De-zone the whole greenbelt

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Of course it's both but right now it's definitely mostly the corruption. It only seems the public has no more attention than a hummingbird when it comes to its politicians but like rust, corruption and deception and the misinformation it breeds just continues building up layer after layer. Now it's thickening crust of mistrust that coats everything in the public's domain. It's completely unsustainable.

So where's that evidence? Where's all these analysis? You said it was all over and consistant yet you can't seem to find any

Its the greenbelt.  Look at the protesters. They're not holding up signs saying 'enough corruption'.  THey're holding up signs that say 'keep your word on the greenbelt" and 'save the greenbelt'.

IF people in ontario cared about corruption Justin would be long gone by now,

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Where's all these analysis?

The Angus Reid poll and Star article I provided links to.

Ever heard of Google?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The Angus Reid poll and Star article I provided links to.

Ever heard of Google?

Neither of which said that.  Sorry.

You know what your problem is? you have a bad habit of deciding what you want an answer to be, and then you just hope like hell that somewhere there's data that might be twisted to support that answer. Instead of actually looking for the facts before you arrive at a conclusion and then basing  your conclusions on the facts like i do.

it's pretty obvious that people are pissed about the green belt for the most part.

I'm sure someone somewhere is also pissed about the appearance of corruption - but whomever it is the one thing we know is they're not a liberal   

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it's pretty obvious that people are pissed about the green belt for the most part.

You googled that?

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

You googled that?

Are you wondering because you couldn't actually find any of those articles you pretended existed and you're hoping i'll teach you how to search the web properly? ?    LOL you're such a doof  

[eyeball]

Yeah, that must be it.

[herbie]

Don't let Ford give Kevin Falcon in BC any great ideas. He'll plow up the Fraser Valley and Okanagan in the name of housing and if Ford gets away with it, flog it to his developer friends.
Shit, the Okanagan Valley's been converted to only cement and vinyards as it is. There's been more fruit from Peru and veggies from Mexico than BC Grown  in the stores these days.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, herbie said:

Don't let Ford give Kevin Falcon in BC any great ideas. He'll plow up the Fraser Valley and Okanagan in the name of housing and if Ford gets away with it, flog it to his developer friends.
Shit, the Okanagan Valley's been converted to only cement and vinyards as it is. There's been more fruit from Peru and veggies from Mexico than BC Grown  in the stores these days.

Man you are just all over the place some times.  So - first off - grapes and wine are food. Complaining we grow too much and that we should grow more food is weird.

Second - no matter how you slice it if we have immigration we're going to have to have places to put people.  You're not going to force them to move to burns lake.  So they're going to live in The lower mainland.  Which means  we're going to need probably 10,000 - 30,000 homes just in the lower mainland every year.  Where were you planning on putting those?

The left really loves high immigration, the higher the better.   But they really hate to build homes.

So ... what's the plan then sparks?   It won't be long before we run out of good non-protected land.

[SpankyMcFarland]

23 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Generous grants??

Why not full market value?

Because the grants I am talking about would be to bring about a change of use on land that isn’t sold. The owners would be getting grants to change its use - and perhaps add rights of way - but would still own the land. Alternatively, they could sell it outright. Some of that land could then be used for housing and some for parks/wild areas. 

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Because the grants I am talking about would be to bring about a change of use on land that isn’t sold. The owners would be getting grants to change its use - and perhaps add rights of way - but would still own the land. Alternatively, they could sell it outright. Some of that land could then be used for housing and some for parks/wild areas. 

You miss the point.

Someone owns the land and they should get paid fair market value for it if it gets expropriated. The liberal government made the greenbelt without compensation the owners.

A grant is what??? Money for the land but the owner still owns it and pays taxes for it and is responsible for its condition?? The liberal government made itself a fiefdom, take the land and no one but the ]m can use it.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Because the grants I am talking about would be to bring about a change of use on land that isn’t sold. The owners would be getting grants to change its use - and perhaps add rights of way - but would still own the land. Alternatively, they could sell it outright. Some of that land could then be used for housing and some for parks/wild areas. 

So the owners just donate the value of the land and the gov't is kind enough to not force them to ALSO pay for the change of use.

Sigh

[herbie]

And you're making the dumb argument we don't need our own local food supply. The protected areas in BC are precisely that. They had the foresight to understand that in 1972 when they made the ALR.
It was market condition not govt that made all the vinyards out of many farms & orchards but we sure as hell don't wan to encourage more loss for condos and highrises.

Like FFS, who cares if people don't want to live outside the big cities, $2 million homes mean you already can't. And anyone thinking wages should increase to afford $2 million homes is off their effing rocker.

Burns Lake,,, fekk I wouldn't want to live there either. But 4 lane the hwy, double track the rail line and upgrade the fibre lines and you'd be nuts not to like Smithers or Terrace. Other than normal Canadian winters, Prince George has all the room for a million homes, but Lower Mainland pansies like my relatives and high school buddies are all "Wahhh! It's too cold..."

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

And you're making the dumb argument we don't need our own local food supply.

No, that's just the voices in your head again.  I never made that argument

Quote

Like FFS, who cares if people don't want to live outside the big cities,

The people. That's who.

And so you have to develop more. 

Which is the problem.  So unless you've got a better answer for how to address that  it's only a matter of time.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by CdnFox

[SpankyMcFarland]

The compensation of landowners is a topic to itself. I will leave it to others closer to the action to sort out whether and how much, taking into account what similar greenbelts have done around the world and, crucially, when the land was bought. And if you want to do something different, hey, that’s fine with me.

We started off on this thread with the title in the OP claiming that the entire greenbelt needs to be de-zoned and that all the people of the GTA are ‘entrapped’ in this fiendish plot, to use the colourful language of Mr. Corcoran. I suspect the majority of residents do not feel imprisoned and would like to see at least some of it retained. Is that the case or not? 

On what greenbelts are for, I think we will see some evolution on that. Farms and the markets they support will remain important but biodiversity and recreational opportunities for urban residents will rise even more as goals in the future. All the land so described is not sacrosanct. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[ExFlyer]

17 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The compensation of landowners is a topic to itself. I will leave it to others closer to the action to sort out whether and how much, taking into account what similar greenbelts have done around the world and, crucially, when the land was bought. And if you want to do something different, hey, that’s fine with me.

We started off on this thread with the title in the OP claiming that the entire greenbelt needs to be de-zoned and that all the people of the GTA are ‘entrapped’ in this fiendish plot, to use the colourful language of Mr. Corcoran. I suspect the majority of residents do not feel imprisoned and would like to see at least some of it retained. Is that the case or not? 

On what greenbelts are for, I think we will see some evolution on that. Farms and the markets they support will remain important but biodiversity and recreational opportunities for urban residents will rise even more as goals in the future. All the land so described is not sacrosanct. 

You are absolutely wrong.

The compensation of landowners when you expropriate their land is very much the topic. You cannot just take it and give them less than market value.

Exactly what have "similar greenbelts around the world" done?

For sure, some folks would "would like to see at least some of it retained" but which part? And, how much?

"Greenbelt protects over two million acres of land and 37% of this acreage is farmland"  So,what you are implying is that the farmer that has his land just next door to the greenbelt can sell his land to a developer for fair market value but the farmer inside the designated greenbelt has worthless land?? Sounds fair to me?? LOL

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The compensation of landowners when you expropriate their land is very much the topic. You cannot just take it and give them less than market value.

Exactly what have "similar greenbelts around the world" done?

Perhaps owners of greenbelt lands should receive carbon credits for the contribution their properties make towards mitigating climate change. Perhaps they already do I don't know.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

You are absolutely wrong.

The compensation of landowners when you expropriate their land is very much the topic. You cannot just take it and give them less than market value.

Exactly what have "similar greenbelts around the world" done?

For sure, some folks would "would like to see at least some of it retained" but which part? And, how much?

"Greenbelt protects over two million acres of land and 37% of this acreage is farmland"  So,what you are implying is that the farmer that has his land just next door to the greenbelt can sell his land to a developer for fair market value but the farmer inside the designated greenbelt has worthless land?? Sounds fair to me?? LOL

Dear me. It is A topic. Even Terence Corcoran did not make it THE topic. You need to find someone who disagrees with you a little more vehemently than I do. As I said, I’m agnostic on this issue. 

Again, would you like to see the entire greenbelt removed? Tower blocks all over the escarpment? 
 

 

[ExFlyer]

46 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Dear me. It is A topic. Even Terence Corcoran did not make it THE topic. You need to find someone who disagrees with you a little more vehemently than I do. As I said, I’m agnostic on this issue. 

Again, would you like to see the entire greenbelt removed? Tower blocks all over the escarpment? 

 

 

Nope but, I would like to see the landowners get fair market value for their land if they cannot sell it.

Then  again, I see no value to the greenbelt. The exception is farmers as they can still use the land and make money. If it was my land, I would not be happy just letting it sit dormant and do nothing for me except making a tree hugger hundreds of miles away happy

And who is Terrance Corcoran and why is he important enough to make it A topic???

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps owners of greenbelt lands should receive carbon credits for the contribution their properties make towards mitigating climate change. Perhaps they already do I don't know.

I really think they can spend dollars and cents more  than carbon credits LOL

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I really think they can spend dollars and cents more  than carbon credits LOL

They could sell their credits for dollars and cents.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope but, I would like to see the landowners get fair market value for their land if they cannot sell it.

I agree we should keep some of the greenbelt but there is a problem there from a market point of view. Essentially, the government will create winners and losers among landowners by allowing only some of the belt to be developed, the antithesis of a fair market. What about the other landowners? That process will be even more controversial if the perception is that such decisions were made other than for the reasons stated. 

 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Then  again, I see no value to the greenbelt. The exception is farmers as they can still use the land and make money. If it was my land, I would not be happy just letting it sit dormant and do nothing for me except making a tree hugger hundreds of miles away happy

I suspect there are many city dwellers who see value in forests, other natural habitats and farms far closer to the belt than those tree huggers. 
 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

They could sell their credits for dollars and cents.

Really? Where is that market and what is a carbon credit worth in dollars and cents on the open market? Is there an open market?

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I agree we should keep some of the greenbelt but there is a problem there from a market point of view. Essentially, the government will create winners and losers among landowners by allowing only some of the belt to be developed, the antithesis of a fair market. What about the other landowners? That process will be even more controversial if the perception is that such decisions were made other than for the reasons stated. 

 

I suspect there are many city dwellers who see value in forests, other natural habitats and farms far closer to the belt than those tree huggers. 
 

 

Uhhh, isn't that what the government did??? Sell off greenbelt to developers?

All landowners should get fair market value if the decide to sell. The thing with being in the greenbelt is that they cannot sell.

Why should city dwellers have any say in the use of the greenbelt?  If they want trees, they can go to designated municipal or provincial or federal parks.

[CdnFox]

All i know for sure is if we could just figure out a way to solve this with duct tape, we could have a Red Greenbelt.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Uhhh, isn't that what the government did??? Sell off greenbelt to developers?

No. The government sold out to them.

 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Really? Where is that market and what is a carbon credit worth in dollars and cents on the open market? Is there an open market?

https://carboncredits.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-understanding-carbon-credits/

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

No. The government sold out to them.

 

https://carboncredits.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-understanding-carbon-credits/

The government sold out what to who??? The government did not own the land.

 

The carbon credit market is not in Canada. You do not get any and will not ever for owning land so, you have no credit to give to sell to anyone. If you got credit for owning land, Canada has so much land we could get enough credit to pay off our national debt LOL

Edited September 13, 2023 by ExFlyer