Springwater decision on Midhurst: Misleading use of population numbers

Places To Grow population numbers are only forecasts, not targets
By Anne Sharpe, AWARE News Network September 22 2013
At a September 17 special council meeting, Springwater Township’s solicitor, Barnet Kussner of WeirFoulds LLB, gave a presentation on the history and legal status of the Midhurst Secondary Plan. He consistently used the term “population targets” in reference to the province’s Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe This is completely misleading. In fact, there are no population targets in the Places to Grow legislation, only “population forecasts.”

By altering the wording, the solicitor has reinterpreted or ignored the stated intention of Places to Grow, Ontario’s acclaimed and far-reaching blueprint “for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth.” (page 6, Section 1.1, Places to Grow, 2006, Office Consolidation, January 2012)

The “targets” included in Places to Grow are applied to density and intensification (page 45, Section 6.5.3) Clearly the goal here is to prevent sprawl by confining growth to already built and serviced areas.
Presenting population growth as a goal, rather than a forecast, suggests that population numbers in Places to Grow have been mandated by the province, that there is an expectation that they must be achieved. In reality, Places to Grow is a warning about the negative effects of rapid growth: “increased traffic congestion, deteriorating air and water quality, and the disappearance of agricultural lands and natural resources.” (page 6, Section 1.1)
The message couldn’t be clearer. But somehow, in their pursuit of the letter of the law, five members of Springwater council and the township’s solicitor missed it. Or are they deliberately using “targets” to blame the province and justify their pursuit of a very bad Midhurst Secondary Plan?