Places to Grow editorial garners responses

As your editorial of 24 May ("Is it really 'Places to Grow' or just places to stagnate?") outlined, the Ontario government's "Places to Grow" plan requires the Dufferin County population to increase by about 25,000 persons, 12,000 households and 8,000 jobs over the next 24 years.

The plan "reflects a shared vision amongst the Government of Ontario, the municipalities of the GGH [Greater Golden Horseshoe] and its residents," according to its authors - but they didn't consult me and I suspect they didn't consult Dufferin County municipalities either.

You note, too, that Orangeville and Shelburne are limited in their growth by water and sewage restrictions, thanks to Dufferin County being distant from large bodies of water. You urge the provincial government to pay for water and sewage pipes from and to the Great Lakes.

It has been estimated that water and sewer pipes for Orangeville would cost on the order of $20 million each, or around $1,700 per new resident, assuming that the intervening counties and landowners would allow those pipes to be buried through their areas. There would likely be additional costs, such as sewage treatment charges by the receiving municipalities, additional water and/or sewage treatment plants in Orangeville and Shelburne, etc.

A standing policy of the Great Lakes neighbour states and provinces is to limit water consumption to those communities bordering the lakes. Ontario watershed conservation agencies (eg, Credit Valley Conservation) generally restrict inflows and outflows to communities within the watersheds. The replenishment rate of aquifers like the one lying beneath the Guelph- Orangeville area is another limitation: if drained faster than refilled, the aquifers are doomed to dry up, forcing a massive exodus of residents.

If Orangeville and Shelburne cannot absorb the new immigrants, then the rest of Dufferin County - the greenlands now committed to agriculture - must do so. That would about double the rural population, despite current zoning and greenbelt legislation.

Given these facts, it seems idiotic to persist in planning for a massive increase in county popu- lation. Rather, as encouraged by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, municipalities should make their environmental plans and then assess what additional growth those plans permit.

The agenda of the Ontario government is "Communities within the GGH will continue to experience the benefits that come with growth, including vibrant, diversified economies; higher education institutions; and arts, culture and recreation facilities." Stated drawbacks include "increased traffic congestion, risk of deteriorating air and water quality, and the consumption of agricultural lands and natural resources."

The government does not say how 8,000 jobs are to be added to this county. As you noted, no new provincial functions have been moved here. Neither does the "Places to Grow" Act commit to paying for the hugely expensive infrastructure expansions - sewage, water, roads, etc - that municipalities must bear. The recent local establishment (without any government support) of a technical college will, however, produce local technologists who should attract new industry.

I conclude that the Ontario government is more interested in the additional income and property taxes accruing from a larger population than it is in retention of natural benefits. I question the motives of all who would support massive population gains at the expense of the present quality of life here in Dufferin County. They should declare their personal and pecuniary interests along with their ideas.

The Deputy Mayor of Orangeville (in a previous administration) was quoted as saying "Orangeville must grow or die." Surely the opposite is truer.

My goal in arguing against your editorial stance is to enable my children to enjoy the current standard of small-town life, country air, beauty and serenity now prevailing, and to discourage any major increase in traffic, population and pavement. What is your goal?

Charles Hooker

Orangeville

- - o- -

Your editorial "Is it really 'Places to Grow' or just places to stagnate", contains a number of errors and strange leaps of logic. For starters, the Greenbelt Act (2004) did not freeze "development on what has become known as the Oak Ridges Moraine." The moraine is protected under legislation enacted in 2001 that established the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, which does not freeze, but limits growth to existing urban areas on the moraine. The Greenbelt Act recognizes both the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment Plans while further protecting additional lands from urban development.

Secondly, the Oak Ridges Moraine is hardly a man made fancy that has recently "become known"; it was formed over 10,000 years ago during the last ice age and mapped in the 1920s. It is a geological and hydrological wonder that is the headwaters for over 65 river and stream systems that flow south into Lake Ontario and north into Georgian Bay, Lakes Simcoe and Scugog and Rice Lake. Aside from the aesthetic beauty of its rolling hills, numerous rivers, small springs, wetlands, kettle lakes, forests and wildlife habitat, its protection is essential because it is the source of clean cold fresh water to hundreds of thousands of people who live on the moraine and beyond.

Your assertion that protection of the moraine "sacrificed some of the province's best remaining farmland rather than see any development in moraine areas where agriculture has been at best marginal" is disturbing. Just because land is not viable for agriculture does not mean that it is ripe for development; there are many factors that warrant an area's preservation. Further, protection of the moraine does not have to be at the expense of prime agricultural land. It is not an "either or" situation. Obviously, we must protect both through designating where and how growth can occur. Development should occur in places where the natural resources and existing infrastructure can support it. Inter basin transfers and long distance piping of water and sewerage are not acceptable, and are a recipe for both more sprawl, and environmental disaster.

The alarming rate at which prime agriculture land is being gobbled up by sprawl is testimony to the need for legislated restrictions. Growth and development must take place in concert; it cannot be left entirely to each town and city. It is up to the province to envision the big picture and provide the guidelines necessary to ensure the good health and vibrancy of every community in Ontario.

Debbe Crandall,

Executive Director dcrandall@stormcoalition.

org

STORM Coalition

Jennifer Bedford, Communications/Office

Manager

jbedford@stormcoalition.

org STORM Coalition Save the Oak Ridges Moraine