I received the following comment on my recent Municipal Government 101 post about Affordable Housing:
“I'd like to know your thoughts on where to build? Many want farm land protected, many want green space protected, building near water front many are learning was not a good idea. But, nobody ever says where we should build!”
That’s the million-dollar question - and honestly, I think it’s one we need to be asking more often.
I don’t think there is a simple answer, because there are legitimate things we need to protect: farmland, environmentally sensitive areas, greenspace, waterfronts, and the rural character that makes Scugog what it is.
At the same time, Scugog is going to continue to experience growth. Our planning framework requires us to plan for that growth, while also protecting agricultural and natural areas, and ensuring infrastructure can support new development.
So where does the growth go?
I think the first place we need to look is within the communities we already have.
That means thoughtfully planned intensification in Port Perry - including townhouses, condos, apartments, smaller homes, and other forms of housing that allow more people to live here without simply spreading farther into agricultural land.
Some communities are seeing older homes on large lots being purchased, demolished, and replaced with multiple homes. Sometimes that type of intensification can make sense. But I don’t think “tear down every older house and put four houses on the lot” can be our entire growth strategy either. We need to consider neighbourhood character, parking, trees, stormwater, roads, and infrastructure capacity as well.
There is also the question of our hamlets - Blackstock, Nestleton, Caesarea, Utica, Seagrave, Epsom, Greenbank, etc. They are already established communities, and some additional growth may make sense where infrastructure, roads, schools, and other services can support it. But growth in hamlets isn’t as simple as putting in a subdivision and relying on wells and septic. The ability to provide adequate and sustainable servicing has to be considered.
And then there is the difficult question of agricultural land.
I don’t think we can simply assume that every farmer who wants to sell should be able to develop their land. Agricultural land is a finite resource and protecting viable farmland matters.
But I also don’t think it’s realistic to say, “No farmland can ever change use.” Farmers are private property owners. If someone wants to sell their farm, we can’t simply force them to continue farming it.
The challenge for Council is figuring out where growth can happen responsibly and where it should not happen - while recognizing that saying “no” to every proposed development doesn’t make the demand for housing disappear. It can instead lead to appeals, additional costs, and the same growth pressure coming back somewhere else.
For me, the answer isn’t farmland OR intensification OR the hamlets.
It’s looking at all three, and determining where each makes the most sense based on infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, agricultural value, existing services, transportation, and the character of the community.
And I think that’s exactly the conversation residents should be having.
It’s easy to say “don’t build there.” The harder, and much more important, question is: “If we need housing, where should it go?”
That’s the conversation I’d like to see us have.