Environmental Defence misses boat on job zone

Editorial Innisfil Journal November 10 2010
INNISFIL – Environmental Defence is an organization that has done plenty of good as it keeps governments at all levels on their toes over the environment.
But sometimes this national non-profit organization misses the boat when it comes to local environmental issues.

For instance, its opposition to an employment zone at Highway 400 and Innisfil Beach road clearly misses the mark. While there is a legitimate fear GTA-type urban sprawl could hit Simcoe County without a vigilant provincial government, it makes no sense to block industry from setting up on this side of the Green Belt.
Earlier this month, Dr. Rick Smith of Environmental Defence opposed an employment zone in Innisfil because it leapfrogs the Green Belt, which runs through King Township.
“It’s disappointing and not in keeping with the more intelligent approach the government has adopted elsewhere,” said Smith, who fears it is the start of a sea of sprawl along Highway 400 from Bradford to Barrie.
Smith believes new industry should stay in the GTA, where land is still available.
The problem with that is, it means thousands of commuters will continue to drive up and down Highway 400 on the way to work. What is one of the biggest contributors to air pollution? The automobile, of course.
So while intensifying land use in the GTA makes sense for residents there, what about workers who will continue to commute if more jobs aren’t located closer to home?
Luckily, the provincial government has not always bought into Environmental Defence’s concerns. After all, the Liberals have already approved massive industrial development in Bradford at Highway 400 and County Road 88.
And the Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli has already said the Innisfil Heights area will be dedicated to industry, not new subdivisions or more big box commercial outlets.
The province should also be applauded for applying local solutions to its Places to Grow policy, which calls for industry to be located closer to residential areas. That makes sense in the GTA to cut back on driving, but it wouldn’t work in Innisfil, where it would require industry to be located in Alcona, close to environmentally-sensitive Lake Simcoe.
While Environmental Defence’s watchdog approach is welcomed, the group should look at the entire environmental picture when opposing development and new infrastructure.

Letter to Innisfil Journal November 12 2010
Re: Environmental Defence misses boat on job zone, simcoe.com
INNISFIL – The Journal is right in saying that people want to work close to where they live. If their work is close to home, they do not need to drive at all – they can bike or take transit, avoiding the air pollution problem we too acknowledge.
Environmental Defence has never said that employment north of the Greenbelt is a bad idea, period. Rather, we said that putting employment zones far enough away from home that people need to drive defeats the sprawl-busting direction of the province’s award-winning Places to Grow Act. 
In order to allow itself to approve these employment zones, on agricultural land, far from where people live in Bradford and Innisfil, the province used its “extraordinary” powers in a Ministers’ Zoning Order (used only 6 times in Ontario history) and amended its own Growth Plan.
Environmental Defence suggested that employment and residential growth be directed north, and to existing urban nodes. The province responded by adding Midland/Penetanguishine as an urban node, and by directing some residential population out of the Lake Simcoe watershed.
Growth should also be evaluated on its environmental sensitivity and planning merits, not handed out to developers because they’ve speculated successfully on land close to Hwy 400. We see no green development standard to guide these important population and employment allocation decisions.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, because we already have thousands of people living in bedroom communities in Simcoe County. If we could accept the benefits of building up instead of out, many of these problems would not exist: we could live close to existing employment areas, not drive to work, have more time with loved ones, and we would be physically healthier.
Claire Malcolmson
Coordinator of Campaign Lake Simcoe, at Environmental Defence