‘Come home to roost’
Dear Editor:
On Aug. 9, Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk released her report on the changes that the Ford government made to the Greenbelt in December. I believe the report should be compulsory reading for every Ontario citizen and taxpayer.
Despite having “promised” during the last election that his government would not remove land from the Greenbelt, they have gone ahead and done exactly that. So why remove land from the Greenbelt if it is not really needed, especially knowing that there would be political fallout from doing so?
As the report shows, it’s not so much a question of why, but more one of who. Who stands to gain? The AG’s report shows that it was a small group of developers who will reap the benefits of having their land selected to be removed. Based on 2016 tax assessment values the land will have increased in value by approximately $8.2 billion. With the stroke of a pen.
How were these “lucky” corporations selected? When Lysyk investigated, she found the Greenbelt Project Team was given 14 of the 15 selected sites by housing minister Steve Clark’s chief of staff Ryan Amato, who had been in close contact with the developers whose properties were later rezoned.
Approximately 92% of the 7,400 acres removed from the Greenbelt were land sites passed on to Amato from two developers.
When Ford and Clark were questioned by reporters as to how it was that an un-elected civil servant had controlled the process to such an extent, they claimed that they had no knowledge of how the sites were selected or the process by which it was decided.
Were they truly ignorant or was it a case of “Don’t ask, don’t tell?” As Lysyk put it in her report, “the minister ought to have known that the chief of staff was the primary recipient and provider of lands to the Greenbelt Project Team, especially given the high-profile, politically sensitive and controversial nature of the Greenbelt Project.”
It’s called ministerial responsibility, however it seems that in the Ford government there is none.
As is clear from the AG’s report and other cited documents, there was no reason to remove any land from the Greenbelt. It was and is clearly a reward to Ford’s political benefactors.
When Doug Ford won the PC Party leadership I wrote our MPP and I expressed my concerns about who exactly was supporting Ford in that race and what may be the future consequences. It seems that the chickens have come home to roost.
Clark’s chief of staff will be thrown under the proverbial bus, however I imagine that several options in the development industry will present themselves to him in the near future.
And no doubt Ford and Clark will be joining the “gravy train” when the time comes. And the Greenbelt will be diminished and the precedent has been set. I hope that I may be proven wrong about the loss of Greenbelt.
Michael Vasil,
Fergus
‘Done nothing’
Dear Editor:
Forcing municipalities, as the Ford government did in the best communist fashion, with his 10-year plan for housing growth targets will not help to solve the most pressing housing and social problems, namely:
1. The construction of affordable rental housing for our middle class singles and families who can no longer afford to own a home of their own.
2. The construction (are you listening Mr. Ford?) of more hospitals and medical teaching facilities that must to go hand-in-hand with housing/population growth.
There is an urgent need for more hospitals and doctors (don’t we all know this?) before we can even think about increasing our population density.
The next time provincial and federal politicians of any stripe come knocking on your door, kissing your babies and shaking hands with grizzled seniors like myself, do not ask them what their party might do to alleviate the affordable housing shortage and health care needs (unless you want to listen to the usual pre-election stereotype platitudes and promises) – ask them why their party has done nothing in the past decades to tackle these well known problems!
And don’t let them near your babies or shake hands with grizzled old folks.
Joerg Schnabel,
Guelph
‘Explosive’ growth
Dear Editor:
RE: Logic out the window, Aug. 10.
Fergus writer Peter Mandic asks this question in his latest letter: “Who should we listen to?” On human-caused climate change, surely not Mr. Mandic!
But instead of fruitlessly going back and forth in print to expose the errors in his facts and arguments, I would be more than willing to pay at least part of a one-way ticket for Mandic to visit any number of destinations that have already been ravaged by the climate-altering consequences of burning fossil fuels.
Just a few examples: A third of the land mass of Pakistan recently submerged by devastating flash floods; the Pacific island of Tuvalu in the process of moving its population to New Zealand and elsewhere because of sea level rise; Iran recently shutting down because of torrid temperatures reaching 125 degrees Fahrenheit, dangerously close to the threshold for human survivability; Arctic permafrost melting at unprecedented rates, not only releasing massive quantities of the potent greenhouse gas methane, but requiring wholesale relocation of northern villages.
Plus much more – a list that will continue to grow explosively until we humans get serious about drastically reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
Liz Armstrong,
Erin
Reduced ‘footprint’
Dear Editor:
RE: Logic out the window, Aug. 10.
Compared to global emissions, each person’s emissions are insignificant, yet if each of us tells the rest of the world to cut their emissions while we do nothing, that’s irresponsible.
In 2018, my personal footprint (car, electricity, heating) was 7.6 tonnes CO2. Since then, I have reduced my footprint to under 1.6 tonnes. Despite the capital cost, I have done that because I knew the cost to my wallet and to the environment of burning fossil fuels was only going to increase, and because I wanted to do what I could to leave a livable world for my grandkids.Despite his arguments, I hope Peter Mandic is also doing as much as he can to reduce his use of fossil fuels.
Jim Skea, head of the IPCC, said a rise of 1.5 C does not imply an existential threat to humanity, but he went on to say that surpassing that mark would lead to many problems, social tensions, and a more dangerous world. He also said we need to expand renewable electricity to reduce emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation and from internal combustion engine vehicles.
Mr. Mandic says sequestering carbon is expensive. That is true if we pay the fossil fuel industry to find ways of sequestering carbon, but if we help farmers to transition to improving soil health, the carbon will be sequestered beneficially in the soil with lower costs and more profit for the farmers and healthier food for us.
Mandic points out that the number of acres burned by forest fires fluctuates and that one bad year is not a trend. I hope he is right, however the trends of increasing global temperatures and heat trapping greenhouse gases (including water vapour) suggest otherwise.
Ron Moore,
Hillsburgh
‘Angry, frustrated’
Dear Editor:
I am scared. Scared that next year’s forest fire season will be worse than this year’s, that those fires will someday destroy my community, that summers will keep getting hotter and more deadly, that floods and hurricanes will threaten our communities.
I am angry and frustrated about the planet we are leaving behind for our children and grandchildren.
For decades, the fossil fuel sector has been knowingly risking our futures in exchange for obscene profits, raking in billions while communities suffer. And the government isn’t doing anything to stop them. Even now, when the impacts of climate change show up in the news every day, the feds continue to subsidize the same companies responsible for this crisis.
Canada’s investments in clean energy are a drop in the bucket compared with the billions in federal subsidies being given to big oil. The government ignored its promise to phase out paying billions of dollars to further contribute to climate destruction. This new budget pours even more public money, our tax money, down the gullet of “big oil” through tax breaks for unproven solutions. We need to call on our government to do whatever it takes – now, before it’s too late.
Gerry Walsh,
Erin
‘Clowns running circus’
Dear Editor:
I just read where the Liberals want to take fossil fuel power plants offline. I don’t understand where common sense has gone with this government.
We are going to reduce power on the grid, continue to offer grants to EV purchasers when there is insufficient power to feed more than 30% EV owners, coupled with the lack of public recharging stations. Have an open door for immigrants who have no place to live when they get here. Pay $82,000,000 in compensation to administer the carbon tax project.
Before we shut down power supply why not increase the output to fix the EV issue and save hitting the population with increased charges?
Personally, I feel that our prime minister is only trying to set his personal legacy of controlling pollution regardless of the consequences to Canada. The old adage the clowns are running the circus is certainly applicable to this administration.
Michael Fleming,
Fergus
Will ride again
Dear Editor:
I recently toured some out-of-town friends around Fergus and Elora using the township’s tourism shuttle bus – it exceeded my expectations. Not only was it a free, super-comfortable and convenient way to check out what both downtowns have to offer, to my surprise there was also a musician on board. He was so talented and funny, and had us singing along and laughing for our entire journey.
My friends were impressed with how unique and innovative this was (especially for a small town) and I felt proud to show off my community in this way.
What an experience. I’m not sure how long this is running for, but I hope they do it again next year. I will be sure to ride again.
Jess Martin,
Fergus