As a former vice chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, I read with some interest Jeff Outhit's column on the settlement of an appeal of a municipal board decision by the Region of Waterloo and a number of land developers ("Politicians double down on ideology - and taxpayers pay for mistakes" - June 6).

Critiques of Ontario's land use planning regime and of the Ontario Municipal Board are numerous. It was therefore fascinating to read Outhit's defence of this decision of the OMB on the basis that the board "saw more truth in the developers' real world evidence than in the government's change-the-world ideology."

I think it is important for your readers to understand what the dispute that came before the board was to appreciate just how wrong-headed Outhit's column is.

In 2005, the Province of Ontario enacted the Places to Grow Act to facilitate land use planning in a "co-ordinated and strategic way." The act and the subsequently adopted "Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006" recognized that areas like Waterloo Region are fast growing, with a dynamic future. However, these policy documents also recognize that with growth comes "increased traffic congestion, deteriorating air and water quality and the disappearance of agricultural lands and natural resources."

The growth plan sets out "intensification targets" and "density targets" for future development. Upper-tier municipalities like the Region of Waterloo are directed to respect these targets, reflecting the land use planning policy set out by the province. This is the policy that Outhit describes as a "change-the-world ideology."

In accordance with the growth plan, Waterloo regional council adopted a new regional official plan following years of public consultation and technical review. In 2010, the province approved that plan.

As was their right, many individuals and entities appealed provisions of the official plan. The appeals that were the subject of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing focused on how the region should grow. Specifically challenged was the amount of land the region had designated for development and the methodology used by the region to determine this amount.

The region did considerable work to determine how much land should be added to the "land budget" for future development. It determined that 85 additional hectares would be needed to accommodate future growth.

Following the growth plan, the region signalled an intent to permit higher densities of development in already developed areas. Such areas are already expensively serviced and will soon have access to a rapid transit system. In response, developers basically said "no, let's not intensify in already built areas; let's keep spreading out onto arable farm land; give us an additional 1,053 hectares."

Outhit says the Ontario Municipal Board heard the dispute as "evidence versus ideology." I have news for him: the municipal board is required by law to consider evidence adduced by all parties and apply the legislation and public policies adopted by the province.

An elected government, reflecting the interests of the people of Ontario has recognized that we cannot endlessly take up farmland and natural heritage resources to accommodate growth. Yes, Outhit can call that an "ideology," but it is the ideology or public policy legitimately adopted by this province. Neither municipal councils nor the Ontario Municipal Board can simply say, "let's go with the developers' real world evidence, rather than some foolish, change-the-world ideology."

In this case, the municipal board was required to consider legislation, provincial public policy, regional policies and all evidence adduced.

I have read the decision to try to understand the basis for the decision, or the interplay of evidence, law and policy. Unfortunately, I cannot understand how the board reached its decision. There is no thorough review of the growth plan and all that went into it. The board's consideration of "methodology" to determine the land budget can at best be described as opaque.

The region appealed the decision on two grounds, one of which is substantive: the Ontario Municipal Board erred in its interpretation of the growth plan.

The growth plan is not some "change-the-world ideology." It is formally adopted public policy made in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario.

The municipal board was required to interpret the growth plan and apply it to the evidence. I cannot conclude that the board interpreted the Growth Plan as required by law.

Outhit asks us "to try to live in the real world." My real world, and that of many Ontarians, includes seeing farmland, forests and wetlands disappearing daily. I want my real world to allow for sustainable development while at the same time guaranteeing that our farmers have land on which to grow our food.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

I want my real world to provide opportunities for Ontarians' grandchildren to see trees and ponds and birds and wildlife without having to drive hundreds of kilometres.

In my real world, sometimes politicians have to make hard decisions and spend hard-earned tax dollars to give us a future.