What can be learned from the case of South Simcoe County concerning the best ways to respond to the threats of agricultural land preservation posed by suburban development leapfrogging the Toronto Greenbelt?

Erin Cooney

June 2008

Undergraduate Thesis

Academic Advisor: Bob Gibson

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 -Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 – Urban Sprawl and Farmland Loss ................................................................... 6 Urban Sprawl: ................................................................................................................. 6 Loss of Farmland: ........................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 3 - Responses Generally to Urban Sprawl and Farmland Loss ........................... 11 Smart Growth Planning................................................................................................. 11

Strengths and Weakness of Smart Growth ............................................................... 12 Farmland Law -Agricultural Land Reserve in British Columbia ................................. 13

Strengths and Weaknesses of Farmland Law - Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) .. 13

Trusts............................................................................................................................. 14

Strengths and Weaknesses of Trusts ......................................................................... 15 Strengthening of the Farm Economy ............................................................................ 15

Strengths and Weaknesses of Government Support for the Farm Economy ............ 16

Planning Law (Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)) ........................................ 17 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statements ................. 18

Summary of Responses Generally ............................................................................ 19 Chapter 4 - Greenbelt Protection Plan .............................................................................. 20

Greenbelt ....................................................................................................................... 21

Oak Ridges Moraine ..................................................................................................... 22 Niagara Escarpment ...................................................................................................... 23

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Toronto Greenbelt ............................................... 24

Growing the Greenbelt .................................................................................................. 26

Chapter 5 - Simcoe County ............................................................................................... 28 Future Development: .................................................................................................... 28

Demographics ............................................................................................................... 28 Economic Base of South Simcoe .................................................................................. 29 Environment .................................................................................................................. 29

Water ............................................................................................................................. 30 Developments Proposed................................................................................................ 30

Bradford Bond Head Planning Area, Bradford West Gwillimbury .......................... 30 Big Bay Point, Innisfil .............................................................................................. 31 OPDI, New Tecumseth ............................................................................................. 32 Walton Intl., New Tecumseth ................................................................................... 32

Transportation Expansions in South Simcoe County and Surrounding Area ............... 33 Highway 427 ............................................................................................................. 33 Bradford By-pass off of Highway 404...................................................................... 34

Highway 400 ............................................................................................................. 34 Simcoe County Responses so far: ................................................................................. 34

Simcoe County Official Plan (OP) ........................................................................... 34 Growth Management Study ...................................................................................... 37 Transportation Master Plan ....................................................................................... 37 Inter-Governmental Action Plan (IGAP) .................................................................. 38

3

Assimilative Capacity Study ..................................................................................... 39

Lake Simcoe Initiative .............................................................................................. 39 Adequacy of Responses ............................................................................................ 40

Chapter 6 - Options for the Future .................................................................................... 44

Chapter 7 - Conclusions: ................................................................................................... 52 Further Study ................................................................................................................ 53

Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 54 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 64

Figure 1. Population Change from 2001-2006. ............................................................ 64

Figure 2. Proposed Highway 427 Extension................................................................. 65 Figure 3. Proposed Bradford By-Pass ........................................................................... 65 Figure 4. Greater Golden Horseshoe Expansion. .......................................................... 66

4

Chapter 1 -Introduction

Urban sprawl is an epidemic found all over the developed world. It is particularly apparent in Southern Ontario where the City of Toronto has been afforded unchecked growth for decades. However, this limitless growth has not come without a price where countless social, environmental and economic issues have manifested in this region. This type of growth has also meant a significant decrease in viable agricultural land. The world’s food security is at great risk when countries must depend upon foreign nations for food imports as they have already developed over and destroyed their own agricultural land. As well, because foreign nations do not necessarily uphold the strict environmental regulations for farming that are found in Canada, imported foods can threaten this society’s health. There is only so much viable agricultural land in Ontario where protection measures need to be taken to ensure a future in the farming industry. One such measure that has been taken is the implementation of the Toronto Greenbelt in 2005.

Greenbelts have been used in other countries such as Germany, England and the United States, to protect greenspace and farmland. Various flaws can found in each of these greenbelts as well as the other means and objectives Ontario has employed to protect farmland and curb urban sprawl. In the Ontario Greenbelt case some of the problems are most visible in Simcoe County. A small portion of this county is included in the Greenbelt but most of the county is just outside of the Greenbelt and is experiencing leapfrog development pressures that threaten greenspace and farmland. Meanwhile “protected” farms within the Greenbelt are suffering from economic challenges in ways that suggest the protection measures taken so far will not be sufficient to preserve viable farming operations.

“The policies for the ‘Provincial Countryside’ areas of the Greenbelt are supposed to provide ‘a continuous and permanent land base to support long-term agricultural production and economic activity’. Yet the realities of farming indicate that securing the long-term sustainability of agriculture in the Greenbelt will require more sophisticated strategies than mere land use regulation” (Bunce & Maurer 2005). There are 2.5 million more people expected in Ontario over the next 15 years.

Many will live outside of the City of Toronto boundary and perhaps beyond the Greenbelt boundary. Simcoe County had a population of 422,220 in 2006 and growth projections expect this population to grow by 275,000 (refer to Figure 1) (Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2007). These growth projections have led to transportation expansion initiatives by the Government of Ontario. As well, there has been considerable leapfrogging by developers over the Greenbelt where vast developments are now being proposed in South Simcoe County on significant agricultural land. Local land banking is aiding in the increase of local land prices and farmers are finding it very difficult to refuse the exorbitant prices they are now being offered. Current farming practices are

5

not sustainable as a lot of it is being done on inexpensive fossil fuels which are running out (Marion 2007). A fundamental shift in how current society approaches development and the environment is needed as well as farming being placed into a new model (ibid). South Simcoe County boasts a beautiful environment, a strong industrial core and a future full of challenges. These challenges need to be addressed soon and they need to be addressed in a way that incorporates equity for the stakeholders involved and the future sustainability of the region.

What can be learned from the case of South Simcoe County concerning the best ways to respond to the threats of agricultural land preservation posed by suburban development leapfrogging the Toronto Greenbelt?

Methodology

Interviews were conducted with 8 key informants in South Simcoe County: 2

prominent real estate agents, 2 local mayors, 2 presidents of local farm groups, and 2 local municipal planners. The two real estate agents will be known as interviewee 1 and interviewee 2. The two mayors will be known as interviewee 3 and interviewee 4. The two municipal planners will be known as interviewee 5 and interviewee 6. The two presidents of farm groups will be known as interviewee 7 and interviewee 8. They were asked to address a series of questions regarding their concerns with the Greenbelt and the future of South Simcoe County. A literature review was also completed. The issues of urban sprawl and agricultural land preservation were studied to understand their historical implications as well as the various methods currently being used by groups in Southern Ontario and Canada to address these two issues.

6

Chapter 2 – Urban Sprawl and Farmland Loss

Urban sprawl is one of the plagues of the modern world. This type of development engulfs society’s much needed agricultural land, resulting in cookie-cutter homes spanning out kilometres past urban centres. The residents living in these sprawling regions must now commute back to city centres for work, shopping and recreational activities. Farmers are then pushed even further away from city centres and must now compete with neighbouring developers to maintain their practices. These two issues of urban sprawl and loss of farmland are particularly apparent in Southern Ontario, where the metropolis of Toronto is found.

Urban Sprawl:

Urban sprawl according to the Green Door Alliance Inc. is “low-density development beyond the edge of services and employment, which separates where people live from where they shop, work, recreate and educate – thus requiring cars to travel between zones…Sprawl is unsustainable, inefficient, uneconomic, polluting, socially debilitating and wasteful of natural capital” (Almack 2001).

There is a constant pressure for residential, commercial and industrial

developments around many urban centres in Southern Ontario, especially the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). (Walton 2003). “In the next 30 years, residents of Greater Toronto, Hamilton and Niagara could lose to suburban sprawl an area of farm and forestland nearly twice the size of the existing City of Toronto” (Sierra Club of Canada 2003). Some towns and cities in Ontario are growing at the fastest rates ever recorded with areas such as Simcoe County are expected to grow by up to 90% by 2028 (ibid).

“The population of the GTA is projected to grow by more than 2.6 million people, from 4.78 million in 1996 to 7.45 million by 2031. This means that a population equivalent to that of the new City of Toronto is expected to be added to the GTA by 2031. The City itself is projected to increase by over half a million people, from 2.46 million to 3 million by 2031. The regions are anticipated to grow more quickly than the city. By 2021, York will have nearly doubled in size, and Durham and Halton will have reached the same mark about 10 years later” (City of Toronto 2000).

In the next 25 years, residents of Southern Ontario could pay over $69 billion for

new sewer, roads and water networks to serve the anticipated growth (Sierra Club of

7

Canada 2003). According to Fenniak (2002), originally urban centres were created so that people could have a place to work and live in that was close to all of their daily needs, so that life would be easier (as cited in Sierra Club of Canada 2003). The Toronto Dominion Bank has stated that “suburban sprawl development draws employment and population away from the urban core, triggering falling property values, declining services, and rising property taxes” (as cited in Sierra Club of Canada 2003). The Sierra Club of Canada asserts that urban sprawl has contributed to the declining health of cities, a lower quality of life, environmental degradation, and increasing costs for public services (Sierra Club of Canada 2003).

This type of development is not necessary or inevitable. Taxpayers who fund the high cost of building low-density housing in areas that have very little if any existing infrastructure, have good reason to look for alternatives. Revenues from development charges, user fees, provincial income taxes and property taxes are used to pay for infrastructure including water, sewer, road and school construction, police and fire protection, solid waste disposal, recreational and hospital services (ibid). As well, the costs per capita of providing and maintaining these services are very high.

There are also negative health, social and environmental costs to pay due to urban sprawl. “Separate zones for residential and commercial buildings have brought about a ‘car culture,’ in which families must use their car to get to everything from school to work to the nearest grocery store. The heart of a community dissipates, lives become disconnected” (Virtuocity 2006). The residents of these sprawl areas are ultimately in an automobile-dependent community where large areas of land are consumed by parking lots and roads. Along with the problem of cars, comes the problem of highways. Even though highways are built with the assumption that the traffic congestion will be alleviated, studies have shown otherwise. Hansen & Huang’s (1995) study found that, “within five years after a major freeway is built in California, 95 percent of the new road capacity fills up with traffic that would not have existed if the freeway had not been built” (as cited in The Preserve Institution 2007). Traffic is not eased by the highway construction, more congestion is merely created. Developers are attracted to the new highway access and the increase in roads that extend outside of the urban area (Sierra Club of Canada 2003). This in turn, increases the amount of low-density housing (ibid). In Toronto, between 1996 and 2001, “the number of people commuting by car in the metropolitan area of Toronto has increased 14%, while the number commuting by car to [work] locations more than 20 km from the city centre rose 26%” (Statistics Canada 2005c). Almost 90% of these workers were commuting by car (ibid). Between 1996 and 2001, “the number of jobs in the suburbs [in Canada] increased at more than four times the pace that they did in the core areas” (ibid). More and more Canadians are commuting cross-town to the suburbs to work.

Numerous environmental hazards are associated with the increase of reliance on cars. One of these hazards is acid rain. When acid rain falls as precipitation, it kills plants and animals and contaminates surface water (Environment Canada 2005). Another environmental hazard connected to car pollution is global climate change. The transportation sector is the “the largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Canada” (Clean Air Foundation 2007). This makes the transportation sector a major

8

contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately climate change. Smog is another problem that is caused, in part by the increase of air pollutants from cars. Smog advisory days are on the rise, where in 1993 there was one smog advisory day in Toronto and in 2005 there were 48 smog advisory days (Toronto Environmental Alliance 2005). The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) estimated that in 2000, air pollution cost Ontario citizens $10 billion (Ontario Medical Association 2001). “Annual healthcare costs of air pollution are in the order of $600 million where lost productivity accounts for an additional $560 million in annual charges” and $4.1 and $4.8 billion accounts for pain and suffering and for loss of life (ibid). The OMA expects this figure to increase significantly in the next 20 years (ibid).

The water resources of Canada are greatly affected by the amount of land paved over by developments.

“As the amount of impervious surface area increases, water runoff from precipitation occurs at a much faster rate than it would if it had the chance to soak through the ground and return to the water table. Urban runoff can contain pollutants such as nutrients, pathogens, industrial and automotive chemicals, oils and pesticides. Eventually this chemical soup will flow into rivers and streams, disrupting the rate of water flow through wetlands and streams and altering aquatic habitats” (Sierra Club of Canada 2003).

The watersheds of Ontario need to be protected for the generations to come. Sprawl can cover vast regions of land without consideration for the wetlands, forests or farmlands.

When significant natural areas such as forests and wetlands are removed from our environment, we lose our environment’s natural ability to filter and store clean water as well as critical habitat for various plants and animals (Natural Resources Canada 2007). Ontario, among other areas of the world, has been greatly disrupted by the settlement of man. Currently in Southern Ontario, there is “less than 30 percent of the total area of woodlands that existed before European settlement” (Ontario Nature 2005). Almost all of this area that has been disrupted has been the result of human activity (ibid). Southern Ontario only has 0.07% of its original “old-growth” forests left (ibid). As well, only 30% of Southern Ontario’s pre-settlement wetlands exist today (ibid). The main threat for Southern Ontario’s remaining wetlands and woodlands is urban sprawl (ibid). “Over 80 percent of threatened or endangered plant species are at risk, primarily through habitat destruction from human activity such as the cutting of woodlands and the draining of wetlands to expand urban areas” (ibid).

“As an area is urbanized, conflicts arise. Increased traffic, complaints about farm operations and the use of farm machinery, restrictions on when and how farmers can operate, and the closing of agricultural services usually accompany urban forms of development. The character of the community gradually changes from agricultural to urban” (Walton 2003).

9

Loss of Farmland:

The conflict between agricultural and urban areas began back at the time of Ontario’s settlement era. Ontario first began as an agrarian society and settlement was most desirable in areas that had viable agricultural lands (Walton 2003). These new agricultural communities that were successful, attracted other industries and so the towns expanded (ibid). The levelled good soils of farm fields were attractive for developers and development alike (ibid). “The very resource that attracted settlement is ultimately being consumed by it” (ibid).

Agricultural land enhances the quality of life for many. “It contributes to green space, wildlife habitat, rural character and access to fresh, high quality, locally grown produce” (Walton 2003). Unfortunately, greenfield development is quite easy for developers, as well as lucrative. The land has already been cleared and it’s cheap where a developer may pay a few thousand dollars per acre for farm fields, the value flips to tens of thousands of dollars per acre once rezoning has been approved (Almack 2001). The Canada Land Inventory classifies land based on its productivity (ibid). Class 1-2-3 land is the most productive of field crops, and is ranked as “prime agricultural land” (ibid). Canada’s land mass is made up of only 5% prime agricultural land (Walton 2003). As Wright (2000) states in Smart Growth,

“in 1967 Class 1 to 3 lands were 62% of the GTA. By 1992 Class 1 to 3 lands were 49% of the GTA. By 1999 Class 1 to 3 lands were 44% of the GTA. By the year 2000, including land approved for development, only 39% of the GTA will be Class 1 to 3. Continuing sprawl could result in up to another 900 sq-km (240,000km) being lost by year 2021” (Almack 2001).

According to Statistics Canada, three-quarters of Canada’s dependable agricultural land can be found in three provinces; Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario (Statistics Canada 2005a). Ontario has 27,635 km² of Class 1 agricultural land (ibid). “Since 1981, 4.700 km² (1km every day!) of prime agricultural land in Ontario has been permanently lost to development” (Sierra Club of Canada 2003). Meanwhile, between 1971 and 2001, Canada’s urban land grew by almost 80% (ibid).

Not only has the amount of arable farmland dropped but the number of farms in Ontario has dropped (Walton 2003). Between 1986 and 2001 there was a decrease in the number of farms in Ontario by 25% (ibid). “If land use trends continue, Ontario’s ability to produce food will be diminished and more of our food will be transported from distant agricultural areas” (Sierra Club of Canada 2003). One negative result of this would be an increase in food prices and an even bigger threat would be the impact on Canada’s food security. The increase of urban encroachment onto farmland has “forced farmers to bring lower quality land under cultivation to meet the growing demand for agricultural products” (Statistics Canada 2005b). Steady, long-term production is generally unsustainable on lower-quality land (ibid). Once farm land is bought up, farmers can’t just simply move their farms farther away from urban areas and continue

10

their livelihood. “Agricultural land varies considerably in quality” (Walton 2003). The ability to produce certain crops successfully is based on many location-specific factors (ibid). Once the location is lost, the ability to produce is also lost” (ibid). Walton (2003), in her paper titled, Agricultural in the Central Ontario Zone, states that there is a connection between a decrease in acres farmed and proximity to Toronto (ibid). Walton points out that in the GTA, 107,611 acres of land was taken out of agricultural production in just 15 years (ibid). Simcoe County is lucky due to the fact that in 2001, this county was able to farm 45.6% of its land, which is only a small drop from 1996’s record of 46.4% of its land, according to Statistics Canada (2001) (ibid).

Ontario is fortunate to have the ability to be able to produce a variety of foods that are safe, reliable and nutritious (Walton 2003). The agri-food industry in Ontario accounted for over 600,000 jobs and Ontario exported more than $7 billion of agri-food products in 2001 (ibid). Bunce and Maurer (2005) interviewed farmers for their paper Prospects for Agriculture in the Toronto Region: The Farmer Perspective. They noted that one of the farmers interviewed said that he plans on selling his farm and views his land as his retirement fund (Bunce and Maurer 2005). This is not surprising when according to the latest census report the average farm in Canada earns less than $25,000 a year before expenses (Porter 2007a). Unfortunately when land is altered from agriculture into something else, it’s nearly impossible to reclaim (ibid).

11

Chapter 3 - Responses Generally to Urban Sprawl and Farmland Loss

There are a variety of options available for responding to the continuing issues

of urban sprawl and loss of farmland. Some of the concepts that have been implemented in Canada are broad objectives like Smart Growth and planning law initiatives. Other means that have been implemented are the strengthening of the farm economy, trusts and farmland law. In particular, the strengths and weaknesses of Smart Growth, farmland law, trusts, strengthening the farm economy and planning law will be examined to help determine the failures and any improvements possible in the attempt to curb urban sprawl and preserve agricultural land. This will allow for the best possible response options for South Simcoe County and Ontario to be explored and identified.

Smart Growth Planning

Smart Growth restores the vitality of communities into city centres and older suburbs (Smart Growth Network 2007). For Smart Growth areas, there is a focus on a town-centred community that is pedestrian and transit oriented (ibid). Smart Growth also preserves open space and has a greater mix of housing, retail and commercial uses (ibid). This type of growth acknowledges the connection between quality of life and development (ibid). There is no perfect model of Smart Growth that can be applied to each community. Instead, communities need to decide together what they value in their community, develop a vision of where they want the community to go and then incorporate these values into their plans for development (ibid). According to the Smart Growth Network, there are 10 principles of Smart Growth (ibid).

The first principle is to “create *a+ range of housing opportunities and choices” where there is quality housing for those of all income levels (ibid).

The second principle is to “create walkable neighbourhoods” since this helps foster attractive communities to work, live, learn, pray and play in (ibid).

The third principle is to “encourage community and stakeholder collaboration” so that each member can contribute to the future growth of the community (ibid).

The fourth principle is to “foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place” so that the vision the community has decided on will uphold their values (ibid).

The fifth principle is to “make development decision predictable, fair and cost effective” (ibid). This principle is to ensure that the private sector supports Smart Growth (ibid).

12

The sixth principle is “mix land uses” which allows for better areas to live and work in (ibid).

The seventh principle is to “preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas” so that there is a booming local economy, a high quality of life, and a preserve of significant environmental areas (ibid).

The eighth principle is to “provide a variety of transportation choices” since these communities have a variety of housing and shopping choices, transportation opportunities are needed (ibid).

The ninth principle is to “strengthen and direct development towards existing communities” since these areas are already serviced by existing infrastructure it will make use of existing resources and conserve open space on the urban fringe (ibid).

The tenth principle is to “take advantage of compact building design” in replace of the conventional “land consumptive development” (ibid). These principles allow for more sustainable growth and improved ecological and human health for communities.

Strengths and Weakness of Smart Growth

The great thing about Smart Growth is that communities decide together what they value in their community, develop a vision of their communities’ future and design their plans for development accordingly (Smart Growth Network 2007). Each community is different according to the involved citizens, their history, culture, preference, opportunities and the existing built and natural environment (ibid). The term “Smart Growth” is used frequently by a variety of people. This growth model promotes development on existing communities and preserving farmland, in contrast to many of the developments being proposed in South Simcoe County, which are to be new city centres on existing farmland. Smart Growth is somewhat of a new catchphrase that many like to use in the hopes of sounding environmentally friendly and sustainable. Since there is no straight-forward model of Smart Growth that can be readily applied to each community, it is quite difficult to implement Smart Growth communities. So-called “Smart Growth communities” may reflect all of the 10 principles listed previously, or may only apply one principle, and still claim that they are based on “Smart Growth” (ibid). In April of 2001, the Government of Ontario commenced a “Smart Growth” initiative (as cited in Winfield 2003). Ontario’s Smart Growth Initiative, involves nine government ministries: Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs; Ministry of Finance (and SuperBuild); Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Ministry of the Environment; Ministry of Economic Development and Trade; Ministry of Natural Resources; Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (Government of Ontario 2001). This initiative also established five “multi-stakeholder regional Smart Growth panels” (Winfield 2003). The panel noted the linkages between land use, transportation, air

13

quality and the advantages of more compact development (ibid). The province also mentioned potential new directions to go using Smart Growth, though its commitment to use these new directions and ideals remains unclear (ibid). The Pembina Institute remarked that “Without significant changes in the province’s planning, fiscal, taxation and infrastructure policies, and in its approaches to municipal and regional governance, the mutually reinforcing challenges to the province’s air, climate, land, water and finances that flow from current development patterns will worsen” (ibid). Ontario’s Places to Grow Act (2005), which supports the principles of the Provincial Policy Statement, encourages and supports sustainable growth for the province using various principles yet true Smart Growth is yet to be seen in the two years since this legislation was enacted.

Farmland Law -Agricultural Land Reserve in British Columbia

“The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) is a provincial zone in which agriculture is recognized as the priority use. Farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are controlled” (Provincial Agricultural Land Commission 2007). This B.C. reserve covers roughly 4.7 million hectares including public and private lands that can be forested, farmed or vacant (ibid). Some ALR blocks are only a few hectares while others are thousands of hectares (ibid). The lands protected in this reserve are, “lands within BC that have the potential for agricultural production” (ibid). The ALR “takes precedence over, but does not replace other legislation and bylaws that may apply to the land” (ibid). Provincial, regional and local governments are to plan in accordance with the ALR (ibid). The Agricultural Land Commission Act (1999) is the legislation that establishes and guides the administration on the Provincial agricultural land preservation program (ibid). This law was enacted due to the major loss of prime agricultural land each year to urban and other uses (ibid). The Provincial government decided to take action to this progressive loss and introduced the new law on April 18, 1973 after public consultation and discussions with member municipalities and regional districts (ibid). There have been boundary changes in the ALR over the decades but the area covered has remained approximately the same (ibid).

Strengths and Weaknesses of Farmland Law - Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR)

The ALR consists of an impressive amount of land. This tract of land is provincially protected and provincial, regional and local governments are to plan in accordance to the ALR. As well, a variety of stakeholders worked together to establish the ALR. A major weakness in the ALR is that you can petition to get parts of land removed from the reserve. The Agricultural Land Commission Act “states that up to a tenth of a per cent of land….can be removed in the 2005-06 to 2007-08 period to meet ‘community need’” (Campbell 2006). The total area of the ALR has remained quite

14

consistent over time yet the quality of agricultural land within the ALR has declined (Government of British Columbia as cited in Carter-Whitney 2008). Approximately 90% of the land included in the ALR is from the northern areas of B.C., which is less productive while around 72% of the land excluded has been in the south where the land is prime agricultural land (Government of British Columbia as cited in Carter-Whitney 2008). The Agricultural Land Commission that was created by the act expects that there will be an increase in pressure to release land due to community growth in the coming years (Government of British Columbia as cited in Carter-Whitney 2008). The pressure to remove land is greatest near the major population centres which is also where the most productive farmland is largely located (Government of British Columbia as cited in Carter-Whitney 2008). According to the David Suzuki Foundation, the ALR has “slowed” the rate at which British Columbia is losing its most valuable agricultural land (as cited in Cater-Whitney 2008). The ALR has put in a strong effort in the attempts to preserve agricultural land yet viable agricultural land has still been lost and increasing growth pressures will only augment this situation.

Trusts

A land trust is “any organisation that holds or protects land ‘in trust’ for public benefit” (Ontario Farmland Trust 2007). Land trusts are generally formed to protect a specific land type that serves a significant function that may be threatened by other land uses (ibid). Commonly, land trusts have been developed to protect areas with natural heritage values such as wetlands, rare species and woodlands (ibid). In recent years land trusts have been formed “to protect land with ecological and cultural values, such as farmland” (ibid). Easements are the most common tools used by land trusts (ibid). “An easement is a legal agreement that determines permissible and restricted land use on a property” (ibid). This is a voluntary tool used by willing landowners. A signed easement “is forever tied to the title of the land and is held and monitored by a land trust” (ibid). The land trust organisation and the land owner have a consultation to determine the terms of the easement which can be as firm or as flexible as they decide (ibid). A farmer, who decides to keep his or her farm from being developed for uses other than agriculture, could put an easement on the property where the terms of the easement would be enforced by the land trust long after the farmer is deceased (ibid). Farmland trusts will sometimes purchase farmland in order to protect it (ibid). In this case, the land will be rented out to farm operators (ibid). Farmland can also be donated to trusts (ibid). The Ontario Farmland Trust, as one example, is a provincial organisation that works to protect farmland. Their mission statement is; “to protect and preserve farmland and associated agricultural, natural and cultural features in the countryside and to research and educate to further the preservation of these lands for the benefit of current and future generations” (ibid). This organisation believes that Ontario’s agricultural land is a valuable and limited natural resource (ibid). They also believe it is not sufficiently protected and so it is up to the farming community to take the initiative (ibid).

15

The actions of the Ontario Farmland Trust, in the hopes of preserving farmland, are;

“We will acquire farmland or interests in farmland. We will provide research and education about the value, management, use and

protection of farmland. We will receive, manage and disburse funds, donations and bequests that will

help protect farmland in Ontario. We will foster cooperation with other individuals and groups who are interested

in saving farmland. Our group works to protect and preserve farmlands and associated agricultural,

natural and cultural features in the countryside for the benefit of both current and future generations” (ibid).

Strengths and Weaknesses of Trusts

Trusts are a great way for concerned citizens and farmers to take matters into their own hands. Through this trust, farmers can donate their land and community members can donate money to help protect farmland in their region. Trusts must rely on the generous offers of farmers to donate land and citizens to donate money. The trust organisation will purchase farmland or interests in farmland but they are relying on the goodwill of humanity for money to be able to do this. Even easements, which are the most common tool used by land trusts, rely entirely on voluntary agreement by the landowner. Like other land trust bodies, the Ontario Farmland Trust finds that much of its energy must go into the administration of donated lands, the donating of monies and the attempted acquisitions of land (Ontario Farmland Trust 2007). The Ontario Farmland Trust also provides beneficial education and research regarding the management, value, use and protection of farmland (ibid).

Strengthening of the Farm Economy

Ontario has the largest agriculture sector in Canada employing about 100,000 people in 2006 (Sorbara 2007). Farming, like other sectors, is adapting to competitive challenges and a rapidly evolving global marketplace (ibid). A substantial effort is being put forward by the provincial government to strengthen the farm economy. The use of forest and farm products in the auto sector is a budding area that is opening up to the farm sector (ibid). The Government of Ontario announced an almost $6 million investment in the Ontario BIOCar Initiative, “a research project to turn Ontario’s harvest into viable material for the auto industry” (ibid). The Liberal Government is continuing their plan of $13 million annually to the “Buy Ontario” program raising consumer awareness and promoting the consumption of food produced in Ontario (Porter 2007b). As well, Ontario’s farmers receive favourable treatment under a number of taxes

16

(Sorbara 2007). In the 2007-08 fiscal year, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), has announced that base expenditure will reach a new high at $867 million (ibid). The Federal Government is also a financial supporter of the farming industry. Support programs that were offered in 2007 were: Cost of Production Payment, where the province provided matching funding; Self-Directed Risk Management Program (SDRM) where producers' funds are deposited into an SDRM account and then are matched with Provincial Government dollars; Risk Management Program (RMP) where there is provincially-funded support for certain producers to help offset losses caused by low commodity prices; and Canadian Income Stabilization Program (CAIS) where the federal government and producers share in the cost or replacing lost income (Huisman 2008). The Government of Ontario has also recognized the importance of organic agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2007c). The “Buy Ontario” program allows “everybody to win” according to OMAFRA since farmers are being supported, money is being put back into the rural economy and consumers are able to buy the freshest produce (OMAFRA 2005). This program will allow those who do not have a connection to farming in particular, to increase their awareness and support for local produce and the farming industry. Under the Buy Ontario program is also the Savour Ontario Dining Programme which allows individuals to find a restaurant that serves Ontario produce (Savour Trade Ontario 2007).

Organic products represent a small percentage of total agricultural sales but there is notable growth in this area (ibid). Most forecasts predict an average annual sales growth of between 15-20 percent through to 2010 (ibid). Of most importance are the premiums that are being paid for organic products which are attracting a growing number of participants to this sector (ibid). The Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs has a Strategic Advisory Committee that has made recommendations to the Ministry regarding ways in which to enhance organic production in Ontario as well as other niche markets (ibid). “The potential to replace millions of dollars worth of imports with domestically produced goods underlies each of these recommendations” (ibid).

Strengths and Weaknesses of Government Support for the Farm Economy

The Provincial and Federal Governments have invested multi-millions of dollars into support programs for agriculture. The number of programs offered is on the increase while many famers express their concern that overall funding is decreasing. The Ontario government in particular, has realized how important the farming industry is for Ontario’s future and has taken steps to aid this industry. Although, perfection has not been realized yet as there are still many challenges to be faced. The “rising Canadian dollar, increasing international competition, subsidies in other jurisdictions, and trade disputes can challenge certain segments of the sector, and challenges are expected to increase in the future (Government of Ontario 2006c).

Biofuel is an emerging fertile market for farmers that is showing great potential. Here, there is the potential to increase economic gains for the farming industry as well

17

as reduce greenhouse emissions that are key contributors to climate change. However there is much controversy that surrounds the production and use of biofuel. “There is considerable diversity in greenhouse gas savings from biofuel use, depending on the type of feedstock, its cultivation methods, conversion technologies used and energy efficiency assumptions made” (Mol 2007). As well, there are various environmental problems that are associated with biofuels such as, “deforestation and a decrease in biodiversity, monocropping, land degradation and water pollution” (ibid). Finally, as global demand for biofuels grow, cropping patterns in the developing countries and the exports of food crops from them will change which increasingly “jeopardizes the availability of food crops in developing countries” (ibid). The increase in interest in biofuels in the name of sustainability is in fact a contradiction in actuality.

Organic food, as well as other niche markets have great potential in Canada and this potential is just starting to be explored. The premiums that are being paid for organic and niche foods will allow for greater economic prosperity for farmers as well as an increase of sustainability for the entire system. If imported foods were to be greatly replaced by home-grown and/or organics, the farm economy could be strengthened greatly.

Some specific programs that have been implemented have shown to work well while others haven shown to be problematic. The organic market has great potential and government initiatives and programs will, by far, aid this budding industry. On the other hand, the biofuel industry which was thought to be a prospective industry and was supported by government and programs, is now resulting in many negative side effects of this industry which are being felt on a global scale.

Planning Law (Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS))

The Provincial Policy Statement is issued under the authority of the Planning Act (1990), Section 3 (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2007b). “It provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, and promotes the provincial ‘policy-led’ planning system” (ibid). Each municipality has its own Official Plan (OP) and in the case of lower tier municipalities, this OP must conform to the upper tier government’s OP and the Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario’s PPS was updated and came into effect on March 1st, 2005 (Government of Ontario 2002a). “This corresponds with the effective date of Section 2 of the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act (2004), which requires that “planning decisions on application that are subject to the new PPS ‘shall be consistent with’ the new policies” (ibid). The previous PPS for Ontario stated that “planning authorities ‘shall have regard to’ policy statements issued under the act” (Government of Ontario 2002b). This reform means that municipalities can no longer simply consider the PPS and then plan as they please, they must now “be consistent with” the statement completely.

The PPS is the province’s vision on how to plan for the province (ibid). The PPS “provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and

18

development, and promotes the provincial ‘policy-led’ planning system” (Government of Ontario 2002a). The PPS identifies the inter-relationships among environmental, economic and social factors in planning (ibid). The PPS has policies on important issues that affect communities such as, “the efficient use and management of land and infrastructure; protection of the environment and resources; and ensuring appropriate opportunities for employment and residential development, including support for a mix of uses” (ibid). The revised PPS contributes towards the government’s commitment of reforming the provincial planning system, including the work of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (ibid). It also supports the government’s commitment “to provide strong, clear policy direction on and use planning to promote strong communities, a clean and healthy environment, and a strong economy” (ibid). Bill 51, an update to the Planning Act (1990), clarifies a municipality’s power to regulate in their own district in various sections of the act (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2006). As well, this amendment allows municipalities to establish local appeal bodies that would deal with certain planning matters instead of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (ibid). More importantly, when “approval authorities of the Ontario Municipal Board make decisions relating to planning matters, they are required to have regard to decisions made by municipal councils and approval authorities relating to the same planning matters” (ibid).

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statements

According to the Pembina Institute, “key decisions with respect to the shape of future urban development patterns in Ontario lie with the provincial government” (Winfield 2003). Therefore, the guidelines the province sets out need to be realistic and contribute to sustainability. The PPS needs to be reviewed and updated regularly since the demands and the needs of Ontarians can change regularly and the PPS must reflect these changes in society. The PPS is a strong piece of provincial policy since the lower tiers of government must plan accordingly. Municipalities were not adhering to the former PPS so the government decided to toughen up the regulations in its amendments by stating that municipal planning decisions must “be consistent” with the PPS (Government of Ontario 2002a). This is somewhat limited though because areas of the PPS are quite general and because the term “consistent” is still open to some variance in interpretation. As well, flexibility remains at the municipal level. Many stakeholders have noted that there was a lack of connection between the PPS and the province’s Smart Growth initiatives (Winfield 2003). Bill 51 is a real improvement in the Planning Act. It allows for more accountability to municipalities for approving their local planning decisions (Oakville Economic Development 2006). Before this amendment, many found the old system very costly and confrontational where the public was left feeling their views weren’t taken into account (ibid). The reformed system will ensure that the decisions made by municipalities are in compliance with Provincial legislation and are respected by the OMB (ibid). Bill 51 eliminates the opportunity developers

19

previously had to by-pass the public consultation process and Council in order to seek an alternative decision maker directly from the OMB (ibid). It removes the rights of appeal to the OMB for privately initiated expansions to urban areas (Interviewee 5 2008).

Summary of Responses Generally

There are many positives and negatives with each of the options available for

responding to the issues of urban sprawl and loss of farmland, particularly for areas such as South Simcoe that face development pressures that are leapfrogging the Toronto Greenbelt.

Smart Growth is quite feasible for many regions. It is a growth model that can be applied to existing communities allowing each to preserve the land it chooses and to grow in a manner it favours. However, there is no specific Smart Growth model that can be readily applied to every community. As a result, this option can become a daunting challenge where a significant amount of time and effort would be required to build agreement among the many stakeholders.

The Agricultural Land Reserve in B.C. is based loosely on the same principles as the Toronto Greenbelt. In B.C. this land is provincially protected yet it is possible to petition to remove parts of land from the reserve. The majority of land protected in the ALR is not the most productive land in B.C. and there is increasing pressure near the major urban area to remove fertile land from the ALR to accommodate future community growth. It will be interesting to see how B.C. will deal with this pressure in the coming years.

Trusts provide valuable education and research on the protection of farmland but must rely on the generosity of local citizens and farmers to donate their land and/or money to protect farmland. It would be challenging to protect a large quantity of Ontario’s farmland using this method.

The Provincial and Federal Governments are promoting their investment in agriculture annually as the farming industry’s importance is being realized. Many support programs are offered to farmers while many more are being designed. Though some programs have been problematic and there are continuing challenges for farmers and government, this will be an important area for further attention and innovation.

The Provincial Policy Statement must have realistic and clear guidelines that will contribute to sustainability in Ontario as this is a strong component of Ontario’s planning regime to which lower tiers of government must adhere. Review and revision of the PPS is utterly important as society’s demands evolve and as flaws in the document may become more evident over time. Ultimately, there will likely need to be a package of initiatives to discourage urban sprawl and strengthen farm livelihoods.

20

Chapter 4 - Greenbelt Protection Plan

In February of 2005, Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty gave a speech announcing the Greenbelt Protection Plan (Government of Ontario 2005). He said,

“I am proud to announce our Greenbelt protection plan. This plan will protect green space for future generations. People understand our population is growing rapidly, especially in Central and Southern Ontario. They tell us that by 2031 about 4 million more people are expected to be living in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. That means about 2 million more jobs for our economy. It means greater prosperity for Ontario. But it also creates some real challenges. On the one hand our communities absolutely need room to grow, on the other we need to protect valuable farmland, watersheds and greenspace in order to preserve our quality of life. We made a commitment to Ontarians to tackle urban sprawl. Today we’re delivering on the commitment. The Greenbelt protection plan is a key element of our plan to help us manage this expected growth. The plan strikes a balance between the needs of growing communities and protecting agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. Our plan will protect 1.8 million acres, an area larger than Prince Edward Island and it will protect it, forever. Currently 800,000 acres in the Oak Ridge’s Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment are protected. We’re adding over a million new acres, from Rice Lake to the Niagara Peninsula to that protected area. In fact, we promised 600,000 acres of newly protected areas. People thought that was pretty ambitious. We’re delivering over one million new acres of protected land… The Greenbelt is an area where urbanization will be permanently prohibited. Our goal is to build a legacy for our children. One that includes protecting thousands of acres of farmland so farmers can continue to farm. Preserving our watersheds, rivers and forests, to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe and promoting recreation, sports and tourism. By encouraging the establishment of trail systems, open spaces and park lands. We’re not talking about creating a park system without any development. Ontario must have room to grow. What we’re talking about is planning intelligently for that growth. Because when growth is not controlled we all pay more in the long run. Sprawl is expensive. It strains our infrastructure and our transit systems and it harms our environment. The Greenbelt plan will help ensure the mistakes of the past don’t compromise our shared future. I talk a lot about the future, about the kind of Ontario that we would like to have our children inherit. I believe it’s our shared responsibility to leave them with an Ontario where the air is clean, the water is safe and the land grows some of the finest produce anywhere. An Ontario where we have a vibrant countryside, only a short drive away from a busy downtown street. This plan will help you and I fulfill our shared responsibility to our children. It will help

21

is build the kind of Ontario we all want to live in, the kind of Ontario we can be proud to leave to our children. Thank you very much (Government of Ontario 2005).

Greenbelt

The Toronto Greenbelt encompasses 1.8 million acres of countryside (Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation 2007a). It extends 325 kilometres from Rice Lake in Northumberland County to the Niagara River (ibid). Farming is the dominant land use in the Greenbelt and farmers are the dominant land owners at just over 50% (ibid). The Greenbelt allows for open space to be maintained for recreation, tourism and healthy living (ibid). The Friends of the Greenbelt organisation promotes recreation and tourism possibilities in the Greenbelt in the forms of “camping, hiking, skiing, fruit-picking, holiday tours, spas and wine-tasting” (ibid).

There are approximately 7000 farms in the Greenbelt and the majority of these farms are still family run operations where the farmer is the sole proprietor (Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation 2007a). Poultry, beef, pork, dairy and fresh fruits and vegetables are all farmed on the Greenbelt as well as specialty products such as mushrooms, maple syrup, lambs and sheep and horticultural goods (ibid). “The Greenbelt produces 26.57% of Ontario’s apples, 50.04% of Ontario’s sour cherries, 87.63% of Ontario’s peaches, over 85% of Ontario’s grapes, and 42.59% of Ontario’s raspberries” (ibid). The Holland Marsh which is found in the Greenbelt, is known as Ontario’s food basket (ibid). The main crops grown here are carrots and onions but one can also find celery, potatoes, lettuce, beets, radish, cauliflower, parsnips and a growing number of ethno-cultural crops (ibid). There are enough carrots grown in the Holland Marsh to provide every man, women and child in Canada with four pounds each every year (ibid). There are about 1118 beef farmers found on the Greenbelt (ibid). The Greenbelt protects approximately 100,000 acres of the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area, which is the world’s largest and best producer of icewine (ibid). Niagara’s tender fruit trees (pears, plums, cherries, peaches, grapes) produce about 800,000 baskets of fruit annually (ibid).

The Niagara Escarpment’s Bruce Trail was connected with the Oak Ridges Trail in 2005, making it possible for people to hike from Rice Lake, South of Peterborough, to Queenston and up to Tobermory on Georgian Bay (ibid).

Between 1996 and 2001, the amount of farmland decreased by 7% in the Greater Toronto Area and by 6% in the Hamilton Area (Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation 2007a). According to the Friends of the Greenbelt, “the purpose of the Greenbelt is to protect environmentally sensitive land and farmland from urban development” (ibid). They also state that it is essential for providing clean water and clean air to cities and that its trees act as “lungs” for a whole area and filter air pollution, while streams and rivers feed sources of drinking water for millions of people (ibid). The Greenbelt is said to be vital to the quality of life in the entire Golden Horseshoe, which is the most populated area of Canada and one of the country’s most important regions

22

economically (ibid). Approximately half of all immigrants to Canada settle in this area bringing with them their energy, skills, know-how and culture (ibid).

The Greenbelt is important to protect to ensure that everyone has access to parks, rivers and lakes for swimming, fishing and boating, hiking trails, places for bird watching, cycling, weekend getaways, skiing, skating and all the other outdoor activities that make the area attractive.

According to the Greenbelt Act (2005), “the objectives of the Greenbelt Plan “are (a) to establish a network of countryside and open space areas which support the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment; (b) to sustain the countryside, rural and small town and contribute to the economic viability of farming communities; (c) to preserve agricultural land as a continuing commercial source of food and employment; (d) to recognize the critical importance of the agriculture sector to the regional economy; (e) to provide protection to the land base needed to maintain, restore and improve the ecological and hydrological functions of the Greenbelt Area; (f) to promote connections between lakes and the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment; (g) to provide open space and recreational, tourism and cultural heritage opportunities to support the social needs of a rapidly expanding and increasingly urbanized population; (h) to promote linkages between ecosystems and provincial parks or public lands; (i) to control urbanization of the lands to which the Greenbelt Plan applies; (j) to ensure that the development of transportation and infrastructure proceeds in an environmentally sensitive manner; (k) to promote sustainable resource use; (l) any other prescribed objectives. 2005, c. 1, s. 5.” (Government of Ontario 2006a).

Oak Ridges Moraine

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002) was enacted in April of 2002 (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2007a). This Plan encompasses an area of 190,000 hectares of land and water (ibid). It was established by the Ontario Government “to provide land use and resource management direction” (ibid). The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) was then incorporated into the Toronto Greenbelt when the Greenbelt Act was legislated and so the ORM is now found entirely within the Greenbelt. The ORM is a landform that is unique to southern Ontario (Storm Coalition 2007). One of Ontario’s largest moraines, it extends one-hundred-and-sixty kilometres from the Niagara Escarpment in the west to the Trent River system in the east and is on average thirteen km wide and one-hundred-fifty-metres deep (ibid).

The moraine’s most important function is to act as a water recharge/discharge area, sustaining the health of many watersheds that originate in the moraine and

23

directly providing drinking water to over 250,000 people (Storm Coalition 2007). The water found in the moraine aquifer spans thousands of years in age (ibid). The ORM has been described as southern Ontario’s “rain barrel” (ibid). The permeable gravels and sands of the ORM collect precipitation and slowly recharge the deep aquifers below the ground (ibid). “These sand and gravel aquifers store, filter and release this groundwater to over 65 watercourses flowing north and south into Georgian Bay, Lakes Simcoe, Scugog, Rice and Ontario” (ibid). Many tiny headwater streams that emerge in the ORM combine to deliver clean cold water to the numerous rivers and streams that flow north and south from the moraine (ibid). There are well forested river valleys that provide superb corridors along which animals travel (ibid). As well, there are kettle lakes and wetlands that are home to hundreds of species of amphibians and birds in addition to providing needed watering holes for all types of wildlife (ibid).

Niagara Escarpment

The Niagara Escarpment is a largely forested corridor that is 725km in length and winds its way through and north from the most heavily developed region of Canada (Niagara Escarpment Commission 2004). It is a second part to the Toronto Greenbelt where the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area is now found within the Greenbelt. It’s an area with a rich agricultural heritage where one can find beef cattle, apples, mixed farming, vineyards and tender fruit (ibid). There are many waterfalls throughout the escarpment, most notable being Niagara Falls (ibid). “The Niagara Escarpment is a Biosphere Reserve which includes 190,270 ha (183,311 ha within the Plan Area plus portions of Bruce Peninsula National Park and Fathom Five National Marine Park that are not in the Plan)” (ibid). In early 1990, the Niagara Escarpment was designated a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (ibid). It is one of only 13 biosphere reserves in Canada and is part of a group of more than 400 reserves in 95 countries (ibid).

Provincial objectives and land use control are achieved through the Niagara Escarpment Plan established under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (1990) (Niagara Escarpment Commission 2004). The plan was approved by the Ontario cabinet in 1985 and has been reviewed every five years thereafter (ibid). Approximately 120,000 people live in the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve and an estimated seven million people live within 100km of the reserve (ibid).

“The Niagara Escarpment is as much a hydrological as a geological feature. The headwaters of several rivers rise in the Escarpment and the area is important for groundwater recharge” (Niagara Escarpment Commission 2004). In 1988 there was a discovery of small, gnarled Eastern White Cedar trees (Thuja occidentalis) on the cliff faces and on the cliff edges with some specimens dating as old as 1000 years (ibid). These trees are the oldest in eastern North America (ibid).

24

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Toronto Greenbelt

Provincial government officials must conform to Greenbelt policies when making land use planning decisions (Carter-Whitney 2008). As well, municipalities must conform their decisions and official plans to the Greenbelt Plan (ibid). This is a strict piece of legislation that all levels of government must acknowledge and conform to. The Greenbelt Act also appoints a Greenbelt Council to advise the Minister on issues relating to the act (ibid). This council consists of members of various backgrounds who all have knowledge and experience with Greenbelt protection (ibid). The council provides information on the implementation of the act and plan, anticipating the ten-year review, and develops performance measures to monitor effectiveness of proposals for amendments to the Plan (ibid). The Plan is reviewed to ensure all current threats and issues are dealt with and to keep the Greenbelt up-to-date (ibid). There are various environmental non-government organisations such as the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, which continue to support and advocate the Greenbelt. According to the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, it “is important that everyone has access to parks, hiking trails, rivers and lakes for swimming, fishing and boating, places for cycling, bird watching, weekend getaways, skiing, skating and all other outdoor activities that make the region an attractive place to work and live in” (Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation 2007b). This group also states that the Greenbelt preserves “some of the best agricultural land in the world” (ibid).

This is an area of environmental significance and sensitivity, especially the ORM and Niagara Escarpment. This area is important to protect to ensure clean air and water for present and future generations (ibid). Farmland is preserved on the Greenbelt as there are strict regulations that apply to the use and development of any lands found within the Greenbelt boundary. Carter-Whitney (2008) notes that although the Greenbelt has only been established for two years, there have been some outstanding accomplishments (Carter-Whitney 2008). “The Ontario Government has worked to prevent development that had been planned or proposed in a number of sensitive areas in the Greenbelt” (ibid). These efforts include opposing attempts at reducing the size of the Natural Heritage System in the Trafalgar Moraine and refusing to allow a highway to run through the Boyd Ecological Complex (ibid). Both of these areas contain unique ecological resources that are provincially recognized (ibid). The first annual report card of the Greenbelt was released by the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance in February of 2006 (Ontario Greenbelt Alliance 2006). They noted that there were issues with “ongoing plans to expand and build new highways, critical natural areas were still in need of protection, and there was uncertainty around municipal compliance with the Greenbelt plan” (ibid). This report card focused on the ten most threatened sites within the Greenbelt (ibid). The Alliance concluded that there were numerous threats to the Greenbelt, such as, proposals for quarry expansions or new quarries in areas that are environmentally sensitive and have natural heritage features; a proposed sewer extension that would require large-scale dewatering that could damage delicate aquifers and environmental systems as well as lead to urban

25

development; and a grand residential and recreational development that threatens rare species, pristine forest and the headwaters of three important cold-water streams (ibid). The second annual report card was released by the Greenbelt Alliance in February of 2007 (Ontario Greenbelt Alliance 2007). This report noted that the government had done a good job defending the Greenbelt boundaries but “is failing to protect sensitive ecological areas in the Greenbelt that are still under threat from highways, roads, sewer pipes, quarries and urban sprawl” (ibid). There are multiplicities of weaknesses found within the Greenbelt. Firstly, there are numerous highway expansions that are proposed to cut through the Greenbelt (refer to Figure 2-4). These massive construction projects have great potential to harm the sensitive environment the Greenbelt Act is supposed to protect. As well, it has been shown that highway expansions lead to an increase in low-density housing resulting in urban sprawl and the associated health effects (Sierra Club of Canada 2003). These highways have the potential to exacerbate the issues of sprawl and loss of farmland along the fringes of the Greenbelt.

Secondly, a large amount of agricultural land is protected under the Greenbelt legislation but the majority of this land is not prime agriculture. One of the main objectives of the Greenbelt is to preserve agricultural land yet the best farmland in Ontario is not protected under this legislation. Seventy-five percent of the GTA’s prime agricultural land is found outside of the Greenbelt (GTA Clean Air Online 2005). According to Michael Bunce (2001) of the University of Toronto, “most of the agricultural land on the moraine [ORM] is poor quality” (Bunce 2001). This land that was chosen to be protected to sustain the farming industry and secure a food source for the citizens of Ontario is not the best land for growing food in the province. In addition, farming is in general a decreasingly viable industry in Ontario and so it doesn’t matter how many thousands of acres of farmland are protected if there are no farmers to farm this land in the future. It is commonly reported that many of the farms that are being bought on the Greenbelt are not bought by farmers rather; they’re being bought by the wealthy who desire their own “country estate”. According to Carter-Whitney of the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, “steps need to be taken to ensure that farmland on the Greenbelt stays productive so that the area can continue to provide a secure local food source in the future” (as cited in Mittelstaedt 2008). Thirdly, the opportunities of Ontario citizens living on the Greenbelt were restricted with evident unfairness when this legislation came into effect. The possible and future uses of property found on the Greenbelt were greatly reduced with the land owners having no choice in this matter. Citizens living or owning land on the Greenbelt who were planning on selling their land will now have to sell at a substantially lesser price. Interviewee 2 noted that he sold one farm on the Greenbelt for $610,000 but said that if the farm was not located on the Greenbelt it would have easily sold for $2,000,000 (Interview 2 2008). The Greenbelt Act was enacted by the current Liberal government but future governments elected to administer Ontario will be able to rescind the act if they so desire. This means that the Greenbelt may not even last long enough for positive

26

environmental effects to be seen by the general public, let alone the future generations of Ontario. One major issue that is a result of the implementation of the Greenbelt is that development is jumping over the Greenbelt, particularly onto prime agricultural land. “Development is leapfrogging over the provincial government’s designated Greenbelt and moving onto some of Ontario’s best farmland” (Howden Thompson 2007). “Although it wasn’t supposed to happen, opponents of the Greenbelt legislation argued during the public consultations that preceded the legislation that was precisely what would happen and that leapfrog development would be an unintended consequence of a designated Greenbelt” (ibid). Interviewee 1, stated that development proposals in the area are driven by pressure in the south that is jumping the Greenbelt (Interview 1 2008). This interviewee has also observed that with this leapfrogging that is happening over the Greenbelt, large companies are now becoming key buyers of land north of the Greenbelt (ibid). Walton International, a land-banking company based in Calgary has purchased just under 3000 acres in New Tecumseth, a town north of the Greenbelt, according to interviewee 1 (Interview 1 2008). New Tecumseth is a town found in South Simcoe County, a county that contains prime agricultural land and numerous small towns. Interviewee 1 noted how buyers now are more sophisticated, they are large companies. (Interview 1 2008).

A second, equally important issue that arises from the Greenbelt is that farmers are the ones that must take on the burden of preserving land for society. The work being done by the government for the “greater good” of society can negatively affect farmers as their business practices are hindered and they will face financial constraints when selling their land. These farmers on the Greenbelt undertake landscape conservation work on behalf of the public with no compensation or recognition (Carter-Whitney 2008).

Growing the Greenbelt

In February of 2008, the Government of Ontario released a document outlining their proposal to extend the Greenbelt, only three years after the initial implementation of the Greenbelt Act (Government of Ontario 2008). This document was made to inform Ontarians because the Government wanted to hear citizens’ feedback on how to consider requests to expand the Greenbelts boundaries (ibid). A draft set of criteria has been developed that “once finalized, would be used to consider requests from regional, county and single-tier governments to expand the Greenbelt’s boundaries” while requests to reduce its size or remove areas would not be considered (ibid). Jim Watson, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stated that this is being proposed to “help strike the right balance between protecting greenspaces and meeting the needs of their growing communities” (ibid). Currently consultation workshops are being held for the month of April in Walkerton, Guelph, Niagara Falls, Peterborough, Barrie and Markham to allow organisations, municipalities and the public to discuss and provide feedback on the draft criteria (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2008). The municipalities

27

that could consider Greenbelt expansion are the Region of Waterloo, the amalgamated municipality of Kawartha Lakes, the potions of Niagara Region not currently under protection, as well as the counties of Wellington, Brant, Haldimand, Dufferin, Simcoe, Peterborough and Northumberland (Howden Thompson 2008).

28

Chapter 5 - Simcoe County

Simcoe County is found just north of the Greenbelt. This is a large county with a growing population. Its rich natural environment and easy highway access to major urban areas in North America make this region ideal for growth and development. Much land speculating has occurred in this area, particularly after the implementation of the Greenbelt where proposed developments range from 50,000 people to more than 100,000 people. Hundreds of acres of farmland would to be lost if these proceed.

Future Development:

On November 4, 2002, Chris Hodgson, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, gave a speech to developers at the Urban Development Institute. During this speech he argued that the 1 million new immigrants to Ontario expected over the next 15 years, should move north of the moraine (Morrow 2002). He also noted that the best way to accommodate the expected growth in Ontario over the next 15 years is a comprehensive transportation system (ibid). His “comprehensive transportation system would include a new rail and highway corridor that would ease gridlock and direct new growth in central Ontario by connecting new nodal developments north of the Moraine” (ibid). New developments north of the Moraine should be encouraged, Hodgson said to redirect growth “from the overloaded 905-area to rural areas, where communities are struggling” (ibid). Sending developers north of the Moraine will land the majority of them in Simcoe County. This former Ministers speech “appears to have sent a signal to developers that the province was willing to permit massive development in Simcoe County” (ibid). Hodgson’s party is no longer in power and his vision may not be shared by the present government. Jim Watson, current Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is proposing to expand the Greenbelt to protect more land. As well, Watson has specified that the Greater Golden Horseshoe Plan is be followed as this document sets a framework for controlling growth and revitalizing existing urban areas in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2008). Municipalities must update their official plans by 2009 to implement the Growth Plan’s policies (ibid).

Demographics

Simcoe County had a population of 422,204 people in 2006. This county consists of 4,480.56 square kilometres. Between 2001 and 2006 Simcoe County had a population increase of 12% (Statistics Canada 2006b). The population of Toronto was at 2,503,281 people in 2006 where the population increase between 2001 and 2006 was 0.9% (Statistics Canada 2006a). The average cost of a dwelling in 2001 was $177,070 in Simcoe County while province-wide it was $199,884(Statistics Canada 2006b).

29

Economic Base of South Simcoe

South Simcoe County is comprised of the municipalities of Adjala-Tosorontio, Bradford-West Gwillimbury, Essa, Innisfil and New Tecumseth. The economy in Simcoe County is based on agriculture, tourism and natural resource extraction (Birnbaum, et al. 2004.). There has been “recent growth in employment occur[ing] in five other sectors: manufacturing, retail, health care, construction, and accommodation and food services related to health care” (ibid). Three percent of Simcoe County’s labour force in is agriculture and other resource-based industries according to the 2001 Statistics Canada Census (Statistics Canada 2006b). South Simcoe “demonstrates a significant concentration in agriculture and manufacturing industries” (South Simcoe Economic Alliance 2007a).

By the year 2008, Honda will open a new engine plant in Alliston, creating 340 new jobs. There are already two Honda manufacturing plants in Alliston (South Simcoe Economic Alliance 2005). South Simcoe has experienced tremendous growth in industrial commercial areas due to the presence of Honda and its associated suppliers (ibid). In addition, newly designated industrial lands along Hwy. 400 and in the Town of New Tecumseth have provided a cost-effective alternative to the GTA (ibid).

South Simcoe boasts of a great location advantage. “Highway 400 provides South Simcoe with access to and from Highways 401 and 407, which in turn provides the Canadian link to the NAFTA Super-highway connecting Ontario with the I-69, I-94, 1-75 and numerous other associated corridors that facilitate the movement of goods between Mexico, US, and Canada” (South Simcoe Economic Alliance 2007b). The target industrial sectors in South Simcoe are manufacturing, food processing and plastics (South Simcoe Economic Alliance 2007b). “Population density in general and urban development in particular, is greater in the southern portion of the county. This is as a result of economic and employment links with the highly urbanized Greater Toronto Area immediately south of Simcoe County (The County of Simcoe 2007)”.

Environment

Simcoe County has a very rich natural environment. There are two major watersheds found here; the Nottawasaga, which drains north into Georgian Bay and the Simcoe Basin, which drains into Lake Simcoe from all sides (Birnbaum, et al. 2004). The Canadian Shield can be found in the north of Simcoe County, Lake Simcoe to the east, the Oak Ridges Moraine to the south, and the Niagara Escarpment to the west (Birnbaum, et al. 2004). The newly legislated Greenbelt is found just south of the county, with a small area of Simcoe included, which is one of the reasons this region is so appealing to developers.

30

Water

Within Simcoe County, two watersheds can be found, the Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River (LSRCA & NVCA 2005a). The Lake Simcoe watershed is of great value for numerous reasons. It is a source of drinking water for 5 municipalities; is southern Ontario’s largest inland lake (excluding the Great Lakes); has a recreational value of $200 Million annually; is a one hour drive from half of the population in Ontario; is known as the ice-fishing capital of Canada; and it supports 15% of the angling efforts (ibid). Due to excessive amounts of phosphorus from both urban and rural sources, the lake’s fragile ecosystem has been altered which has led to immense aquatic plant growth (algae) (ibid). In turn, this has led to decreased watercourse oxygen levels in the deep, colder areas; increased water temperatures; and has rendered limited breeding grounds inhospitable (ibid).

The Nottawasaga Valley watershed is also of great importance to Ontario. It provides the most “extensive migratory fish habitat ecosystem connected to the Great Lakes Basin” within Ontario; it includes the longest network of coldwater stream habitats which support various species and their habitat; it allows for sport fishing which is a significant economic contributor to the watershed community; the mouth of Nottawasaga River is Wasaga Beach, the world’s longest freshwater beach; and this river includes Minesing Swamp which is one of Ontario’s most significant wetlands (ibid). Studies have been completed on the Nottawasaga River where stream health was monitored based on surface water quality, in stream temperature, fish community studies, and benthic communities (ibid). From these studies it was concluded that 43% of the streams are considered “below potential” and 16% of streams are considered “impaired” (ibid). It was also concluded that there was a strong correlation between riparian vegetation and over forest cover and stream health (ibid).

Developments Proposed

In early 2003, large-scale developments were being proposed throughout various municipalities in Simcoe County. These proposals were outside designated settlement areas (Birnbaum, et al. 2004). Ontario’s population is projected to grow by 3.8 million (33.4 percent) to 15.4 million over the next 30 years. The fastest-growing region will be the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), expected to grow to 7.5 million in 30 years, or 49 percent of the entire provincial population (Ontario Nature 2005).

Bradford Bond Head Planning Area, Bradford West Gwillimbury

The Bradford Bond Head development proposal is, “a dramatic, long-range plan to manage urban growth north of Toronto” according to the developer, the Bond Head Development Corporation, a subsidiary of the Geranium Corporation (Bond Head Development Corporation 2006a). The Bradford Bond Head proposal is a “planned

31

community north of the Oak Ridges Moraine” (ibid). This development is said have planned growth over the next 25 to 30 years of more than 100,000 people in a ‘live-work’ community, centered on the intersections of highways 400 and 88. Bradford West Gwillimbury currently has a population of 24,036 according to the 2006 Statistics Canada Census (Statistics Canada 2006c). The village of Bond Head which is found in the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury has a population of 500 (Bousfields Inc. 2006). The developer believes that residential and economic growth must occur together to ensure economic prosperity for central Ontario and their proposal focuses on this issue by having lands for recreational, employment and institutional use (Bond Head Development Corporation 2006a). The Bradford Bond Head Planning area is advertised as being “an ideal location for new homes, recreational areas, schools and business that Ontario will need in the future” (Bond Head Development Corporation 2006b). The Bond Head Development Corporation states that the area in question is not on environmentally-sensitive lands and that it is east of the Niagara Escarpment and north of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ibid). The website also points out that it is between Toronto and Barrie and lies close to major transportation corridors including highways 88 and 400 and the GO Transit line (ibid). They claim that the development “will be made more accessible in the years to come as existing highways are extended and new ones constructed in the area” (Bond Head Development Corporation 2006b). The Bond Head Development Corporation notes that “while existing agricultural land will be taken out of production to provide needed homes for Ontario citizens, the future growth needs of the province cannot be met solely by so called ‘brownfield’ developments in which former urban industrial lands are remediated and turned into settlement areas” (Bond Head Development Corporation 2006b). Finally, they note that the Bradford Bond Head area is next on the map for logical growth when looking at the regional and historical context of growth patterns in Ontario (Bond Head Development Corporation 2006b). The Geranium Corporation has over 25 years of experience being a fully-integrated real estate company with previously built communities from Cobourg to Windsor to Barrie (ibid). The Bond Head Development Corporation was formed by Geranium Corporation to propose a long-term plan for South Simcoe County (Bond Head Development Corporation 2006a).

Big Bay Point, Innisfil

The design of Big Bay Point Resort is intended to celebrate the culture, ecology and heritage of the neighbouring shoreline of Lake Simcoe (Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited 2008). This is to be a vibrant waterfront community (ibid). Big Bay Point Resort “features a compact, pedestrian-scaled resort development containing a mixture of open space and recreational uses intermingled with residential, commercial, cultural and civic uses, and focused on an enlarged marina” as well as an 18-hole golf course (ibid). The original proposal has been downsized after 5 years of consultation with the County of Simcoe, the local community and environmental groups (The Scope 2007). The developer now proposes 1600 condominiums, 400 hotel rooms and a 1000-

32

slip marina (ibid). As well, the new proposal sets aside more than a third of the 600-acre site as an environmentally protected area (ibid). Concern is starting to mount in the Innisfil area regarding the ecologically fragile Lake Simcoe. Thousands of people receive their drinking water from Lake Simcoe and there has been an evident decline of this watershed in ecosystem health and water quality (LSRCA & NVCA 2005b). The Lake Simcoe Act has been proposed by the McGuinty government in the hopes to protect and renew Lake Simcoe through mandating no new development will be allowed to impair the lake (Unknown 2007). The Greenbelt governs Lake Simcoe’s southeast shoreline but about half of the watershed is unprotected (ibid).

OPDI, New Tecumseth

This proposal calls for a development just south of Alliston on 1,416 hectares of sod and potato farms (Birnbaum, et al. 2004). This development would have 50,000 people and when fully developed would have a range of industrial, commercial and institutional land uses as well 15,000 dwellings (ibid). The first phase of this development would have storm water ponds, public buildings and a large central commons with greenspace (ibid). Neighbourhoods would then be added on as the community grew (ibid). Twelve hundred units would be built during the first phase which is enough to support an elementary school (ibid). Overall, a hospital and a future Georgian College campus are in the development plan (ibid). Allan Duffy, the project manager believes that this is a good site for development due to the fact that there are high employment prospects in the area, mainly due to Honda and that the fact that 405 hectares of new industrial and commercial land were recently adopted in New Tecumseth’s Industrial/Commercial Secondary Plan (ibid). Also, he notes that a large portion of Honda’s workforce live outside the town since local housing options are limited (ibid). Duffy points out that the OPDI development would be built at the junction of the proposed Highway 427 extension and the proposed Economic Transportation Corridor (which is proposed at highway 400 and highway 88) (ibid).

Walton Intl., New Tecumseth

Walton International is an international company that “develops and offers real estate investment opportunities to individuals. Walton is one of North America’s most experienced land banking companies with an operating history of over 28 years” (Walton 2007). This company has offices in Canada, Germany, Asia and the United States (ibid). “Walton focuses on the purchase of strategically located raw land in the path of development of major North American cities” and then through structured product offerings allows individuals to make land banking investments (ibid). Walton’s vision is “to become one of the world’s largest land products companies” (ibid). According to a prominent real estate agent in Simcoe County, Walton International owns just under 3000 acres in South Simcoe County (Interviewee 1 2008). These parcels

33

of land are outside any current settlement areas so they aren’t permitted to be developed under current zoning but Walton believes that this will change (as cited in Gorrie 2007). Walton’s senior vice-president of international marketing, Dean Lower, has stated, “we're confident that [this] area is in the path of growth and development and should bode well for us and our investors" (as cited in Gorrie 2007). He also noted that in 28 years in business, "we've never lost an investor's money" (as cited in Gorrie 2007). New Tecumseth hasn’t yet differentiated between prime agricultural land and less special farmland (rural land) but plans on making this distinction in the next OP update (Interviewee 5). Local knowledge holders believe that much of the OPDI, Walton and Bradford Bond Head lands would be identified as prime agricultural lands.

Transportation Expansions in South Simcoe County and Surrounding Area

In 2001, the Conservative government at the time announced a number of expansions and improvements to Ontario’s transportation corridor. These highway expansions, even if just conceptual, played keys roles in all of the development proposals. The Liberal government, now in power has, announced that “in the 2007-2008 fiscal year, Ontario will invest $1.7 billion in the provincial highway system (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2007). The investments that will affect development north of the Greenbelt are investments in highways 404, 400 and 427.

Highway 427

Highway 427 “originates near the Toronto lakeshore and ends at Highway 7 in York Region, parallel to Highway 400” (Birnbaum, et al. 2004). Highway 427 extension to Cookstown was proposed in 2001. Extending the 427 would mean that it would need to cross through the Greenbelt. The Highway 427 Extension Corridor Needs Assessment study that was completed in 2000 says “the proposed corridor will run from where Highway 427 currently ends at the former Highway 7 northerly to Highway 400 in the Cookstown area” (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2002a). Another document, the Simcoe Area Transportation Network Needs Assessment that was launched in 2000, calls for a “new transportation corridor extending northerly from the top of Highway 427 around Barrie (including connections to Highways 400 and 11 north of Barrie)” (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2002b). According to Ontario’s Budget 2007, the Highway 427 extension is a long-term project that is still in the planning phase (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2007). In 2005, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to the Minister of Transportation and Public Infrastructure Renewal saying that “the increase in north-south movement of people and goods and the mounting congestion of the 400 between Highway 7 and 11 initiated a recommended network alternative (through the 2003 EA ToR) of a new transportation corridor from Highway 7 to Highway 11 north of Barrie” (Ontario Chamber of Commerce 2005). They also noted that it was

34

concluded that the widening of the 400 was not feasible to deal with the congestion that currently exists. (ibid)

Bradford By-pass off of Highway 404

The Ontario government has approved a 13 kilometre highway 404 extension, costing $250 million dollars (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2007). The target start date for this project is in 2008, with a target completion date of beyond 2010 (Government of Ontario 2006b). This new four lane highway will be from Green Lane to Ravenshoe Road, York Region (ibid). This extension links York Region and Simcoe County (Birnbaum, et al. 2004). The road will travel west from the 2006 expansion of Highway 404 in the Town of East Gwillimbury through the Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury to Highway 400 (Birnbaum, et al. 2004).

Highway 400

Highway 400 “is the key provincial highway link between southern and northern Ontario” (Birnbaum, et al. 2004). This highway is “a key artery for the movement of goods” and connects the urbanized regions in the south to recreational and tourist activities throughout Simcoe County and Muskoka (ibid). Highway 400 will be widened from Major Mackenzie Drive to Teston Road in Vaughan (Government of Ontario 2006b). This widening will be from six to eight lanes and has a target commencement date in 2008 with a target completion date in 2010 (ibid).

Simcoe County Responses so far:

Simcoe County Official Plan (OP)

The County of Simcoe describes its Official Plan as follows:

“The Official Plan of the County of Simcoe is prepared under the Planning Act, as amended, of the Province of Ontario. The Plan provides a policy context for land use planning taking into consideration the economic, social, and environmental impacts of land use and development decisions. The Plan provides a policy basis for exercising the approval authorities for local municipal Official Plans and amendments, and applications for subdivision of land. The Plan is a document designed to assist in growth management in a County expected to experience rapid growth in population and urban development over the next twenty years. It attempts to achieve a balance between the demands for economic development, community building and environmental conservation and provide a framework for coordinated planning with adjacent municipalities, agencies,

35

and other levels of government. The Plan applies to sixteen towns and townships, or local municipalities, which constitute the County of Simcoe. As stated in the Planning Act, 1996, where an Official Plan is in effect, no public work shall be undertaken and no bylaw shall be passed for any purpose that does not conform therewith. The act further states that local Official Plans and zoning bylaws shall be brought into conformity with the County Plan.” (The County of Simcoe 2007). Simcoe County’s OP states that it wants “development of communities with

diversified economic functions and opportunities” It also states that it “recognizes the need to enable and encourage the development of a wide range of business and employment opportunities to meet the needs of a growing population” (ibid).

The agricultural section of the OP is intended to reduce conflict and competition for the agricultural industry to function efficiently, especially on prime agricultural land (ibid). Non-prime agricultural areas can provide areas for rural uses such as limited residential and resource activity while protecting “rural character and the viability of existing agricultural operations” (ibid). The OP also encourages the restoration and maintenance of rural and agricultural areas (ibid).

In terms of general development policies and guidelines the Simcoe County OP states that “In the design and layout of development proposals, it is the policy of the County of Simcoe that the following be considered:”

“minimizing the removal of natural vegetation, especially along shorelines. If significant vegetation cannot be retained, then it should be replaced;

protecting and maintaining scenic resources;

the proposed architecture, scale of development, and development pattern be compatible with or enhance the character of the existing area;

outdoor lighting be developed that complements the setting and does not overilluminate or glare;

development be clustered at edges of significant open spaces;

road patterns fit and complement the topography;

sign by-laws reduce undesirable visual impacts of signs;

cultural heritage resources shall be conserved where appropriate and justified according to Section 4.6;

green spaces, parks and open space, where possible, be connected;

a mix of housing types (variety of houses and lot sizes) be included in residential developments and subdivisions;

communities be developed having a strong pedestrian orientation; and

the integration of trails and pathways” (ibid).

For development in rural and agricultural areas, the OP directs this type of development to be sited and designed on a property to minimize adverse impacts on “agricultural and natural cultural features” (ibid). As well, rural development when

36

possible, should be in a cluster form which would allow economical and efficient servicing (ibid).

Local municipal Official Plans are also made by each municipality within Simcoe County, under the county OP (ibid). The municipal OP will establish planning strategies and policies that are consistent with both county OP and Provincial policies (ibid). These plans will designate future growth areas for the region while making reference to county bylaws and policies (ibid). The municipal OP’s and zoning “bylaws shall include policies that provide the opportunity for a range of housing types, densities, and costs to meet the needs of current and future residents.” (ibid). “Local municipal official plans shall, where applicable, allocate future residential growth according to location and form of development such as settlement expansion, settlement infill, country residential subdivisions, rural consent lots, or other similar categories” (ibid). Municipal OP amendments are required for settlement expansions and country residential subdivisions.

“Municipalities have considerable capacity to undertake initiatives related to urban sustainability through their authority over land use planning, including their ability to enact by-laws in areas not regulated by the province, make infrastructure investments of their own, provide capital and operating support to public transit, direct their purchasing policies and licensing powers, apply fees for service and design their property tax regimes” (Government of Canada as cited in Winfield 2003).

Simcoe County is currently updating its OP (Interviewee 9). This review is being done with a focus on growth management and natural heritage, according to a senior regional planning official (ibid). It is to be completed by the summer of 2008. Simcoe’s OP will guide the lower tiered municipalities’ OP’s. In general, an OP outlines the local or county or regional council’s policies on how land in the community should be used (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2007c). The OP must be consistent with the PPS and maintain general regional OP provisions (ibid). An official plan amendment is an official document that changes the municipality’s OP (ibid). All amendments to an OP are proposed, discussed and developed the same way as the original plan (ibid). Each local council must review its OP every five years (ibid).

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Simcoe County Official Plan (OP)

The Simcoe County Official Plan outlines a county-wide vision and guiding principles for planning. This allows for a degree of uniformity across municipalities resulting in a certain level of equality for all members of the county (ibid). The county OP also allows for a second step in precautionary terms that allows county officials to rethink and possibly revise what the municipalities have approved. The Simcoe County OP does not have a great deal of flexibility as it must conform to the regulations set out by the province. Municipalities also put pressure on the county in the hopes of being

37

able to increase their local revenue through increased developments. In Simcoe County, the county Council “is composed of the mayors and deputy mayors of each of the sixteen towns and townships, or area municipalities which comprise the County of Simcoe” (Simcoe County 2007a). Council members are not elected directly to County Council by their community members which allows for an unequal representation of the community.

The Simcoe County Official Plan is currently being reviewed and will be completed by the summer of 2008 (Interviewee 9 2008). The revised OP will have a rural/agricultural designation for land (Interviewee 5 2008). This is being done to distinguish between lands that should be designated long-term prime agricultural land and what could be designated rural, which is anything other than agricultural and non-urban (Interviewee 5 2008). The “Official Plan update we are proceeding with now, we are going to try to make the distinction, as have all other municipalities, lower municipalities in the County of Simcoe, to distinguish between what should be long-term prime agriculture and what could be designated rural, so anything other than agriculture and non-urban” (Interviewee 5 2008). This new designation will put stricter rules on possible land uses for lands designated prime agricultural. Ultimately, it will greatly restrict the possible uses of land for farmers by eliminating any uses that are not agricultural related. For example, a farmer who owns and operates a tractor trailer, for his farming business during the farm season, would not legally be able to operate a freight business from his farm unless the fright he was hauling was agricultural commodities or agricultural related freight. This leads to the farmer loosing the opportunity to increase his or her income and support the viability of his or her farm.

Growth Management Study

Currently, the County of Simcoe is “developing an area-wide Growth Plan as part of its official plan review and conformity exercise with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, adopted by the province in 2006” (Simcoe County 2007c). This study will determine the county’s future urban structure and the policies to guide development and growth (ibid). Additional sections of this study include updated Natural Heritage policies and a Transportation Master Plan (ibid). The Growth Management Steering Committee is comprised of elected officials from communities within Simcoe County, including the cities of Orillia and Barrie (ibid). Members of the general public, the development industry and organised interest groups have an opportunity to share their opinions and views with the Growth Management Steering Committee (ibid).

Transportation Master Plan

In association with the Growth Management Study, the Transportation Master Plan is being competed due to the development and growth that is happening in Simcoe

38

County (Simcoe County 2007c). The county is expecting an increase in the challenges for the existing transportation infrastructure (ibid). This study hopes to address these pressures and to accommodate growth with a proactive transportation planning approach (ibid).

“While roads are the primary component of the county's current transportation system, provincial policy and environmental statistics clearly reflect a needed shift towards accommodating and encouraging different modes of transportation within the County. Therefore the County's Planning Department and Transportation & Engineering Department are in the process of developing a County of Simcoe Transportation Master Plan with the consulting assistance of EarthTech Canada” (ibid).

The county hosted three Transportation Master Plan Public Information Centres where interested citizens were allowed “to comment and input on current and future transportation infrastructure pressures facing the County” (ibid).

Inter-Governmental Action Plan (IGAP)

The Inter-Governmental Action Plan (IGAP) involves the province and Simcoe County area municipalities (Simcoe County 2007b). It will address concerns about development pressures, population growth and will aid municipalities in planning for the future (ibid). The IGAP is to supply the municipalities with a set of implementation tools and an information base “to manage their planning and development decision making in the face of major growth pressures” (ibid).

The Plan will offer a basis for:

“A long term urban structure plan for Simcoe County and the cities of Barrie and Orillia

A sustainable infrastructure strategy for Simcoe, Barrie, and Orillia

Development certainty for affected stakeholders

A suitable governance structure and/or service coordination mechanisms to manage future growth and development” (ibid).

Particularly, the plan will gather information about the local watersheds, including Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River and “their ability to accommodate added usage of water and sewer systems that would come with additional urban development in the area” (ibid). The state of the sewer and water systems that are used for the current population will also be studied (ibid).

39

Assimilative Capacity Study

An Assimilative Capacity Study (ACS) was completed in the summer of 2006 (LSRCA & NVCA 2006). This study was completed by the Province of Ontario in partnership with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) to study the assimilative capacity of the Nottawasaga and Lake Simcoe watersheds (ibid). Assimilative capacity is defined as “the capability of the watercourse and/or lake to resist the effects of landscape disturbance without impairment of water quality” (ibid). This study was initiated due to the growth pressured felt within these two watersheds and “the already evident decline in water quality and ecosystem health” (LSRCA & NVCA 2005b). The ACS will develop scientific modeling that can assist local municipalities and other legislative authorities “in predicting the impacts of land use, through development scenarios on the water quality of both Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River watersheds (ibid). The main goal of the ACS is the preservation of natural resources within the two watersheds (ibid). This is to be done in a collaborative, integrated manner where human needs are met in balance with the need to maintain the natural environment (ibid). As a result of the work done by the LSRCA and the NVCA, they will ensure a healthy aquatic ecosystem and stream health, increased recreational opportunities, a vibrant community, sustainable agricultural operations and safe drinking water (ibid).

The results from this study have shown that urban, agriculture and atmospheric sources equally contribute to phosphorus loading in Lake Simcoe (LSRCA & NVCA 2006). The study “predicted a small decrease in the dissolved oxygen with Lake Simcoe under committed growth” (ibid). It was found that hydraulic processes for Lake Simcoe are wind driven and that in general the lake mixes well under these conditions (ibid). From this study it was concluded that both watersheds can only achieve their Total Maximum Monthly Load (TMML) targets under committed growth conditions provided that best management practices are fully implemented (ibid). As well, “a mechanism and implementation framework needs to be developed to ensure that targets are achieved and maintained into the future” and this “framework should include regulation and/or policy to mitigate impacts from further growth, a rehabilitation plan, and a financial framework to fund restoration projects (ibid).

Lake Simcoe Initiative

In July of 2007, Dalton McGuinty, the premier of Ontario, announced that his government “would take strong action to protect the health of Lake Simcoe” (Government of Ontario 2007a). This government is proposing the Lake Simcoe Act (ibid). It would include both the Lake Simcoe watershed and the Nottawasaga watershed. McGuinty said this act would be implemented and developed in coordination with municipalities, local residents, conservation groups, farmers, cottagers, developers, environment groups, First Nations and the tourism industry (ibid). This new act would build on the work done by previous studies such as the

40

Assimilative Capacity Study, the Inter-Governmental Action Plan and the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (ibid). McGuinty stated that this act would not affect developments such as Big Bay Point in Innisfil that were proposed before the act was introduced. The Lake Simcoe initiative is only to address new development (Minnoch 2007). Currently, the government is consulting with First Nations, the scientific community, the public and communities such as, fisheries, agriculture, tourism, environmental interests and development (Government of Ontario 2007b). This is being done to ensure that all viewpoints are taken into consideration before the long-term protection strategy is drawn up (ibid).

Adequacy of Responses

The Province of Ontario has taken action to slow the loss of farmland in Southern Ontario through legislative changes and incentives. Simcoe County has also made an attempt to respond the pressures imposed upon this county due to the Greenbelt legislation through various studies and legislative amendments. However, there are limitations in these responses. All of the interviewees expressed their concerns on this matter regarding the issues South Simcoe faces. The two prominent local real estate agents interviewed noticed a change in the value and purchasers of land since the implementation of the Greenbelt. Interviewee 1 noted that he thinks “farming as an occupation in South Simcoe is probably a thing of the past, full-time farming operations” due to South Simcoe County being located just north of the Greenbelt (Interview 1 2008). He believes, as do many, that there is nowhere else for growth to occur as Simcoe County is such an open, undeveloped space with access to several highways (ibid). This agent who has worked in the area for decades has noticed a change in the clientele over the past few years where the purchasers of land are now more sophisticated, larger companies that are particularly interested in land banking (ibid). He does expect a significant rise in proposals for the conversion of farmland to other purposes in the coming years based on the fact that “developers are really purchasing strategic properties in the area, anticipating further growth” where all of the major developers can be found to be land banking in the area (ibid). He has also noticed an increasing trend of non-farmers buying farms in South Simcoe County for “lifestyle properties” (ibid). He stated that proposals to convert farmland to other purposes are driven by pressures from the south that are jumping the Greenbelt. He also noted that “the people purchasing real estate in our area *South Simcoe County] now, are very sophisticated, they’re large companies, they have strategic plans, they strategise how to promote and manipulate development in all areas and they’re very good at it” (ibid). Interviewee 2 who has also been a real estate agent in the area for decades, agreed that part of the farmland in South Simcoe County will be taken into urban areas (Interview 2 2008). He has also noticed the land banking that has been occurring in the area where one major land banking company, Walton Intl., came in and spot bought

41

because they had heard that New Tecumseth (municipality in South Simcoe County) was a growth area above the GTA (ibid). Walton Intl. sold the land to foreign investors as he stated that there would not have been local interest in this type of spot land purchasing (ibid). He also stated that the value of farmland found within the Greenbelt has greatly diminished since this legislation was enacted (ibid). The two local mayors who were interviewed discussed the land speculation and growth pressures in their municipalities. Interviewee 3 noted an expectation of growing pressure for the transfer of farmland into residential uses to increase in the future (Interview 3 2007). Particularly noting the land banking that is occurring in South Simcoe where one of the land banking corporations is selling the land to Asian investors in small parcels and shares so that there are multi-land holders (ibid). He noted that there is an expectation for that land to be used for another purpose other than farming (ibid). He stated that there is a real push and pull within the agricultural community because “there’s agricultural land that would be prime agricultural land but *it+ also has a high speculative value” which can be a challenge for farmers (ibid). He has noticed that more and more, the proposals for the conversion of farmland to other purposes are not locally driven as many are now coming from major developers that were previously not found in the community (ibid). He stated that he would like to have the “tools to help guide how our community should grow and allow us to control that” (ibid). The second local mayor noted a growing frustration in his local community, because many of the residents now only slept there and then they left the area to work, shop and recreate (Interview 4 2008). As well, with the expected growth for the area, Interviewee 4 did not know where these new people would work, shop and how the municipality could afford recreation facilities for them (ibid). Here, he remarked that if people were to spend their money locally, then they could create local jobs and “tax revenue here that we could turn around and use to improve the quality of the services that we [the town+ provide” (ibid). He also noted that as a lower-tier municipality that must conform to the county and the province, there needs to be consensus on what the current initiatives of the regions are and what’s in the greater interest of them all (bid). A greater sense of community and a more broadly shared consensus are to be expected if all tiers work together. At the same time, the province needs to be realistic in the goals it sets for the lower tiers. For example Interviewee 4 doesn’t believe through his research that the current target of forty percent intensification, as set by the province is achievable (ibid). He stated that there is a challenge in balancing what people want versus the greater common good of not providing exactly what they want, as some people would prefer a house with a large frontage instead of an apartment building or a small frontage (ibid). On the same point, he argues that if you’re not allowing development on a massive area and people don’t want to live in a densely built form, which the province wants, then how do you balance where the market is with the form of housing the province wants people to be living in (ibid). He noted that the Greenbelt legislation is putting pressure on his municipality as well as other similar municipalities (ibid). The two local municipal planners believe that it is hard to balance the interests of the private sector, the community, the greater good and market forces. Interviewee 5

42

noted that “there’s always going to be some difference of opinion between the lower tier municipalities and an upper tier government on long-term direction” (Interviewee 5 2008). He also noted that the private sector may also be opposed to the long-range plan of the municipality, which can be particularly precarious for a municipality as this sector has the money to finance knowledgeable professionals to challenge the plan before the OMB (ibid). As well, he stated that there is a challenge with respect to the allocation of limited tax dollars (ibid). Some municipalities have a larger funding base than others but there are always issues on how to spend the money particularly when residents like to see tangible results and don’t always understand the value of “longer-term planning to achieve a more efficient, healthy, liveable community” (ibid). He believes that there needs to be much better transportation connectivity between urban centres as there will always be some people commuting and our highway systems are simply not up to par for the volume of traffic they contain (ibid). Interviewee 6 noted that there will be growing demand for the harvest that comes off the land in this region (Interviewee 6 2008). He stated that municipalities aren’t in complete charge of their destiny as far as protecting farmland is concerned (ibid). In particular, they cannot impose land use controls that are as strong as current pieces of legislation such as the Greenbelt Act (ibid). As well, there are very few tools or aides for a municipality to offer farmers to ensure that they can make a living at what they do, so another level of government needs to assist in that regard (ibid). He noted that proposals for conversions of farmland to other purposes “are really driven by a strong residential market as opposed to any local needs [that] are concerned (ibid). As well, he said that there will continue to be a need for “new accommodation, new places for people to live, to work, to play, beyond what we can currently offer” and the question is how best to accommodate those needs (ibid). There are still challenges ahead, he noted, including providing transit systems that respond to that growth, providing appropriate infrastructure and making some societal changes because current provincial land use policies are shying away from the “North American dream of a detached house with a nice backyard for your kids to grow up in and dog to play in” (ibid). He does believe that municipal planners are at somewhat of a disadvantage when it comes to developers and their proposals as these planners do not have the same resources the large sophisticated development firms have at their disposal (ibid). The financial burden of going to the OMB can become onerous he states, particularly for smaller places and it can truly affect the quality of an argument made at a board hearing if one can’t afford to hire the experts one needs to properly defend a position (ibid). As well, board hearings consume an immense amount of time and shut out to a large extent any public involvement as citizens or community groups would have to absorb the costs as well (ibid). The two presidents of local farm groups hold a bleak outlook on the future of farming in South Simcoe County. Interviewee 7, a long-time farmer of the area, does not expect to own his farmland in twenty years as he states that the value of farmland in the area is so high he cannot afford to own the property (Interview 7 2008). If productive, generational farmers are being pushed off of their land due to land prices, the future farming potential of the area is seriously questioned. This exemplifies the fact that

43

keeping farmland in Ontario has been addressed to a certain extent but keeping farmers farming the land hasn’t been addressed. Interviewee 7 also noted that our economy is driven by growth where the increase in housing, horizontal development and roadways is encouraged even though this increase is unsustainable in the long-term (ibid). He stated that he hated seeing developments taking over farmland and that he sees that his children’s chances of farming “are almost zero and it’s simply because the cost of the land or the value of the land has become prohibitive because of the speculators who keep hoping for this horizontal growth” (ibid). He noted that the Greenbelt has definitely adversely affected the farming community as far as farming and the value of land, where land values have doubled in the area since the Greenbelt legislation has come into effect (ibid). He also stated that the Greenbelt has had the leapfrog effect which is making local farmers and land owners feel “the pinch” even more. As well he noted that there was a real lack of foresight with this legislation, where it’s going to be multi-millionaires owning hundred acre estate homes on the Greenbelt and then north of the Greenbelt there are going to be numerous subdivisions where you have to drive for an hour or so to Toronto for employment (ibid). Interviewee 8 concurred where he noted the occurrence of the leapfrogging from the south into Simcoe County, as well as in the increase in land value due to the Greenbelt legislation (Interview 8 2008). He also noted that infrastructure is going to be a major issue with the expected growth in Simcoe County (ibid). He stated that all of these people coming into the county are not going to work here, they will commute to the city, so roads are going to be an issue where if the highways become too congested, as is the case now, people will use the secondary roads where they will run into the farmers and their large, slow-moving equipment (ibid). As per the recommendations of the IGAP study and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Barrie is to receive the majority of the expected growth for Simcoe County (Dillon Consulting 2006). Barrie is to become the new node for development in Simcoe County (ibid). Interviewee 2 noted the issues with Toronto being a central node and that the decentralization of urban areas would result in more viable communities as all of those who don’t live in or adjacent to Barrie in Simcoe County will have to commute there or to Toronto (Interview 2). Having Barrie as the next central urban area for development would likely lead to Barrie becoming the next Toronto, with all of the negative social, environmental, and economic issues of air pollution, sprawl and gridlock, just to name a few, that Toronto currently faces.

44

Chapter 6 - Options for the Future

The key issues that need to be addresses in South Simcoe County are:

Greenbelt effects that put pressure on this region in numerous ways specifically threatening the viability of farming for Southern Ontario,

expectations that growth needs to and will occur in our current market system,

this area has significant agricultural land and water systems that need to be preserved,

the need for local employment to reduce commuting, suburban expansion and the “bedroom community” syndrome this region faces,

the need to strengthen the farming industry to ensure farming as well as farmland are persevered well into the future,

the fact that municipalities do not have a lot of resources on hand or legislative power to choose their own destiny and must ultimately conform to the higher tiers,

the general public’s desires that are not generally for the greater good but must be appeased to a certain point

serious equity problems where the location of land (within, near the Greenbelt) has a significant impact on the value of land, leading to developers and land banking corporations buying land, potentially farmland, for exorbitant prices that farmers are for the most part unable to refuse

the centralizing of cities that is still occurring in our current planning schemes with Barrie to become the new node of development for Simcoe County’s new industrial, residential and commercial growth,

use of roads as the primary source of transportation that development is designed around, which furthers the need for highways and slows our transition to alternative more sustainable forms of transportation.

There are various ways in which to address these issues. The following are ways that arose from literature review and those that were implied by the interviewees. In general, we as a society can no longer afford the “business as usual” principle that dominates our ways. The ideals of human separation from the environment, limitless growth and worldwide convergence are ones that will eventually lead society past the environmental threshold. It has been found that “…without measures in a business as usual development, GHG-emissions would soar to unacceptable levels… *and] it is feasible to combine (strong) economic growth with far going reductions of GHG emissions…” (Treffers et al. 2005). There are various points of views to be found within a community on how it should grow. These diverse viewpoints should be taken into consideration to ensure the community of South Simcoe grows in a sustainable fashion the community members’

45

desire. To understand the issues at hand for South Simcoe, an advisory committee should be appointed that would consist of local mayors; provincial representatives; local farm groups; citizen representatives; environmental representatives; industry representatives; planning representatives; Greenbelt representative; academics; and developers. This multistakeholder body would allow those with a vested interest in the community and experts to develop a growth strategy that is specific to the region and one that is agreeable to the parties involved. Scenario-building is one approach which Simcoe County could use to build its ideal future, ideally using the mulitstakeholder body. A scenario is “a description of a future situation and the course of events which allows one to move forward from the original situation to the future situation” as this is a way of foreseeing the future (Michel Godet as cited in Kippenberger 1999). The two types of scenarios are “an exploratory scenario in which the past and present trends are extrapolated into a likely future; and an anticipatory set of scenarios which incorporates different visions of the future” (ibid). To generate scenarios, four linked steps are employed: “analysing systems, reviewing the past, defining the strategies of those involved, and adding detail” (ibid). The hypotheses the scenarios are based upon must be consistent, likely and appropriate but scenarios can be defined as “‘possible’ (everything that can be imagined), ‘realisable’ (everything realistic), or ‘desirable’ (possible but not necessarily realistic)” (ibid). This scenario-building exercise would also allow direct input from lower tiers as they can occasionally be left out of the higher tiers vision for the community. In our current capitalist society, we are dependent upon growth. As the development space in the GTA is running out for further extensive horizontal growth, new areas of development are being born. Interviewee 1 believes that growth in South Simcoe County is inevitable because “there’s nowhere else for the growth to happen” (Interview 1 2008). He also states that “If you take a radius around Toronto about 50km, you’ll see that really the only open undeveloped space is in our area here *South Simcoe County] and also with access to major highways. Our infrastructure program here could be set up as easy as any” (ibid). This tends to be the view of many, including the majority of the interviewees. If growth is to occur in this area, it needs to be planned properly with all of the possible effects taken into consideration ahead of development. Significant agricultural lands found in this region and the water systems in this area are already under heavy stress. These natural features need to be preserved to maintain a healthy ecosystem and community for the existing population and future generations of Simcoe County.

Interviewee 7 noted that he would like to see extensive brownfield development and more vertical development, which is practical for the City of Toronto (Interview 7 2008). Brownfield development is an alternative to the typical suburban development where now deserted, possibly contaminated sites could be reclaimed and redeveloped for residential use. This would need to be done on a provincial scale. As well, recent provincial legislation regarding brownfield development offers incentives that aid to offset some of the financial exposure and legal dangers to potential developers (Sheppard 2005). Increasing the ease of brownfield redevelopment should be

46

encouraged by the provincial government to reclaim these areas and maximize their development potential as many are located on prime downtown sites. There are various scenarios possible for South Simcoe County. The three most probable are Scenario, 1 the business as usual approach; Scenario 2, the mixed land use approach; and Scenario 3, the no development approach. In Scenario 1, much of South Simcoe County would be overridden by current pressures and would be consumed by growth and development. The municipalities found in this region would remain bedroom communities with most residents commuting to Barrie and/or Toronto to work and play. As the bedroom community syndrome persists in Simcoe County, the proposed highway expansions will need to be build, and possibly more expansions will need to be built to accommodate the increase in commuters. Farmland and farmers would eventually become a thing of the past for this region as urban sprawl expanded, devouring the prime agricultural land. As well, it would become increasingly difficult to preserve the significant environmental features found in this region using this approach. The business as usual approach paints a bleak picture for South Simcoe’s future.

In Scenario 2, denser, nodal development is encouraged with true “live, work, play” communities realized. The integration of mixed land uses would include residential, commercial and industrial lands in various areas of South Simcoe County. This would allow for local employment where the bedroom community could dissipate as well as its need for highways and highway expansions. Transit opportunities would also come along with this densification of communities. There would be development with this approach but there would also be farmland and farmer preservation as growth would be planned on a community base not just on a subdivision by subdivision base. This would also allow for significant environmental features to be preserved in South Simcoe County. Overall, this approach is quite feasible and is expected to be found most desirable by most stakeholders.

In Scenario 3, there would be no development allowed in South Simcoe County. This would preserve all of the farmland in the area as well as the significant environmental areas. However, farmers may not necessarily be preserved by this approach as they would face future financial constraints. There would also be no economic growth for the local communities, which would result unfavourably for local residents and businesses. The proposed highway expansions would be needed as this bedroom community would persist and so the local residents would need to continue to commute to Barrie and/or Toronto to work and play. This approach could be achieved by expanding the Greenbelt to include all of South Simcoe, yet there are numerous flaws in this approach with the consequence being an unpromising future. Various adjustments could be made to each of these approaches as well. To address the specific issues in South Simcoe County, a variety of tools and techniques must be applied. There are many negative consequences that arise from the implementation of the Greenbelt, so much so, that the benefits are seriously questioned. The Greenbelt has been proven to be putting additional pressure on the South Simcoe region in numerous areas creating further and more complex problems for this area. Scenario-building with a multistakeholder body of concerned individuals would allow the region to address the forthcoming issues and plan accordingly. In this

47

sense, a proactive approach would be taken and such a drastic measure, such as the implementation of a Greenbelt, would not need to be taken. Local employment needs to occur in this region to reduce the community’s dependence on the larger urban centres of Toronto and Barrie. The municipalities in South Simcoe County rely heavily on commuting for employment. In New Tecumseth, 49% of residents work outside of New Tecumseth (Statistics Canada 2001). In Essa, 58% of residents work outside of Essa (ibid). In Innisfil, 79% of resident work outside of Innisfil (ibid). In Adjala-Tosorontio, 93% of residents work outside of Adjala-Tosorontio. Similar statistics are expected for Bradford West-Gwillimbury. This bedroom community means that the majority of community members in Simcoe County are spending hours of their day on highways and roads. As well, they are most likely recreating and shopping in the area they work in so that their money is being spent outside of the community they live in. Interviewee 4 noted his frustration in this area where he stated “our folks have to leave town to shop at larger retailers...if we had those options here, then our folks are spending their money in our town creating jobs here and tax revenue here, that we could turn around and use to improve the quality of services that we provide” (Interview 4 2008).

Focusing employment only in large urban areas results in suburban sprawl around the existing urban area and then the construction of major highways so that commuting to the one employment area is possible. This is seen in Simcoe County where highway 427 has been proposed to be extended up to the City of Barrie and where highway 400 is being widened to accommodate the commuting population in Simcoe. The growth of highways in this region will only lead to more commuters and the furthering of the bedroom community plague this region has. The real question is will there ever be enough highways and will they ever be wide enough for commuters to travel to one central region as our population grows. The answer is obviously no as the City of Toronto has found that “By 2021 they will need 19 additional lanes of expressway capacity to move suburban commuters to jobs in the City and City residents to jobs in the 905 regions which cannot be served effectively by public transit” (City of Toronto 2007). New programs need to be implemented where employment opportunities are created in regions other than the GTA or a single node in general. New programs would include incentives (monetary, tax favouritism etc.) and business plans for smaller regions such as South Simcoe County to attract and maintain businesses so that communities can truly grow into the work, play live areas the province is striving for. The Provincial Government would be a key player in this incentive initiative and policy making to increase employment opportunities in numerous regions. As well as incentives, other facets of employment need to be examined such as having a central office building in a community where citizens from various businesses could work through the means of telecommuting.

To manage growth (residential and economic) and preserve significant environmental features in a community, municipalities should work together. This has already occurred in South Simcoe County and should be encouraged further. Ahead of the various Simcoe County studies (IGAP etc.) and the Greenbelt legislation, the five municipalities of South Simcoe County came together to work collectively. Interviewee 3

48

noted that these five municipalities “had all experienced pressures to grow and expand in a multitude of different ways and we recognized that it was better for us to try to work together on any of that because then the expansion in any one of those municipalities has an impact on a neighbouring municipality” (Interview 3 2007). Interviewee 3 also stated that “Municipalities are relatively responsible entities and they were already looking to work together to try to manage growth and development in a reasonable and responsible way and to try to find efficiencies in how they work together” (Interview 3 2007). Municipalities should have authority over their community as they understand the needs and wants of their community members. Each of the municipalities of South Simcoe County must conform to the higher tier Simcoe County which can clearly cause issues if there are different visions for growth for the areas. As well, the municipalities must now also conform to the provincially legislated Greenbelt Act. Many interviewees stated that there needs to be a coordinated approach to planning and growth management where the lower tier municipalities, county and provincial government all work together to address specific needs and issues within areas. This coordinated approach would ensure stakeholder involvement and that the higher tiers of government aren’t just mandating policy but allowing dialogue and collaboration in the planning process. The farming industry needs to be strengthened so that with farmland preservation, there are farmers available to work the land in the future. In general, farming needs to become profitable so that there is less interest in selling farmland to generate earnings. Interviewee 8 stated that “if people are making money they will stay in the business, if they’re not they’ll find a way to get out and it’s an easy way if you have someone knocking on your door offering you eight to ten thousand dollars an acre; you’re not profitable but somebody’s offering you a million dollars you’re really tempted to take it...” (Interview 8 2008). A combination of factors is needed to restore the economic viability of farming including reforms of government policy, land use controls and financial incentives to farm the lands. One strategy to protect significant agricultural land is to distinguish farmland in the municipal OP. The distinction is made between prime agricultural land and rural land where there are specific restrictions on their uses accordingly. This allows prime agricultural land to be preserved but can also hinder individual farmers. If farmers are on prime agricultural land they cannot use their land for other purposes other than agricultural or agricultural related purposes. The classifying of lands has the potential to greatly encumber the economic capability of the farming industry and by restricting their opportunities to diversify their income streams. The farming industry must be included in the formation of new policies and amendments that affect their industry. Public wants and market forces do not always favour sustainability or government mandate. The increase in housing density the province has decided they want to use to accommodate growth, would comprise of communities having more high-rises and smaller lots which are not desirable housing means in the current market. To combat current housing aspirations, intensified living needs to be more attractive and include features that today’s society would like. Intensified living should be made desirable though various means such as, affordability, education and creativity. This

49

type of housing has the possibility to revamp previous housing styles to accommodate modern day households and their inclinations. New trends are now emerging in the housing market as gridlock, environmental degradation and shoddy construction now show that density can no longer be ignored (Toronto Star 2008). Author and urban planner Christopher Leinberger notes that “Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas – especially those well served by public transit – become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries” (ibid). He also noted that as Baby Boomers grow older and couples put off having children, “the appeal of the subdivision wanes even further” and that suburbs may be well on their way to becoming America’s “next slum” (ibid). The question of equity when preserving farmland and curbing urban sprawl is a real challenge to regulate. Those who own land within the Greenbelt boundary found their land incredibly devalued once the act was legislated while those just outside of the Greenbelt found their land value had increased (Interview 2 &7 2008). This new act has encouraged land banking around the outer ring of the Greenbelt in numerous municipalities where land can potentially be sold for exorbitant prices in the near future. Farmers cannot refuse these land prices when their annual income is less than $25,000 a year before expenses (Porter 2007a). There are several ways in which to deal with this issue. One way is to get the government to buy farm land then rent it out according to Wayne Roberts of the Toronto Food Policy Council. Roberts states that “Not only would the province save the most productive land from being stripped of its topsoil and converted to homes and malls, but it could also boost aspiring farmers into the business by renting out small acreages to them at affordable prices” (Porter 2007a) He calls them “farm condominiums” (Porter 2007a). This would require a real shift in the farming industry and would be quite difficult to implement. In California and Manitoba there are policies in place that require developers to make payments towards environmental goods and services with those monies then being made available for farmers (Howden Thompson 2007). This policy allows for the balancing of growth with environmental responsibility (ibid). Implementing a policy similar to this would be feasible in Ontario and would be very beneficial for individual communities.

Other options should be investigated that would allow for equity amongst individuals and communities so that individuals aren’t profiting at the expense of the environment. “We have to look at the present rural-urban dichotomy as a symbiotic relationship and not an irreconcilable divide where one side’s gain is the other’s loss” (as cited in Marion 2007). It is inequitable to create land use policies to protect farmland that ultimately hinder the farmers themselves. The preservation of farmland and greenspace needs to be done by the community as a whole or those who preserve the land for the community need to be compensated. Often, the preservation of farmland is seen as a way of merely keeping the countryside “as an amenity for urban dwellers” (Bunce & Maurer 2005). It is commonly known that farmers in the Netherlands are financially compensated for their efforts in preserving greenspace and farmland. A system similar to this could be implemented in Ontario if a portion of taxes were given to farmers to ensure the viability of farming currently and in the future. This would also

50

ensure the protection of farmland and greenspace so that developer’s high-priced proposals aren’t so appealing which allows farmers to continue farming, reducing farmland loss and urban sprawl. Farmers should not need to bear the cost of protecting greenspace for all of society. The farmlands in Ontario include water supplies and recharge areas, carbon sinks that help to decrease greenhouse gases and engendered species (Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario 2002). However there is very little recognition of these “public services” farmers offer with farmers unable to recuperate any of their costs from the marketplace (ibid). “Many farmers see the Greenbelt as yet another burden added to a long list of difficulties in making a living, forcing them to absorb the costs of farmland and greenspace protection” (Bunce & Maurer 2005). The Canadian Federation of Agricultural (CFA) argues that “The concept of paying agricultural producers for rendering EG&S [ecological goods and services], bridges the environmental demands of Canadians and the policy requirements of the industry to foster a socially and economically viable agricultural industry and sustainable rural communities” (CFA 2007). The CFA would like the Government of Canada to provide policies and programs that would support the land stewardship practices of farmers economically by recognizing the market value of the resulting goods and services (ibid). Having the City of Toronto as the central node of development for Southern Ontario has led to colossal environmental and social issues for the area. The sprawling metropolitan GTA can be blamed for destroying green space, fracturing neighbourhoods, increasing air and water pollution, forcing citizens to drive on gridlocked roads for every errand and increasing local taxes (Sierra Club of Canada 2003). These issues have been documented and studied extensively and so there is no need to repeat these mistakes as feasible alternatives are available. However, the City of Barrie is projected to receive the majority of growth for Simcoe County and will eventually become the next central development area. As with Toronto, it can be reasonably expected that the same negative effects of centralization will occur in the Barrie region. The decentralising of cities and nodal development would allow for greater work, live, play communities as each community, or many communities will have their own facilities for shopping, employment and recreation. The citizens of these communities will not have to drive for hours in gridlock to the single area of employment as there will be choices for employment in many communities. Interviewee 2 noted that he thought “it’s very important that the city doesn’t continue to build too many [developments] in one spot...that way they’re getting gridlock and it’s very hard for people to do business when they spend 2 or 3 hours in the car trying to get from A to B” (Interview 2 2008). Roads are still used as the primary source of transportation for developments and urban areas are continuously designed around a road system. Designing a city for roads only leads to an increase in, air (particularly greenhouse gases and smog) and water pollution, loss of sense of community, increased economic toll of gridlock and reduced mobilisation. Alternative forms of transportation need to be encouraged and implemented into existing cities and emerging urban areas. A feasibility study regarding public transit should be done on major urban areas to see how various forms of transportation such as trains, buses and rapid transit could be implemented.

51

Communities could be linked with other urban areas through linked transportation such as the Cornell development near Markham which links this community to Toronto through the York Regional Transit system and is also connected to Toronto by the GO lines. Cities around the world are now transforming and retrofitting their downtown areas into pedestrian friendly areas. Copenhagen, Denmark is known for its now pedestrian city where city planners took numerous small steps over decades to transform the city from a car-orientated place to a people-friendly one (New Urbanism Organisation 2007). To sum up the main points,

Greenbelt has increased pressure on surrounding municipalities and so other methods should be used to preserve agricultural land and curb urban sprawl.

Growth will occur in our market system and so it should be planned with foresight and all possible effects in mind.

Significant agricultural lands must be preserved to ensure food security for current and future generations.

Farming industry needs to be strengthened so that farmers can produce a viable income off of the land.

Local employment should be encouraged through provincial mandates that will reduce commuting.

Municipalities must be able to work with higher tiers of government so that their needs and views of their regions are taken into account.

The more sustainable housing forms should be made attractive to buyers.

There must be financial equity for farmers who bear the cost of preserving land for society

The decentralizing of urban areas must occur to stop urban sprawl and its negative implications, resulting in nodal developments.

Urban areas should not rely or be designed solely on roads and nearby highways.

52

Chapter 7 - Conclusions:

Preventing urban sprawl and the loss of farmland has proven to be a fight that

needs to be fought on many fronts. We cannot continue to degrade and waste the precious resources, such as farmland, we have left on earth. As well, unsustainable forms of housing cannot continue to be built at the scale they are presently. Smart Growth is one feasible option for Ontario and South Simcoe County. Nodal communities can be built where the citizens are able to work, live and play in their one community with no need for mass commuting. These types of communities have proven difficult to achieve fully, yet provincial encouragement and action by local citizens and municipalities will allow Smart Growth communities to be realised.

“The challenge to redirect growth towards a more sustainable form presents the need for a significant shift in societal norms on the part of the regional population. Improving transit is key to encouraging this shift. Investing in pleasant pedestrian oriented neighbourhoods, convenient transit to work locations, campaigns to get people out of cars through travel demand management initiatives and better travel alternatives will also foster this societal shift” (GHK Canada 2002).

Farmland law has not shown great potential for the long-term protection of farmland. This option would need to be modified if implemented in Ontario. Trusts are one great proposal to protect farmland yet this method relies too heavily on generous famers and citizens and would not be expected to work on a large-scale like Ontario. The strengthening of the farm economy is a daunting task where global markets make this method quite unattainable. The PPS from the provincial government has shown steps in the right direction but generalities and unattainable goals for municipalities do not provide a dependable framework for the lower tiers. The Greenbelt Act was a large legislative leap by the provincial government is the hopes of protecting farmland and control urban sprawl. However, this legislation has numerous downfalls and has created issues that need to be addressed by South Simcoe County in their attempt to manage future growth. This rural area must take into account the voices of the farmers, among other stakeholders that will allow for the County to approach this issue with the support of its constituents. “In their representations to the Greenbelt Task Force, farmers and their organisations generally argue that their livelihoods are not merely ignored but actually threatened by farmland preservation policies. They were unanimous in pressing for farmland policies driven by considerations for the farm economy” (Bunce & Maurer 2005). Farmers should not have the burden of protecting greenspace for all of society at their expense, they must be compensated in some way, possibly though a tax reform or the implementation of new beneficial agricultural policies. One example would be the implementation of the ALUS (Alternative Land Use Services) program. This is an

53

incentive-based program designed by farmers for farmers that “recognizes the value of conserving and restoring Canada’s natural capital while respecting and rewarding the important role that farmers play in environmental management (Delta Waterfowl Foundation 2007). The strengths and weaknesses that are found within the Greenbelt legislation and the other farmland preservation attempts can be built upon by Simcoe County and the Province of Ontario to allow for a consolidated, well-rounded approach. There is no one mandate or policy that will allow communities to easily protect their farmland and control urban sprawl. Communities need to work together with their stakeholders and the upper tiers. Small-scale approaches can be adopted by individual communities where only certain forms of developments are allowed. As well, these communities must plan with foresight etc. Municipalities can work together to push for combined public transit and local employment but the province must also help in these areas. This will allow individual communities to grow so that large regions consisting of numerous communities are not dependent on one city for all of their needs. There are many paths South Simcoe County can choose to take. This region is at a critical point where decisions made in the near future and the scenario chosen will impact the future of these communities greatly. Informed decisions need to be made that ensure the sustainability of this region on all levels.

Further Study

Further study needs to be done in the areas of urban planning, the farm industry in Ontario, economic development and policy making. These areas need to be studied further to enhance farmland protections in ways that ensure sustainable livelihoods and land stewardship. The interconnectedness of all of these issues must be taken into consideration and solutions must be provided that allow for gains in all four areas.

54

Works Cited

Almack, L. (2001). Sprawl - Smart Growth, A Report by the Green Door Alliance Inc. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.thegreendooralliance.ca/pdf/sprawlaug2001.pdf.

Birnbaum, L., Nicolet, L, Taylor, Z. (2004). Simcoe County: The New Growth Frontier.

Neptis Foundation. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://neptis.org/library/show.cfm?id=65&cat_id=11.

Bond Head Development Corporation. (2006a). Bradford and Bond Head proposed to

anchor new, planned community north of the Oak Ridges moraine. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.bradfordbondhead.ca/about/.

Bond Head Development Corporation. (2006b). The benefits of the Bradford – Bond

Head area. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.bradfordbondhead.ca/benefits/.

Bousfields Inc. (2006). Bond Head Community, Bradford West Gwillimbury. Retrieved

February 18, 2008, from http://www.bousfields.ca/index.php/projects/bond_head_community/.

Bunce, M. (2001). The Futility of Farmland Preservation Policies in the GTA. Delivered

at the GTA forum on Agricultural Land Policy: Debating the Alternatives. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http:www.yorku.ca/gtaforum/presentations/GTA_Bunce_7_6_01.doc.

Bunce, M. & Maurer, J. (2005). Prospects for Agriculture in the Toronto Region: The

Farmer Perspective. Neptis Foundation. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.neptis.org/library/show.cfm?id=73&cat_id=6.

Campbell, C. (2006). Forever Farmland. Reshaping the Agricultural Land Reserve for the

21st Century. David Suzuki Foundation. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://davidsuzuki.org/files/SWAG/DSF-ALR-final2.pdf.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture. (2007). Environmental Policy Statement. Retrieved

April 15, 2008, from ww.cfa-fca.ca. Carter-Whitney, M. (2008). Ontario’s Greenbelt in an International Context, Comparing

Ontario’s Greenbelt to its Counterparts in Europe and North America. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from htp://www.cielap.org.pdf/GreenbeltIntenationalContext.pdf.

55

Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. (2002). Closer to the Heart: A CFFO Vision for

Farming. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from, www.christianfarmers.org. City of Toronto. (2000). GTA Population and Employment Projections to 2031.

Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/gta_2031.pdf.

City of Toronto. (2007). The GTA is growing rapidly. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from

http://www.toronto.ca/torontoplan/11.htm. Clean Air Foundation. (2007). Why Should I Recycle My Old Car?. Retrieved November

20, 2007, from http://www.carheaven.ca/about/why.aspx. Delta Waterfowl Foundation. (2007). Alternative Land Use Services, Growing a Healthier

Environment. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/alus/index.php.

Dillon Consulting. (2006). Intergovernmental Action Plan for Simcoe, Barrie and Orillia,

Growth Potentials Assessment Report. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from http://www.simcoe.ca/stellent_discover_con/media/media/planning%20files/GPA%20Report%20-%20Consolidated%20Version-Rev%2009-06-06%20FINAL.pdf.

Environment Canada. (2005). Acid Rain and…Water. Retrieved November 20,

2007, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidwater.html. Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation. (2007a). Greenbelt Facts and Figures. Retrieved

October 15, 2007, from http://www.ourgreenbelt.ca/our-greenbelt/learn/greenbelt-facts-figures.

Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation. (2007b). Why Protecting the Greenbelt is

Important. Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http:www.ourgreenbelt.ca/our-greenbelt/lean/why-protecting-greenbelt-important.

GHK Canada. (2003). Growing Toronto: Prospects for Renewal in the Toronto Region.

Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.toronto.ca/moraine/pdf/2002summary.pdf.

Gorrie, P. (2007). Sprawl hits above the belt. Toronto Star. Retrieved January 8, 2008,

from http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/190337. Government of Ontario. (2001). Listening to Ontario, Ontario Smart Growth: A

56

Summary of Consultations. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/english/aboutpir/publications/consultation_summarypdf.

Government of Ontario. (2002a). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved December 1,

2007, from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=215. Government of Ontario. (2002b). Provincial Policy Statement (1996, amended in 1997).

Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page216.aspx. Government of Ontario. (2005). Permanent Greenbelt A Legacy for Future Generations.

Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/Product.asp?ProductID=179.

Government of Ontario. (2006a). Greenbelt Act, 2005. Retrieved November 1, 2007,

from http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05g01_e.htm.

Government of Ontario. (2006b). Southern Ontario Highways Program

2006 to 2010. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from https://ospace.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/1873/1753/1/263700.pdf.

Government of Ontario. (2006c). Ontario Budget, Supporting Ontario’s Agricultural

Sector. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/13000/260873.pdf.

Government of Ontario. (2007a). McGuinty Government Commits to Protecting Lake

Simcoe, Working with Local Communities to Keep Healthy for Families. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/Product.asp?ProductID=1472.

Government of Ontario. (2007b). McGuinty Government Acts to Protect Lake Simcoe,

Immediate Steps Will Address Phosphorus Discharge; Consultation Key In Development Of Legislation To Protect Lake Simcoe. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/news/2007/120601.php.

Government of Ontario (2008). Growing the Greenbelt. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from

http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2008/02/21/c4636.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html.

GTA Clean Air Online. (2005). The Future Growth in the GTA – Navigating Growth and

the Greenbelt. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.gtacleanaironline.ca/portal/user/anon/page/default.psml/js_peid/main/media-

57

type/html/language/en;jsessionid=3E1D64D67FAA3B7A962646DA3D3C192B?action=controls.Restore&portalid=ContentPageType%3A007&yzpage=5098&yzlookfeel=basic.

Hemson Consulting Ltd. (2007). Developing a Growth Management Strategy for the

Simcoe County Area. Working Document for Review by the Growth Management Steering Committee. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://growth.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/groups/public/@pub/@sagp/documents/web_content/sagp_gbappc000156.pdf.

Howden Thompson, A. (2007, November 6). Warnings of leapfrog development prove to be prophetic in greenbelt. Ontario Farmer, p. A8-9. Howden Thompson, A. (2008, April 8). Greenbelt expansion under scrutiny. Ontario

Farmer, p. A24-25. Huisman, A. (2008, February). 2007 A Year in Review. The Grower. p.5. Interview 1. (2008). Prominent Local Real Estate Agent. Interview 2. (2008). Prominent Local Real Estate Agent. Interview 3. (2007). Local Mayor. Interview 4. (2008). Local Mayor. Interview 5. (2008). Local City Planner. Interview 6. (2008). Local City Planner. Interview 7. (2008). Local Farm Group President. Interview 8. (2008). Local Farm Group President. Interview 9. (2008). Senior Regional Planning Official. E-mail. Kippenberger, T. (1999). Creating the Future. The Antidote, 4(4), 14-16. LSRCA & NVCA (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority & Nottawasaga Valley

Conservation Authority). (2005a). About ACS – Stats at a Glance. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.assimilativecapacity.info/about_us__stats_glance.htm.

58

LSRCA & NVCA (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority & Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority). (2005b). About us. Retrieved February 19, 2008 from http://www.assimilativecapacity.info/about_home.htm.

LSRCA & NVCA (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority & Nottawasaga Valley

Conservation Authority). (2006). Assimilative Capacity Studies for the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga River - Executive Summary. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.assimilativecapacity.info/pdf%20files/Executive%20Summary_July%206.pdf.

Marion, M. (2007, October 23). Politicians starting to acknowledge community’s

development concern. Ontario Farmer, p. A12-13. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2006). Bill 51. Retrieved February 18, 2008,

from http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/38_Parliament/Session2/b051ra.pdf.

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. (2007c). Opportunities for Ontario's

Agri-Food Sector: The Minister's Strategic Advisory Committee Report. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/about/msacreport.htm#top.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2007a). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation

Plan. Government of Ontario. Retrieved January 17, 2008, from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1707.aspx.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2007b). Provincial Policy Statement.

Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2007c). Official Plans. Retrieved April 11,

2008, from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1759.aspx. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2008). Growing the Greenbelt. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Pages5340.aspx. Minnoch, M. (2007). Lake Simcoe Act will not approved developments. The King

Sentinel Township. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.kingsentinel.com/news/2007/0801/news/015.html.

Mittelstaedt, M. (2008, April 11). Ontario’s greenbelt a model for the world. The Globe

and Mail. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.2008.0410.wgreenbelt10/BNStory/National/

59

Mol, A. P. J.(2007). Boundless Biofuels? Between Environmental Sustainability and

Vulnerability. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(4), 297-315. Morrow, L. (2002). Hodgson to Developers: Mover Growth North of Moraine. Novæ Res

Urbis, 5(44), 1-8. Natural Resources Canada. (2007). Waterscape Bowen Island, The clean water factory:

forests, streams, and wetlands. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/h2o/bowen/factory_e.php.

New Urbanism Organisation. (2007). Pedestrian Cities. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from

http://www.newurbanism.org/pedestrian.html. Niagara Escarpment Commission. (2004). Overview. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from

http://www.escarpment.org/About/overview.htm. Oakville Economic Development. (2006). Oakville Urges Province to Move Quickly on

Bill 51. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.oeda.ca/nr01-06.htm. Ontario Chamber of Commerce. (2005). RE: 427 Transportation Corridor: EA Terms of

Reference. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://occ.on.ca/private.151. Ontario Farmland Trust. (2007). What We Do. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from

http://www.farmland.uoguelph.ca/oft/whatwedo.htm/. Ontario Greenbelt Alliance. (2006). Greenbelt Passes First Report Card. Retrieved

January 19, 2008, from http://www.ourgreenbelt.ca/press/20060228.htm. Ontario Greenbelt Alliance. (2007). Government Graded on Greenbelt: B+. Retrieved

January 19, 2008, from http://www.ourgreenbelt.ca/press/viewnews.php?id=15. Ontario Nature. (2005). A Smart Future for Ontario, How to Create Greenways and Curb

Urban Sprawl in Your Community. Chapter 1. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.ontarionature.org/pdf/SC_Chap_1.pdf.

Ontario Medical Association. (2001). Phase II: Estimating Health and Economic

Damages, Illness Costs of Air Pollution. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.oma.org/phealth/report/techrep.pdf.

Ontario Ministry of Finance. (2007). Expanding Prosperity through Ontario’s

Infrastructure. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.ontariobudget.ca/english/bk8.html.

60

Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (2002a). The Simcoe Area Transportation Strategy. Retrieved on October 29, 2007, from http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/news/regional/2002/061402b.htm.

Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (2002b). Province moves forward with Simcoe area

transportation strategy. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/news/regional/2002/061402.htm.

OMAFRA (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) (2005). New Foodland

Ontario television campaign supports farm and rural communities. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GONE/2005/09/20/c1812.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html

Porter, C. (2007a). A farewell to farms. Toronto Star. Retrieved November 15, 2007,

from http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/275386.

Porter, C. (2007b). All parties polish apple to promote local foods. Toronto Star. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/263861.

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. (2007). About the Agricultural Land Reserve. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr/alr_main.htm.

Rural Economic Development & Data Intelligence. (2007). Rural Ontario Profiles.

Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://www.reddi.gov.on.ca/insight_ruralontarioprofiles.htm.

Savour Trade Ontario. (2007). Partnerships. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from

http://www.savourontario.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=22

Sheppard, S. (2005). The New “Brownfields” Legislation: Ontario’s Redevelopment

Strategy for Contaminated Lands. Ottawa Business Journal. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/288543277144056.php.

Sierra Club of Canada. (2003). Urban Sprawl Hurts Us All!: A guide to the costs of

sprawl development and how to create livable communities in Ontario. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://earthembassy.net/national/postings/sprawl-hurts-us-all.pdf.

Simcoe County. (2007a) Council. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from

http://www2.simcoe.ca/countygovernment/council/index.htm.

61

Simcoe County. (2007b). Inter-Governmental Action Plan. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.county.simcoe.on.ca/municipalservices/planning/currentinitiativesstudiesandstatistics/intergovernmentalactionplan/index.htm.

Simcoe County. (2007c). Home. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://growth.simcoe.ca/index.htm.

Smart Growth Network. (2007). About Smart Growth. Retrieved December 1, 2007,

from http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/default.asp. Sorbara, G. (2007). Ontario Budget, Investing in People & Expanding Opportunity,

Ontario’s New Economic Strength. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.ontariobudget.ca/english/pdf/papers_all.pdf.

South Simcoe Economic Alliance. (2005). Honda Canada To Build New Engine Plant In

Alliston Ontario and Introduce New Environmentally-Friendly Products. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.powersitefactory.com/ssea/Page.asp?IdPage=2712.

South Simcoe Economic Alliance. (2007a). About Us. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from

http://www.southsimcoeea.ca/Page.asp?IdPage=5847&WebAddress=ssea2007. South Simcoe Economic Alliance. (2007b). Economic Profile. Retrieved November 20,

2007, from http://www.southsimcoeea.ca/Page.asp?IdPage=5848&WebAddress=ssea2007.

South Simcoe Economic Alliance. (2007c). Future Growth. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from

http://www.southsimcoeea.ca/Page.asp?IdPage=5869&WebAddress=ssea2007. Statistics Canada. (2001). Place of Residence/Place of Work. Retrieved Janury 11, 2008,

from www.statscan.ca. Statistics Canada. (2005a). The Loss of Dependable Agricultural Land in Canada. Rural

and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin. Vol.6, No.1.

Statistics Canada. (2005b). Study: Urban Consumption of Prime Agricultural Land. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050131/d050131c.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2005c). Study: Work and commuting in urban centres. Retrieved

November 20, 2007, from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050601/d050601a.htm.

62

Statistics Canada. (2006a). Community Highlights for Toronto. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3520005&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=toronto&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=.

Statistics Canada. (2006b). Community Highlights for Simcoe County. Retrieved October

30, 2007, from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=3543&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Simcoe%20County&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=.

Statistics Canada. (2006c). Community Highlights for Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3543014&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=bond%20head&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=35&B1=All&Custom=

Storm Coalition. (2007). The Moraine. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from

http://www.stormcoalition.org/pages/moraine.html. The County of Simcoe. (2007). The County of Simcoe Official Plan. Retrieved December

3, 2007, from http://www.county.simcoe.on.ca/media/planning%20files/OP%20Consolidation%20August%202007%20-%20TEXT%20FINAL.pdf.

The Preserve Institution. (2007). Removing Freeways – Restoring Cities. Retrieved

November 20, 2007, from http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysInducedReduced.html#Note1.

The Scope. (2007). Big Bay Point Resort project receives wide support. Retrieved

January 28, 2008, from http://www.innisfilscope.com/news/2007/0411/news/005.html.

Tomer, J., & Sadler, T. (2007). Why we need a commitment approach to environmental

policy. Ecological Economic 2( 3-4), 627-636. Toronto Environmental Alliance. (2005). 2005 Toronto Smog Report Card. Retrieved

November 11, 2007, from http://www.torontoenvironment.org/files/Smog_Rep_05.pdf.

63

Toronto Star. (2008). Downtown density will prevail over slums of suburbia. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.thestar.com/article/308762.

Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. (2006). Economic Profile. Retrieved February 18,

2008, from http://www.gotobwg.ca/Page.asp?IdPage=4823&WebAddress=bwg. Treffers, D., Faaij, A., Spakman, J. and Seebregts, A. (2005). Exploring the possibilities

for setting up sustainable energy systems for the long term: two visions for the Dutch energy system in 2050. Energy Policy, 33(13), 1723-1743.

Unknown. (2007, July 16). Environmental groups praise lake act. Retrieved April 15,

2008, from http://www.simcoe.com/article/42119. Virtuocity. (2006). Criticism of Classical Zoning: “Urban Sprawl” vs. Suburban

Development. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/page/2/.

Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited. (2008). Big Bay Point Resort, Town of

Innisfil. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.wndplan.com/services/projects/bigbaypoint.html

Walton International Group Inc. (2007). About Walton Canada. Retrieved January 8,

2008, from http://www.waltoninternational.com/canada/about.asp?ArtID=105/. Walton, M, (2003). Agriculture in the Central Zone. Neptis Foundation. Retrieved

November 21, 2007 from http://www.neptis.org/library/show.cfm?id=72&cat_id=6.

Winfield, M. (2003). Smart Growth in Ontario: The Promise vs. Provincial Performance.

Pembina Institute. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/smartgrowth030307.pdf.

64

Appendices

Figure 1. Population Change from 2001-2006.

(Source: Rural Economic Development & Data Intelligence 2007)

65

Figure 2. Proposed Highway 427 Extension.

(Source: South Simcoe Economic Alliance 2007)

Figure 3. Proposed Bradford By-Pass

(Source: South Simcoe Economic Alliance 2007 )

66

Figure 4. Greater Golden Horseshoe Expansion.

(Source: Government of Ontario 2006b)