1. Support for a strong site alteration by-law, with emphasis on “strong.”
I don’t support changing the existing by-law structures that restrict land use. There are already numerous restrictive layers of law and regulation to prevent inappropriate site alteration and the time is now to re-look at how we use land so that we can concentrate on making such things as starter homes affordable for young families once again.
2. Renewed commitment to an annual allocation towards an environmental lands acquisition fund.
I don’t support this use of public funds as I have little faith the money would be used for the appropriate purpose. If there were a way to secure true natural land of an environmentally sensitive nature I’d be quite willing to discuss that but I have to be clear that I’m also not convinced that we have a common understanding of what “environmentally sensitive” means. e.g., I would support retaining habitat for species like the Blanding Tortoise, I wouldn’t support the designation of a farmer’s field as wetlands because indifferent government bodies can’t be bothered to maintain proper drainage in affected areas.
3. Standing firm in support of the prohibition against future country lot subdivisions.
Absolutely not. This sort of elitist social engineering is one of the many reasons why young families are having such difficulty in getting established in their first homes. It artificially restricts the affordable housing supply and denies rural landowners the opportunity to profit from their property holdings.
4. The City’s Advisory Committees should be genuine bridges between the public and Council.
100% agreement! What a colossal mistake to neuter the Advisory Committees and lose the decades of experience and knowledge that they represented.