry for the rant.