Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant near Sarnia, Ontario, is as of September 2010 the world's largest photovoltaic plant with an installed capacity of 80 MW. The plant covers 950 acres (380 ha) and contains about 966,000 square metres (96.6 ha), which is about 1.3 million thin film panels.
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2012/03/23/living-beside-a-massive-solar-plant-in-ontario/
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Comment from Eric
Hi Craig; thank you for the update on the quarry, and I agree with the battle to stop this mega-quarry. It is in the wrong place, too big, and nothing in it for the people of Ontario.
We need to better crystallize our thoughts in few other areas; and therefore, we need to discuss your comment below and the Green Party position wrt Darlington nuclear, the phase out of nuclear, that GPO proposes, and the whole sustainability issue of low density energy from wind turbines that I am against. Solar does get my vote because electrical energy from the sun matches the air-conditioning demand. But since the air conditioning demand is in the cities, therefore the solar panels need to be installed on rooftops in the cities, not farmers fields.
I am in favour of nuclear. In spite of all risks, the direction is better more robust build. Nuclear is the only source of energy due to its energy density coming from the atom that could sustain a greater population on planet earth than especially wind energy, that does not have density and economy of scale, ie the many small wind turbine machines that need maintenance, and will wear out eventually. Countries that use up every square km for wind turbines today may in 20 years time start removing turbines to make room for people to live and work, and move to a more concentrated form of energy.
Maybe in 50 to 100 years nuclear could be phase, but I don't see Ontario being a viable economy by an 'overnight' shift to solar. Electricity is far too important a commodity. We rely on electricity for our life support system. Changes, if any need to be carefully thought out and gradual using the principle of precaution. Eg. the energy storage requirement is not there or even a stepping stone away in order to make an orderly transition as you propose.
Electricity from wind and solar are not the same quality as electricity from a steam turbine generator, because solar and wind lack storage capacity. Electricity from steam turbines has the storage capacity of the flywheel effect of hundreds of tons of inertia in the machine. Electricity source has to be matched to demand exactly second by second 24/7/365, and it is this flywheel effect that makes up for the very small mismatches when you plug in your kettle for example. Wind and solar need a battery in the loop in order to keep the system from collapsing like it did in the 2003 blackout. Storage and capacitance needs to be addressed before even thinking about mucking around with the power system the way that the liberals are doing that today, and what the NDP are also proposing in their platform.
The FIT program has proven itself very disruptive and is fast becoming unsustainable. Solar panels can now be manufactured for around one dollar per peak Watt, yet we have salesmen selling installations based on 7 to 8 dollars per peak Watt. The profit margin for solar salesmen has doubled since the beginning of FIT. If anybody is looking for gravy like Mayor Rob Ford was, the FIT program is a good place to start.
The FIT program needs to be turned into a community power program and can still be managed by the OPA. We need to have all projects tendered to get the best technical and most economic proposals, that would make Ontario much more sustainable.
Community power by my definition is: Power at cost. Right now there is too much profit in the Power at cost plus profit model. The GPO should reconsider its position on nuclear that I feel is out of synch with what the Green Party is overall trying to accomplish in Ontario.
Eric Jelinski M. Eng. P. Eng.
We need to better crystallize our thoughts in few other areas; and therefore, we need to discuss your comment below and the Green Party position wrt Darlington nuclear, the phase out of nuclear, that GPO proposes, and the whole sustainability issue of low density energy from wind turbines that I am against. Solar does get my vote because electrical energy from the sun matches the air-conditioning demand. But since the air conditioning demand is in the cities, therefore the solar panels need to be installed on rooftops in the cities, not farmers fields.
I am in favour of nuclear. In spite of all risks, the direction is better more robust build. Nuclear is the only source of energy due to its energy density coming from the atom that could sustain a greater population on planet earth than especially wind energy, that does not have density and economy of scale, ie the many small wind turbine machines that need maintenance, and will wear out eventually. Countries that use up every square km for wind turbines today may in 20 years time start removing turbines to make room for people to live and work, and move to a more concentrated form of energy.
Maybe in 50 to 100 years nuclear could be phase, but I don't see Ontario being a viable economy by an 'overnight' shift to solar. Electricity is far too important a commodity. We rely on electricity for our life support system. Changes, if any need to be carefully thought out and gradual using the principle of precaution. Eg. the energy storage requirement is not there or even a stepping stone away in order to make an orderly transition as you propose.
Electricity from wind and solar are not the same quality as electricity from a steam turbine generator, because solar and wind lack storage capacity. Electricity from steam turbines has the storage capacity of the flywheel effect of hundreds of tons of inertia in the machine. Electricity source has to be matched to demand exactly second by second 24/7/365, and it is this flywheel effect that makes up for the very small mismatches when you plug in your kettle for example. Wind and solar need a battery in the loop in order to keep the system from collapsing like it did in the 2003 blackout. Storage and capacitance needs to be addressed before even thinking about mucking around with the power system the way that the liberals are doing that today, and what the NDP are also proposing in their platform.
The FIT program has proven itself very disruptive and is fast becoming unsustainable. Solar panels can now be manufactured for around one dollar per peak Watt, yet we have salesmen selling installations based on 7 to 8 dollars per peak Watt. The profit margin for solar salesmen has doubled since the beginning of FIT. If anybody is looking for gravy like Mayor Rob Ford was, the FIT program is a good place to start.
The FIT program needs to be turned into a community power program and can still be managed by the OPA. We need to have all projects tendered to get the best technical and most economic proposals, that would make Ontario much more sustainable.
Community power by my definition is: Power at cost. Right now there is too much profit in the Power at cost plus profit model. The GPO should reconsider its position on nuclear that I feel is out of synch with what the Green Party is overall trying to accomplish in Ontario.
Eric Jelinski M. Eng. P. Eng.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Canadian Land Inventory Inaccuracies
The following is an excerpt of the answer we received when inquiring about why the Canadian Land Inventory seemed to be inaccurate...
Neither GIS nor high-resolution DEM's existed in the era of either soil or CLI initial map product development for Simcoe County. Today's digital products, available through the Land Information Ontario warehouse, are the products of attempts to "modernize" the original paper map products.
Unfortunately, the map digitizing pre-dated the DEM development and the rationalization of the soil and CLI polygons into their proper landscape positions was overlooked - until now.
The precision of landscape rendering - as performed by an Ontario Land Surveyor - far exceeds the current spatial resolution and accuracy of the soil maps and derivative products - like the CLI layer. The new Greater Toronto Area (GTA) DEM has sub-metre vertical accuracy. It is superior to the current provincial DEM. Neither of these DEM's approaches the accuracy of products that an Ontario Land Surveyor should produce for landscape location of boundaries and features. The problem is that the perception of scale and accuracy of the soil map products does not meet the reality of their application - except by people such as yourself who saw through this issue immediately. We have started down a road of renewal of the soil map resources of the Lake Simcoe watershed (and will then move to the extent of high-resolution DEM availability in the rest of the GTA DEM coverage). We are also acquiring LiDAR data clouds, creating LiDAR-derived high-resolution DEM's and moving to much more detailed predictive soil mapping in selected areas of the province. At present, however, we have not completed this work for the C.F.B. Borden area of Simcoe County.
An estimate of the margin of error associated with these current soil map (and derivative) products may be derived, somewhat at least, from the input data density requirement to create the original 1:63,360 map product.
However, we can find no metadata records of how rigorously this mapping protocol would have been applied on any individual acreage of the map area.
I am very sorry, but this remains a major weakness in the current Ontario soil map products across the province.
On behalf of OMAFRA and the current Soil Resource Information Team, thanks very much for your inquiry and interest in the Simcoe County soil and CLI map products. If you have a project in mind for adding value and precision to the soil mapping in the area, please contact me directly. We would be pleased to discuss options and opportunities for soil information data improvements with you.
Sincerely,
Stewart
Stewart J. Sweeney, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Branch,
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Neither GIS nor high-resolution DEM's existed in the era of either soil or CLI initial map product development for Simcoe County. Today's digital products, available through the Land Information Ontario warehouse, are the products of attempts to "modernize" the original paper map products.
Unfortunately, the map digitizing pre-dated the DEM development and the rationalization of the soil and CLI polygons into their proper landscape positions was overlooked - until now.
The precision of landscape rendering - as performed by an Ontario Land Surveyor - far exceeds the current spatial resolution and accuracy of the soil maps and derivative products - like the CLI layer. The new Greater Toronto Area (GTA) DEM has sub-metre vertical accuracy. It is superior to the current provincial DEM. Neither of these DEM's approaches the accuracy of products that an Ontario Land Surveyor should produce for landscape location of boundaries and features. The problem is that the perception of scale and accuracy of the soil map products does not meet the reality of their application - except by people such as yourself who saw through this issue immediately. We have started down a road of renewal of the soil map resources of the Lake Simcoe watershed (and will then move to the extent of high-resolution DEM availability in the rest of the GTA DEM coverage). We are also acquiring LiDAR data clouds, creating LiDAR-derived high-resolution DEM's and moving to much more detailed predictive soil mapping in selected areas of the province. At present, however, we have not completed this work for the C.F.B. Borden area of Simcoe County.
An estimate of the margin of error associated with these current soil map (and derivative) products may be derived, somewhat at least, from the input data density requirement to create the original 1:63,360 map product.
However, we can find no metadata records of how rigorously this mapping protocol would have been applied on any individual acreage of the map area.
I am very sorry, but this remains a major weakness in the current Ontario soil map products across the province.
On behalf of OMAFRA and the current Soil Resource Information Team, thanks very much for your inquiry and interest in the Simcoe County soil and CLI map products. If you have a project in mind for adding value and precision to the soil mapping in the area, please contact me directly. We would be pleased to discuss options and opportunities for soil information data improvements with you.
Sincerely,
Stewart
Stewart J. Sweeney, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Branch,
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Monday, July 18, 2011
Three of the ten proposed Industrial Solar Facility sites by Recurrent Energy have been registered on the Ontario Environmental Registry. We as citizens have 30 days to make comments from the published date. This is the most important step for you to directly communicate your concerns and issues to the Ministry of Environment, if comments are not submitted, it is assumed there are no issues. Your comments are registered and have to be addressed.
'Orillia 2' was published on June 6, 2011. The on-line comments are no longer available, it has been suggested you may still mail them in. The address and the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) registry number (011-3764) 'Orillia 2' are in the link provided below:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTEzNDk1&statusId=MTcwMDc4&language=en
or the address and contact information are:
Kristina Rudzki
Senior Project Evaluator
Ministry of the Environment
Operations Division
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 12A
Toronto Ontario
M4V 1L5
Phone: (416) 314-6802
Toll Free Phone: (800) 461-6290
Be sure to include the EBR Registry number, the Ministry Reference Number and Site Name,
011-3764, 9368-8EZGTB, RE Orillia 2 ULC
011-3959, 8442-8FDLFV, RE Waubaushene 4 ULC
011-3956, 5535-8FDLKL, RE Waubaushene 5 ULC
'Waubaushene 4' and 'Waubaushene 5' were published on June 24, 2011, therefore you have until July 24, 2011 to send in your comments.
'Waubaushene 4' link is:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchComment.do?actionType=add¬iceId=MTEzNzIz&statusId=MTcwMzcx¬iceHeaderIdString=MTEzNzIz
'Waubaushene 5' link is:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchComment.do?actionType=add¬iceId=MTEzNzIw&statusId=MTcwMzY4¬iceHeaderIdString=MTEzNzIw
The link to access Ontario's Environmental Registry is"
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/
Then type in 'solar'.
An example of some of the suggested comments are:
1. Site Specific Soil Studies are required for 'Waubaushene 4 and 5' because they are on 'Prime Agricultural Land' class 1 -3 as well as class 5 and 7. I understand that these studies have not been completed. When may we expect to see the pedologists reports on these sites?
2. Water (well) contamination, drilling of footings for the panels may cause elevated levels of bacteria and coliform counts as well as severe turbidity. 'Waubaushene 4 and 5' are on bedrock and there are multiple dug wells surrounding the proposed sites. Are there studies available proving this will not happen? and who would pay to prove that the proponent caused the problem?
3. 'Waubaushene 5' is on the North River where several species of fish spawn at this location, what will the excess water run-off from the panels do to the river? The Ontario Federation of Agricultural states "In temperate farming areas OFA believes solar will cause erosion, bake the soil, disrupt carbon and nitrogen fixing, create habitat for noxious weeds, destroy habitat for many native creatures on farms including worms and frogs and needlessly remove good land from production."
4. Are the proponents able to remove water from the sites? (ie. from wells drilled during construction and from existing rivers and streams)
5. Solar Panels generate extra heat , when it rains and the run-off enters the river, how will that affect the water temperatures (Thermal Plume?) of the rivers and what would it do to the fish and other species?
6. The proponent had no knowledge of 'Waubaushene 4' being tile-drained. Thousands of holes drilled for footings will drastically affect the flow of water causing inevitable flooding of neighbouring fields. Have proper studies been completed for tile-drained fields? and should they be promoted for such a project with so many flood risks?
7. Noise - Generating stations and inverter clusters are within close proximity to dwellings. The Point of Reception (POR) for the acceptable 40 dBA during the night and 45 dBA during the day are the homes surrounding the proposed sites. We do not remain in our homes where the POR is within the MOE's standards. These proposed sites are in heavily populated rural areas where we utilize our yards and fields for children playing, gardening and pasturing livestock. What are the long term affects of more than 45 dBA of noise to human health, horses, dairy cattle and other livestock?
I am sure you have many comments and concerns of your own regarding these proposed facilities that you may include in your submission.
Links will also be posted on the Simcoe Solar Farm Awareness Project website.
Contact SSFAP with any questions or concerns at email@simcoesolarfarmawarenessproject.org
'Orillia 2' was published on June 6, 2011. The on-line comments are no longer available, it has been suggested you may still mail them in. The address and the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) registry number (011-3764) 'Orillia 2' are in the link provided below:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTEzNDk1&statusId=MTcwMDc4&language=en
or the address and contact information are:
Kristina Rudzki
Senior Project Evaluator
Ministry of the Environment
Operations Division
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 12A
Toronto Ontario
M4V 1L5
Phone: (416) 314-6802
Toll Free Phone: (800) 461-6290
Be sure to include the EBR Registry number, the Ministry Reference Number and Site Name,
011-3764, 9368-8EZGTB, RE Orillia 2 ULC
011-3959, 8442-8FDLFV, RE Waubaushene 4 ULC
011-3956, 5535-8FDLKL, RE Waubaushene 5 ULC
'Waubaushene 4' and 'Waubaushene 5' were published on June 24, 2011, therefore you have until July 24, 2011 to send in your comments.
'Waubaushene 4' link is:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchComment.do?actionType=add¬iceId=MTEzNzIz&statusId=MTcwMzcx¬iceHeaderIdString=MTEzNzIz
'Waubaushene 5' link is:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchComment.do?actionType=add¬iceId=MTEzNzIw&statusId=MTcwMzY4¬iceHeaderIdString=MTEzNzIw
The link to access Ontario's Environmental Registry is"
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/
Then type in 'solar'.
An example of some of the suggested comments are:
1. Site Specific Soil Studies are required for 'Waubaushene 4 and 5' because they are on 'Prime Agricultural Land' class 1 -3 as well as class 5 and 7. I understand that these studies have not been completed. When may we expect to see the pedologists reports on these sites?
2. Water (well) contamination, drilling of footings for the panels may cause elevated levels of bacteria and coliform counts as well as severe turbidity. 'Waubaushene 4 and 5' are on bedrock and there are multiple dug wells surrounding the proposed sites. Are there studies available proving this will not happen? and who would pay to prove that the proponent caused the problem?
3. 'Waubaushene 5' is on the North River where several species of fish spawn at this location, what will the excess water run-off from the panels do to the river? The Ontario Federation of Agricultural states "In temperate farming areas OFA believes solar will cause erosion, bake the soil, disrupt carbon and nitrogen fixing, create habitat for noxious weeds, destroy habitat for many native creatures on farms including worms and frogs and needlessly remove good land from production."
4. Are the proponents able to remove water from the sites? (ie. from wells drilled during construction and from existing rivers and streams)
5. Solar Panels generate extra heat , when it rains and the run-off enters the river, how will that affect the water temperatures (Thermal Plume?) of the rivers and what would it do to the fish and other species?
6. The proponent had no knowledge of 'Waubaushene 4' being tile-drained. Thousands of holes drilled for footings will drastically affect the flow of water causing inevitable flooding of neighbouring fields. Have proper studies been completed for tile-drained fields? and should they be promoted for such a project with so many flood risks?
7. Noise - Generating stations and inverter clusters are within close proximity to dwellings. The Point of Reception (POR) for the acceptable 40 dBA during the night and 45 dBA during the day are the homes surrounding the proposed sites. We do not remain in our homes where the POR is within the MOE's standards. These proposed sites are in heavily populated rural areas where we utilize our yards and fields for children playing, gardening and pasturing livestock. What are the long term affects of more than 45 dBA of noise to human health, horses, dairy cattle and other livestock?
I am sure you have many comments and concerns of your own regarding these proposed facilities that you may include in your submission.
Links will also be posted on the Simcoe Solar Farm Awareness Project website.
Contact SSFAP with any questions or concerns at email@simcoesolarfarmawarenessproject.org
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Thanks to Parker for spotting the following...
The announcement below from the Province indicates that United Solar is creating 80 new clean energy jobs by investing $12 million in a manufacturing facility in LaSalle.
This announcement from United Solar tells a different story. It appears that the investment is $4 million not $12 million and they have applied for grants under a couple of the provinces programs: Check this announcement out here:
http://www.uni-solar.com/united-solar-announces-establishment-of-manufacturing-facility-in-ontario-canada/
This quote caught my attention: "$4 million investment will lead to 80 new jobs."
THE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM UNITED SOLAR SAYS A $4 MILLION INVESTMENT BUT THE LIBERALS ANNOUNCE IT IS A $12 MILLION INVESTMENT.
WHERE IS THE MISSING $8 MILLION?
"United Solar has applied for training grants from the Ontario government to assist with the ramp up of the facility. In addition, the company is expecting to receive support under the Ontario Works Program and from the Apprenticeship Training Tax Credit, which are designed to encourage job growth in the province."
ARE THE TAXPAYERS COMING UP WITH THE OTHER $8 MILLION? IT SURE LOOKS THAT WAY BASED ON THE COMPANY'S ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT GRANT APPLICATIONS!
SO, EIGHTY (80) JOBS FOR $8 MILLION DOLLARS! SOUNDS LIKE THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING UNITED SOLAR $100,000 FOR EACH NEW JOB!
UNITED SOLAR ARE LAYING OFF PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/05/possible_layoffs_for_workers_a.html TO CREATE JOBS IN ONTARIO.
SO ONTARIO SELLS CHEAP SUBSIDIZED ELECTRICITY TO MICHIGAN AND PAY ONE OF THEIR COMPANIES $100,000 PER EMPLOYEE TO MOVE JOBS TO LASALLE!
NOW THAT IS CREATIVE ACCOUNTING!
P* G*
Clean Energy Investment Creating 80 New Jobs
May 24, 2011
McGuinty Government Builds Clean Energy Economy As Province Continues To Turn The Corner
Ontario's shift toward clean, renewable energy is strengthening the province's economy by attracting good jobs, investment and opportunities for Windsor-area families.
United Solar is creating 80 new clean energy jobs by investing $12 million in a manufacturing facility in LaSalle. This facility will make solar panels for the growing clean energy economy in Ontario and supply renewable energy projects under Ontario's Feed-in Tariff program, which is building a strong clean energy industry in the province.
Windsor electricians will also be benefiting from a 10-kilowatt solar project to provide valuable, specialized training in the growing clean energy sector. Operated by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 773, the project is one of almost 5,500 small-scale solar installations feeding clean power into Ontario's electricity grid through the province's microFIT program.
Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan is getting Ontario off dirty coal-fired power and replacing it with clean, renewable sources of power -- like wind, solar and bio-energy. This transition to a clean, modern and reliable electricity system is creating thousands of new, good jobs and keeping the lights on in our homes and businesses...
The announcement below from the Province indicates that United Solar is creating 80 new clean energy jobs by investing $12 million in a manufacturing facility in LaSalle.
This announcement from United Solar tells a different story. It appears that the investment is $4 million not $12 million and they have applied for grants under a couple of the provinces programs: Check this announcement out here:
http://www.uni-solar.com/united-solar-announces-establishment-of-manufacturing-facility-in-ontario-canada/
This quote caught my attention: "$4 million investment will lead to 80 new jobs."
THE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM UNITED SOLAR SAYS A $4 MILLION INVESTMENT BUT THE LIBERALS ANNOUNCE IT IS A $12 MILLION INVESTMENT.
WHERE IS THE MISSING $8 MILLION?
"United Solar has applied for training grants from the Ontario government to assist with the ramp up of the facility. In addition, the company is expecting to receive support under the Ontario Works Program and from the Apprenticeship Training Tax Credit, which are designed to encourage job growth in the province."
ARE THE TAXPAYERS COMING UP WITH THE OTHER $8 MILLION? IT SURE LOOKS THAT WAY BASED ON THE COMPANY'S ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT GRANT APPLICATIONS!
SO, EIGHTY (80) JOBS FOR $8 MILLION DOLLARS! SOUNDS LIKE THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING UNITED SOLAR $100,000 FOR EACH NEW JOB!
UNITED SOLAR ARE LAYING OFF PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/05/possible_layoffs_for_workers_a.html TO CREATE JOBS IN ONTARIO.
SO ONTARIO SELLS CHEAP SUBSIDIZED ELECTRICITY TO MICHIGAN AND PAY ONE OF THEIR COMPANIES $100,000 PER EMPLOYEE TO MOVE JOBS TO LASALLE!
NOW THAT IS CREATIVE ACCOUNTING!
P* G*
Clean Energy Investment Creating 80 New Jobs
May 24, 2011
McGuinty Government Builds Clean Energy Economy As Province Continues To Turn The Corner
Ontario's shift toward clean, renewable energy is strengthening the province's economy by attracting good jobs, investment and opportunities for Windsor-area families.
United Solar is creating 80 new clean energy jobs by investing $12 million in a manufacturing facility in LaSalle. This facility will make solar panels for the growing clean energy economy in Ontario and supply renewable energy projects under Ontario's Feed-in Tariff program, which is building a strong clean energy industry in the province.
Windsor electricians will also be benefiting from a 10-kilowatt solar project to provide valuable, specialized training in the growing clean energy sector. Operated by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 773, the project is one of almost 5,500 small-scale solar installations feeding clean power into Ontario's electricity grid through the province's microFIT program.
Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan is getting Ontario off dirty coal-fired power and replacing it with clean, renewable sources of power -- like wind, solar and bio-energy. This transition to a clean, modern and reliable electricity system is creating thousands of new, good jobs and keeping the lights on in our homes and businesses...
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Out Growing One's Mandate
Out Growing One's Mandate: 'Places to Grow' Vs. 'Places to Eat' & The Ridiculous Proposed Urban Node For the Midland-Penetanguishene Community
December 7, 2010
The Ontario Growth Secretariat
Ministry of Infrastructure
777 Bay Street, 4th Floor, Suite 425
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Email: placestogrow@ontario.ca
Attention: Ontario Growth Secretariat and Ministry of Infrastructure,
Re: The Proposed Urban Node For Midland-Penetanguishene
First of all I would like to thank you for your most gracious offer of allowing the public to have this opportunity to voice concerns over the Proposed Amendment 1 for the Simcoe Sub-Area to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, under the authority of the Places to Grow Act, 2005. I trust that submissions and concerns made by various means to you will also become available for public perusal at some time in the near future.
I have a concern about the mandate that has been given the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure. The Ministry of Infrastructure has incorrectly based our future economic welfare on a worn out - and under the circumstances -completely outrageous template of growth which unfortunately has already repeated itself ad infinitum destroying quiet little farming towns and villages in their wake. Brampton my home town was once such a place only to be replaced today by traffic congestion fueled by an ongoing construction of whats become a massive bedroom community with no places to work for local people. In order to work locals must mount a daily 2.5 to 3 hour journey to places that they can work.
The template of growth, touted traditionally as the model of generating economic prosperity for communities, in reality generates prosperity which only reaches the speculators and developers in most if not all of Ontario's municipalities. Along with the assistance of the un-elected Ontario Municipal Board's magic wand of approval- time and time again, this template of growth has systematically reduced the Province of Ontario's ability to feed itself. That is an emergency in itself as the most arable lands in the world; class 1, 2 and 3 are easily paved over without any regard for the future of the infrastructure needs of these communities and the needs the people they pile into them. Just ask the recent victims who've moved their families into the current urban sprawl of Barrie, Newmarket, Whitby and numerous others.
In many other places around the globe the issue of a community being capable of feeding itself is now considered a community security issue.
Paving over food lands using the template we've always relied upon to generate economic activity should in reality be challenged as the most pressing threat of our time to the healthy future of most of our Ontario communities.
Much of our food today comes to our grocery store shelves by trucks travelling from over 1,300 kilometres away. Does that make sense to anyone but, the truck drivers and the proprietors of the infrastructure and logistics to make that kind of silly event happen all 52 weeks of the year?
Have you people at the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure even considered food as a community security issue?
As the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure you have an enormous task in front of you. On the one hand you have the egos of all of these tiny villages and and wannabe suburbs vs. the real prospect of running out of food. And then of course there is the validity of your actual mandate thereof.
Yes!...The challenge of planning the future direction of the province and whether towns and villages within it like Midland and Penetanguishene should be considered as future urban nodes are difficult decisions to make., but then again it likely is not that difficult to remove these two wannabe suburb prospects from your list since people in South Central Ontario run to the Midland Penetanguishene area to escape suburbia. Ironically by establishing the towns of Midland and Penetanguishene as urban nodes you would be developing exactly that which the suburbanite populations rush up highways 400, 11 and 27 etc. every weekend to avoid.
These 'cottage country' communities have few other means of generating prosperity than in their Tourism and Hospitality industries.
They don't need to be developed as urban nodes. What they do need is to develop more imagination along the lines of developing economic prosperity for themselves without unwittingly setting fire to their only source of an economic engine available to them.
While you engage in your public meetings and the public consultation process through other means of communication you must account for local municipal interests, misinformed or not, in generating jobs and opportunities for their communities while paying greater attention to the bigger picture.
In conclusion I want to briefly drift back to my original concern with confirming the validity of your 'growth' mandate. You've likely recognized by now that you have outgrown this one. The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure should be reconsidering that mandate in earnest. The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure should turn their attention to goals which would actually benefit all of the participants in the communities they purport to speak on the behalf of including Midland and Penetanguishene. The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure might also find it in their best interests and be especially diligent in replacing the cutesy catch phrase, "Places to Grow." The more obvious community goal and relevant reason d'etre you should be considering is the preservation of our provinces' remaining food lands which is a real future concern all critically thinking people might well be placing at the front of the line in concern rankings when community security and prosperity are of concern.
The obvious community goal reflected upon here which could/should also be the mandate of the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure would/could/should read more like- The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure Preserving "Places to Eat"
for Ontario's Vibrant and Imaginative Communities.
Below I have included an article I wish to draw to your attention. It speaks to the interest of preserving liveable communities and the issue of growth which should be of interest to you, the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure while considering your current mandate and indeed the decisions you have to make thereof considering the best interests of the mosaic of concerns that make up our Ontario communities.
I trust that you will consider the concerns I've addressed and do the right thing and start seriously planning for the preservation of unique communities like Midland, Penetanguishene and many others like them that possess their own local sources of food lands and the independence and security they bring any community. I'm looking forward to this process being open and transparent as your interest in receiving public input would suggest.
Regards,
Steven Kaasgaard
December 7, 2010
The Ontario Growth Secretariat
Ministry of Infrastructure
777 Bay Street, 4th Floor, Suite 425
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Email: placestogrow@ontario.ca
Attention: Ontario Growth Secretariat and Ministry of Infrastructure,
Re: The Proposed Urban Node For Midland-Penetanguishene
First of all I would like to thank you for your most gracious offer of allowing the public to have this opportunity to voice concerns over the Proposed Amendment 1 for the Simcoe Sub-Area to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, under the authority of the Places to Grow Act, 2005. I trust that submissions and concerns made by various means to you will also become available for public perusal at some time in the near future.
I have a concern about the mandate that has been given the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure. The Ministry of Infrastructure has incorrectly based our future economic welfare on a worn out - and under the circumstances -completely outrageous template of growth which unfortunately has already repeated itself ad infinitum destroying quiet little farming towns and villages in their wake. Brampton my home town was once such a place only to be replaced today by traffic congestion fueled by an ongoing construction of whats become a massive bedroom community with no places to work for local people. In order to work locals must mount a daily 2.5 to 3 hour journey to places that they can work.
The template of growth, touted traditionally as the model of generating economic prosperity for communities, in reality generates prosperity which only reaches the speculators and developers in most if not all of Ontario's municipalities. Along with the assistance of the un-elected Ontario Municipal Board's magic wand of approval- time and time again, this template of growth has systematically reduced the Province of Ontario's ability to feed itself. That is an emergency in itself as the most arable lands in the world; class 1, 2 and 3 are easily paved over without any regard for the future of the infrastructure needs of these communities and the needs the people they pile into them. Just ask the recent victims who've moved their families into the current urban sprawl of Barrie, Newmarket, Whitby and numerous others.
In many other places around the globe the issue of a community being capable of feeding itself is now considered a community security issue.
Paving over food lands using the template we've always relied upon to generate economic activity should in reality be challenged as the most pressing threat of our time to the healthy future of most of our Ontario communities.
Much of our food today comes to our grocery store shelves by trucks travelling from over 1,300 kilometres away. Does that make sense to anyone but, the truck drivers and the proprietors of the infrastructure and logistics to make that kind of silly event happen all 52 weeks of the year?
Have you people at the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure even considered food as a community security issue?
As the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure you have an enormous task in front of you. On the one hand you have the egos of all of these tiny villages and and wannabe suburbs vs. the real prospect of running out of food. And then of course there is the validity of your actual mandate thereof.
Yes!...The challenge of planning the future direction of the province and whether towns and villages within it like Midland and Penetanguishene should be considered as future urban nodes are difficult decisions to make., but then again it likely is not that difficult to remove these two wannabe suburb prospects from your list since people in South Central Ontario run to the Midland Penetanguishene area to escape suburbia. Ironically by establishing the towns of Midland and Penetanguishene as urban nodes you would be developing exactly that which the suburbanite populations rush up highways 400, 11 and 27 etc. every weekend to avoid.
These 'cottage country' communities have few other means of generating prosperity than in their Tourism and Hospitality industries.
They don't need to be developed as urban nodes. What they do need is to develop more imagination along the lines of developing economic prosperity for themselves without unwittingly setting fire to their only source of an economic engine available to them.
While you engage in your public meetings and the public consultation process through other means of communication you must account for local municipal interests, misinformed or not, in generating jobs and opportunities for their communities while paying greater attention to the bigger picture.
In conclusion I want to briefly drift back to my original concern with confirming the validity of your 'growth' mandate. You've likely recognized by now that you have outgrown this one. The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure should be reconsidering that mandate in earnest. The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure should turn their attention to goals which would actually benefit all of the participants in the communities they purport to speak on the behalf of including Midland and Penetanguishene. The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure might also find it in their best interests and be especially diligent in replacing the cutesy catch phrase, "Places to Grow." The more obvious community goal and relevant reason d'etre you should be considering is the preservation of our provinces' remaining food lands which is a real future concern all critically thinking people might well be placing at the front of the line in concern rankings when community security and prosperity are of concern.
The obvious community goal reflected upon here which could/should also be the mandate of the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure would/could/should read more like- The Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure Preserving "Places to Eat"
for Ontario's Vibrant and Imaginative Communities.
Below I have included an article I wish to draw to your attention. It speaks to the interest of preserving liveable communities and the issue of growth which should be of interest to you, the Ontario Growth Secretariat and the Ministry of Infrastructure while considering your current mandate and indeed the decisions you have to make thereof considering the best interests of the mosaic of concerns that make up our Ontario communities.
I trust that you will consider the concerns I've addressed and do the right thing and start seriously planning for the preservation of unique communities like Midland, Penetanguishene and many others like them that possess their own local sources of food lands and the independence and security they bring any community. I'm looking forward to this process being open and transparent as your interest in receiving public input would suggest.
Regards,
Steven Kaasgaard
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Barrie Examiner's Series on Solar Farms
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Symposium a success!!
Alternative Energy & the Family Farm
This symposium, held on November 16th tackled various subjects surrounding Farmland, Soil Inventory, Alternative Power Generation etc. The meeting was sponsored by the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture. Three of the seven presenters had PowerPoint presentations which they have agreed to make available. Download the PDF versions from the OntarioFarmlandPreservation.org Resources page.
This symposium, held on November 16th tackled various subjects surrounding Farmland, Soil Inventory, Alternative Power Generation etc. The meeting was sponsored by the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture. Three of the seven presenters had PowerPoint presentations which they have agreed to make available. Download the PDF versions from the OntarioFarmlandPreservation.org Resources page.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Orillia Packet & Times letter
Letter to the editor [Orillia Packet & Times]:
re: David Hawke’s article – NIMBY crew hijacks solar power meeting
The bottom line is that solar panels do not belong on farmland. Landowners who buy into the large scale projects that our government is proposing are essentially saying "I surrender". Our government has encouraged and promoted large scale corporate farming in the name of corporate greed. They have made it very difficult for the small local farms to survive. So it isn't any wonder that farmers are struggling. But I am here to say Please, don't give up. We need our local farms for our children's future. Less than 15 % of Ontario is farmland and we will need all of our farmland in tact to feed the world's growing population. People say to me, you have to look at the bigger picture, and they are right. Our Prime Minister is currently negotiating a $16 Trillion deal called the Comprehensive Economic and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. This deal specifically targets Ontario's Renewable Energy market. If this deal goes through there is no limit to the amount of farmland that may be used up for solar energy. The Ontario Government's Green Energy Act has been put in place to override the people's input. The Green Energy Act has removed our right to oppose these projects at the municipal level. This is unacceptable and unconstitutional. There are many alternatives for solar energy. The representative from Recurrent Energy (Robert Leah) has admitted that he does not know why our government is not installing solar panels on the thousands of acres of already cleared land under existing hydro towers. Small scale microfit solar projects of 10 kw or less are good. They provide solar energy within local communities, and each community can decide if the location and the benefits of the project suit their specific needs.
Corporations are running our government and the underlying message our government is sending farmers is to give up. Farming is a way of life that carries more meaning than any amount of money. It is a disappearing culture. Our consumer society is driving us away from being citizens and toward being fulltime consumers. A process that makes the rich get richer and the poor become poorer. We are going about our day to day business with a false belief that consumerism and money will bring us happiness. We need to fight for the preservation of not only Ontario's farmland but also our children's way of life. It is our children's, and our grandchildren's right to enjoy the connection with the land that their parent's enjoyed. People ask me, " but how can I make a difference? I am just one person." And I am here to say "We can all make a difference. All we need to do is leave our living rooms and tv sets , and walk out the door and attend meetings for AWARE Simcoe. The next meeting is Saturday July 24th at 10am at the Coldwater Community Centre. Aware Simcoe is here to help unite us all, so we can work together to support each other and make a difference. So please attend our meetings and voice your concerns. There is strength in numbers. Together we can send a message to our government that makes them accountable and transparent. We can let them know we are watching, and that they are working for us and our children's best interests. As children of the planet we have a responsibility to take care of it. We can start by defending our own backyards. Together, all of our backyards make up the planet. We must all have a voice for an environmentally and socially just society.
Cindy Hillard, Coldwater
re: David Hawke’s article – NIMBY crew hijacks solar power meeting
The bottom line is that solar panels do not belong on farmland. Landowners who buy into the large scale projects that our government is proposing are essentially saying "I surrender". Our government has encouraged and promoted large scale corporate farming in the name of corporate greed. They have made it very difficult for the small local farms to survive. So it isn't any wonder that farmers are struggling. But I am here to say Please, don't give up. We need our local farms for our children's future. Less than 15 % of Ontario is farmland and we will need all of our farmland in tact to feed the world's growing population. People say to me, you have to look at the bigger picture, and they are right. Our Prime Minister is currently negotiating a $16 Trillion deal called the Comprehensive Economic and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. This deal specifically targets Ontario's Renewable Energy market. If this deal goes through there is no limit to the amount of farmland that may be used up for solar energy. The Ontario Government's Green Energy Act has been put in place to override the people's input. The Green Energy Act has removed our right to oppose these projects at the municipal level. This is unacceptable and unconstitutional. There are many alternatives for solar energy. The representative from Recurrent Energy (Robert Leah) has admitted that he does not know why our government is not installing solar panels on the thousands of acres of already cleared land under existing hydro towers. Small scale microfit solar projects of 10 kw or less are good. They provide solar energy within local communities, and each community can decide if the location and the benefits of the project suit their specific needs.
Corporations are running our government and the underlying message our government is sending farmers is to give up. Farming is a way of life that carries more meaning than any amount of money. It is a disappearing culture. Our consumer society is driving us away from being citizens and toward being fulltime consumers. A process that makes the rich get richer and the poor become poorer. We are going about our day to day business with a false belief that consumerism and money will bring us happiness. We need to fight for the preservation of not only Ontario's farmland but also our children's way of life. It is our children's, and our grandchildren's right to enjoy the connection with the land that their parent's enjoyed. People ask me, " but how can I make a difference? I am just one person." And I am here to say "We can all make a difference. All we need to do is leave our living rooms and tv sets , and walk out the door and attend meetings for AWARE Simcoe. The next meeting is Saturday July 24th at 10am at the Coldwater Community Centre. Aware Simcoe is here to help unite us all, so we can work together to support each other and make a difference. So please attend our meetings and voice your concerns. There is strength in numbers. Together we can send a message to our government that makes them accountable and transparent. We can let them know we are watching, and that they are working for us and our children's best interests. As children of the planet we have a responsibility to take care of it. We can start by defending our own backyards. Together, all of our backyards make up the planet. We must all have a voice for an environmentally and socially just society.
Cindy Hillard, Coldwater
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Support from Garfield Dunlop, MPP Simcoe North
To whom it may concern:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer my opinion on the installation of large-scale and large acreage solar projects on agricultural lands.
To begin with let me make it clear that I do not oppose solar energy and believe there is abundant space available on rooftops and non productive lands such as former landfills and quarries.
I am also adamantly opposed to the system which allows secret deals being made between the landowner and solar farm proponents without the municipal approval process. No other industry or individual has the opportunity to completely change the use of lands without municipal zoning and official plan amendments- where the public has the chance to voice their concerns. Large scale solar farms are in fact an industrial use of the property.
Finally, I think that solar panels on rooftops and small scale and acreage (1 or 2 acres) should be allowed providing the municipalities approve. Large scale projects on productive agricultural lands should not be permitted as I pointed out in the Committee hearings and in the legislature on the Green Energy Act.
Thanks Garfield.
Garfield Dunlop MPP Simcoe North
Thank you for the opportunity to offer my opinion on the installation of large-scale and large acreage solar projects on agricultural lands.
To begin with let me make it clear that I do not oppose solar energy and believe there is abundant space available on rooftops and non productive lands such as former landfills and quarries.
I am also adamantly opposed to the system which allows secret deals being made between the landowner and solar farm proponents without the municipal approval process. No other industry or individual has the opportunity to completely change the use of lands without municipal zoning and official plan amendments- where the public has the chance to voice their concerns. Large scale solar farms are in fact an industrial use of the property.
Finally, I think that solar panels on rooftops and small scale and acreage (1 or 2 acres) should be allowed providing the municipalities approve. Large scale projects on productive agricultural lands should not be permitted as I pointed out in the Committee hearings and in the legislature on the Green Energy Act.
Thanks Garfield.
Garfield Dunlop MPP Simcoe North
Comment from Judith Cox, Deputy Mayor of Severn Township
July 14, 2010
I am opposed to solar panel farm installations on Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 farmland in Ontario
There is such a small quantity of good productive farmland available to grow food in Ontario and farmers only have access to 13% of this private land for producing crops and raising animals. These panels can block the sun and bake the earth under them. They disrupt carbon and nitrogen fixing and create a home for noxious weeds. We need to have plants growing in the fields to enhance the productivity of the soil. We need the plants to remove the carbon from the atmosphere, which reduces greenhouse gases.
I believe that solar generation is a good thing. There are 825 million square feet of corporation roofs in the GTA alone. These would be the appropriate homes for solar panels. Farms are essential to all of us and are the roots and future of this country. Farmers work hard to produce crops and supply us with food. Productive farmland needs to be saved for future generations.
The government needs to be supporting the farmers to keep working on these lands and keep the panels in urban areas.
Judith Cox
Deputy Mayor of Severn Township
I am opposed to solar panel farm installations on Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 farmland in Ontario
There is such a small quantity of good productive farmland available to grow food in Ontario and farmers only have access to 13% of this private land for producing crops and raising animals. These panels can block the sun and bake the earth under them. They disrupt carbon and nitrogen fixing and create a home for noxious weeds. We need to have plants growing in the fields to enhance the productivity of the soil. We need the plants to remove the carbon from the atmosphere, which reduces greenhouse gases.
I believe that solar generation is a good thing. There are 825 million square feet of corporation roofs in the GTA alone. These would be the appropriate homes for solar panels. Farms are essential to all of us and are the roots and future of this country. Farmers work hard to produce crops and supply us with food. Productive farmland needs to be saved for future generations.
The government needs to be supporting the farmers to keep working on these lands and keep the panels in urban areas.
Judith Cox
Deputy Mayor of Severn Township
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Reply from Noel
Hi Bernard,
Thanks very much, I appreciate it. To confirm, Recurrent Energy is currently proposing 19 projects in Ontario (10 in Simcoe County, six in eastern Ontario and three in southwestern Ontario), as identified at http://www.ontariosolarfuture.ca/projects.php
A total of 184 Feed-in Tariff (FIT) contracts were awarded in April 2010 to large scale renewable energy projects in Ontario, including 76 ground-mounted solar projects. Information on those contracts and the FIT program can be found at http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=7221
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding these projects.
Best regards,
Noel
Thanks very much, I appreciate it. To confirm, Recurrent Energy is currently proposing 19 projects in Ontario (10 in Simcoe County, six in eastern Ontario and three in southwestern Ontario), as identified at http://www.ontariosolarfuture.ca/projects.php
A total of 184 Feed-in Tariff (FIT) contracts were awarded in April 2010 to large scale renewable energy projects in Ontario, including 76 ground-mounted solar projects. Information on those contracts and the FIT program can be found at http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=7221
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding these projects.
Best regards,
Noel
Monday, July 5, 2010
Note to Noel
Good Afternoon Noel;
At a recent meeting, you made a point of correcting me on the number of solar farm proposals that I had indicated Recurrent Energy had proposed in Ontario.
I told you then and I repeat here, that if I had forwarded incorrect information, or if there was incorrect information on our website, I apologize and upon correction from you, I will remove those numbers from the website and publish the accurate information.
I pledge to only place on the website, the true facts as well as information for your readers.
Once again Noel, thanks for the criticism.
Respectfully,
Bernard
At a recent meeting, you made a point of correcting me on the number of solar farm proposals that I had indicated Recurrent Energy had proposed in Ontario.
I told you then and I repeat here, that if I had forwarded incorrect information, or if there was incorrect information on our website, I apologize and upon correction from you, I will remove those numbers from the website and publish the accurate information.
I pledge to only place on the website, the true facts as well as information for your readers.
Once again Noel, thanks for the criticism.
Respectfully,
Bernard
Friday, June 25, 2010
Comment #1: The Issue
Within the last year there have been major changes in the farming communities that will prove to have devastating consequences to the future of farming in Ontario. The Provincial government (acting as a majority government) has passed the Green Energy Act. In doing so, they claim that the mandate of that government is to develop clean energy from sources such as solar and wind and that they, with Ontario Power Authority, will offer massive subsidies to land owners that will assist in generating electricity for the grid.
The two common ways of reaching their goal are as follows:
#1 The MicroFIT Program is one in which the land owner buys his own 10 kw (or less) generating unit and the Ontario Power Authority pays for the power that is fed into the grid. Most land owners place these structures where there is no significant loss of productive ground, whether the panels are placed on an existing roof, fencerow or barnyard. This program is to be encouraged.
#2 The FIT Program is where the land owner enters into a long term lease with a developer that will assume control over the land for up to thirty years. Under such arrangements, the land is fenced (8′), monitored with camera and motion sensors and the land is essentially lost to agriculture. Structures from 2-14′ high would then grace the land. This is not agriculture, but the construction of a long term electrical generating facility. The developer wants only large tracts of largely level land for his construction and has no concern for the land except as a base to hold the panels.
One developer from California claims to have tentative offers for 184 leases of Ontario land. If each parcel was 75 acres, that would equate to the loss of 13,800 acres. This is land that will never be back in food production as we know it – we’ll be telling you more about the devastating long-term effects of these “farms”.
This not a legacy our children want to see. Already there is valuable farmland lost to the uncontrolled growth of our cities, so surely the government has to think and act in a manner that is not selling out our farmland to largely foreign interests.
The two common ways of reaching their goal are as follows:
#1 The MicroFIT Program is one in which the land owner buys his own 10 kw (or less) generating unit and the Ontario Power Authority pays for the power that is fed into the grid. Most land owners place these structures where there is no significant loss of productive ground, whether the panels are placed on an existing roof, fencerow or barnyard. This program is to be encouraged.
#2 The FIT Program is where the land owner enters into a long term lease with a developer that will assume control over the land for up to thirty years. Under such arrangements, the land is fenced (8′), monitored with camera and motion sensors and the land is essentially lost to agriculture. Structures from 2-14′ high would then grace the land. This is not agriculture, but the construction of a long term electrical generating facility. The developer wants only large tracts of largely level land for his construction and has no concern for the land except as a base to hold the panels.
One developer from California claims to have tentative offers for 184 leases of Ontario land. If each parcel was 75 acres, that would equate to the loss of 13,800 acres. This is land that will never be back in food production as we know it – we’ll be telling you more about the devastating long-term effects of these “farms”.
This not a legacy our children want to see. Already there is valuable farmland lost to the uncontrolled growth of our cities, so surely the government has to think and act in a manner that is not selling out our farmland to largely foreign interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)