“1. Do not support. I don’t see any mention of who owns the land in question. With respect to public land, I support the recommendation. With regard to private land, I do not see that the Conservation Authority or the City would have any authority to rule or dictate legally, especially when you consider both of their track records. Just two off the top of my head, RVCA building their HQ on a preserved (never to be developed floodplain), and the City of Ottawa building their former HQ right into the Rideau River. As a potential rural councillor, I would not want the farmers in my ward to be prevented from clearing farmable land that they own. At one time, maple syrup was in demand, now most people prefer high fructose corn syrup. Maple Syrup bushes just do not pay anymore. Taxes continue to be charged on this land. Preventing farmers from making this land pay is heavy handed to say the least.
2. Do not support. The city cannot afford to maintain the properties they currently have, setting aside more money to purchase more land, is not sustainable. Maintenance by abandonment is not preservation.
3. Do not support. I see no problem with developments on very rocky marginal land. This is where the rural townships tried to limit estate lots to (without being over-rulled by the OMB) I have real problem with developments on farmable land. I say farmable, because my definition of farmable land extends way beyond the soil classifications of 1,2 and 3. I would base my decision on aerial photographs from the 1950’s to reveal what is farmable. Riverside South and Findlay Creek were both built on excellent farmland and are not mentioned in your example.
4. Agree. This has really bothered me.”