Letters & Op-Ed, December 7 2022

The Ford Government’s rushed and rammed-through Bill 23 is predicted by housing experts to do next to nothing for alleviating Ontario’s housing affordability crisis, but it will make a lot of Mr. Ford’s rich developer friends a whole lot richer.

If implemented, this bill will breed even more urban sprawl. Niagara will end up looking like Phoenix—it just goes on, and on, and on, bereft of nature.

Bill 23 can force our Conservation Authority to give up conservation lands for housing, these being some of our most environmentally sensitive and pristine lands, also important in providing wildlife habitat, for flood control, etc. This makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it’s non-sense!

Another egregious part of Mr. Ford’s plan is to amputate large sections off the Greenbelt. Despite his (and Housing Minister Clark’s) promise to not develop the Greenbelt, reportedly some 18 times over the last several years, these 18 promises have now been broken! Evidently they never learned what most of us did in kindergarten, that being a promise made is a promise to be kept.

Once the slicing and dicing of the Greenbelt begins, it will not end! Greed will win! Why else, just a few weeks before this announcement, would a developer pay some $80 million dollars for a piece of Greenbelt land, and take on a mortgage with an interest rate of 21 percent, if they knew that land could not be developed but was protected for eternity. Such behaviour would fit with a definition of insanity! Yet, these developers aren’t insane! Thus, this beg the question; What did that developer know that the rest of us didn’t?

We need to tell Mr. Ford and local MPP Mr. Oosterhoff in no uncertain terms: Get back to the drawing board on Bill 23 and KEEP YOUR PROMISES.

Stop the attacks on the Greenbelt. And to our Town Councillors and Mayor, you need to send a clear message to Mr. Ford that this is bad policy, that Pelham is not with him, and that Pelham will not be part of the gang that pillages the Greenbelt and endlessly sprawls.

Graham Pett Pelham Advocates for Trees and Habitat (PATH)

A few years ago, upon discovering that there was Indigenous treaty protected deer hunting at Short Hills Provincial Park, where I had intended on going hiking, I had conflicted feelings. Is something acceptable just because it is a cultural tradition or if it is legally protected?

Last year I expressed my thoughts about this issue in this newspaper. Through contemplation and research I came to the conclusion that I believe it is morally unacceptable to look to tradition and treaty rights to determine the morality of the hunts at this park and any provincial park.

Beyond last year’s discussion I also feel it is immoral for a number of other reasons.

Although established protocol states that hunters are suppose to clean up after the deer are killed and gutted, dead deer and deer remains are regularly found after the hunt in the park, by the public using the park. Even more disturbing is the disrespect shown for the deer. Hunters have skinned deer bellies, nipples and all, and nailed them to trees. In one case, two dead deer fetuses were also left at the base of the tree.

Hunters have disrespected the deer by hanging their heads over the sides of their trucks with the deer’s tongue pulled out as if to taunt demonstrators as they leave the park.

According to safety protocols established for the hunts, hunters should “use care and discipline to kill deer effectively and humanely” and they should only shoot stationary deer when they have a clean shot. However, there is video evidence of hunters using formations where one group of hunters “drives” the deer towards other hunters waiting to shoot them. Drones are also used to locate deer in the park. There is video evidence of this. This hardly meets the criteria of a traditional and cultural practice.

The safety protocol also states that “all deer that are wounded should be tracked and dispatched as soon as possible.” Unfortunately, though, wounded animals have been left to suffer and die. Multiple dead deer have been found on private property and in the park after hunt days even though there were no wounded deer reported. Further, home owners must dispose of the killed or wounded deer themselves or allow the hunter onto their property.

Even though the safety protocol states that hunters should “conduct hunting activities in the designated central portion of the park; away from homes and in areas with the least development and fewer public trails; and not in the buffer zones around the hunting zone” — hunters have been seen, photographed, videoed, and reported to officials hunting in the buffer zones and on private property, metres from people’s homes. Hunters have even stolen the security cameras upon realizing that they were being recorded.

For some Indigenous hunters these hunts are sporting events with trophies being rewarded. They are doing more than hunting for “subsistence” as they claim. These sporting events are videoed and posted on a YouTube channel.

These hunts are supposed to be for Indigenous persons. There is no hunting permitted in the park at any time by other hunters yet non-Indigenous hunters are invited and attend the hunts without question.

The deer in Short Hills Park are very tame, used to humans walking through the park and therefore easy game. It is unacceptable to terrorize and kill them.

It is quite apparent that some of these hunters have no respect for tradition, for the deer, for the impact this hunt has on others, for the park, or for the hunting protocols that were established for these hunts.

All of the above issues are disturbing and cannot be ignored when considering the validity and morality of this hunt. Why the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks David Piccini, and Ontario Parks Manager Greg Wilson, continue to allow these hunts and the flagrant violations of established safety protocols is a whole other issue.

Linda Chenoweth Hamilton

Let’s be honest with ourselves — Fonthill has been a fairytale community for NIMBYISM (not-in-my-backyard) for decades. Single detached housing on large lots have dominated the landscape. Herein lies the issue — the world around us has significantly changed. Land supply has changed. Population is increasing. Reality has now caught up with the consequences of this unsustainable approach. People don’t know how to react to this sudden change of higher-density development.

At a high level, this country is in a severe housing crisis, make no mistake about it. Fonthill is not immune to this issue. A recent article in the Niagara dailies outlined how Niagara Falls and St. Catharines alone are tasked with building 19,000 housing units by 2031. Canada itself needs to build two million housing units just to meet current demand. Housing supply isn’t going to be solved by sprawling, single detached houses, no less helping bring down the cost of housing. What we are seeing, strictly from a land use, planning, and town-building perspective, is exactly what is needed — a mix of housing typology (townhouses to five-plus storey mid-rises) to accommodate both a growing and aging population.

Let’s dig into the nitty-gritty details. The Town has set growth targets, as mandated by the Niagara Region Official Plan, which stems from the Ontario Growth Plan, or as it is now referred to, “A Place To Grow.” These growth targets are established in every municipality, specifically within a town/city’s urban boundary. These bodies identify potential intensification sites within urban boundaries as they have met criteria for residential intensification — namey they can easily be serviced by existing municipal infrastructure such as water main, sanitary, and yes, even traffic.

Inside the urban boundary is where we should see and have been seeing new proposals for higher density residential development. This may come off as controversial for some, but I will stand by it — this is responsible, long-term, sustainable planning. What’s the alternative? Continue paving over prime agricultural lands as we have been for the past 70 years for low-density housing? Many of us are aware of the provincial government’s plan to develop lands within the Greenbelt. This approach could not be farther away from good, responsible planning, and should not be up for consideration.

Now consider — when you’re actively opposing every development within arm’s reach, this only adds to the growing deficit of housing supply, meaning that housing costs will only continue to skyrocket. Every online petition made is a couple hundred signatures against young professionals and young families trying to buy their first home in the town where they grew up. This is why we have public engagement with each proposal. Work with the Town and the applicant. Outline your concerns constructively and request the studies on these specific issues such as parking/traffic/noise and height.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about you, and this isn’t about me. This is about everyone — homes for your children, homes for your friends, for today and for our future.

G. Lipinksi Fonthill