Oakville residents must register and provide their comments on this MZO through the ERO website. Our voices must be heard in order to influence the outcome. Follow the instructions here.

​

Below we have provided five (5) sample comments which you may wish to copy and paste into the comment section of the ERO website. Feel free to use any or all of the comments and add your own feedback.

​

SAMPLE COMMENT #1: Mega-Density.

These MZOs would force extreme and reckless density on Midtown, more than double that of any comparable development in the GTA, without the infrastructure to support it; creating chaos and overwhelming transportation and services that are already overstressed, including local roads, transit, the GO station, and the QEW. The Town’s OPA 70 already permits densities up to 6.0 FSI, which is very high by any North American standard, making these absurd densities neither necessary nor acceptable. The MZOs would also eliminate affordable housing requirements, which is what is actually needed. This TOC is not about delivering housing; it is about maximizing developer land value at the expense of livability, infrastructure capacity, and the public interest.  I vote NO for these MZOs.

​

SAMPLE COMMENT #2: Provincial & Private Interests Overriding Municipal Planning

These MZOs represent a profound override of local democracy despite Oakville’s full compliance with provincial policies and proven track record of growth and housing development. The Town’s Official Plan Amendment for Midtown (OPA 70) was developed transparently, with public input and Council approval. In contrast, the TOC was advanced behind closed doors under confidentiality agreements, striving a predetermined developer driven plan with superficial consultation. This misuse of provincial power resembles the governance failures exposed in the Greenbelt scandal, where planning regulations were overridden to benefit private interests. The Province should not repeat that mistake by going forward with a bad product produced by a seriously flawed process. I vote NO for these MZOs.

​

SAMPLE COMMENT #3: OPA70 Is A Better Alternative.

This Transit-Oriented Community (TOC) fails to comply with Premier Ford’s Build Homes Faster agenda and will not deliver a single home before 2031, the Province’s own housing deadline, and will take 25 years to complete. OPA70 is a better alternative and is ready to go. Oakville already meets and exceeds all provincial housing requirements through OPA 70. And Oakville has a proven track record for building houses. There is no necessity or urgency for imposing these MZOs now. In fact, imposing these MZO‘s will eliminate the superior alternative, for the financial benefits of the developer. I vote NO for these MZOs.

​

SAMPLE COMMENT #4: OPA 70 would Build Homes Faster.

The economic and viability case for these MZOs and this project has collapsed. The condominium market has both collapsed and shifted, with the market no longer supporting high rise projects dominated by studios and one-bedroom units, which is the configuration this TOC proposes.  Oakville needs family-oriented, complete-community housing, not investor-driven micro-units. The project will not proceed for at least five years, so there is no urgency or justification for imposing these MZOs now. Their only effect is to lock in inflated land values for the developer. IO should pause, shut down this TOC, withdraw the MZOs, and proceed with OPA 70, that is a responsible, deliverable, community-supported plan that is aligned with the changing market. I vote NO for these MZOs.

​

SAMPLE COMMENT #5: Failure To Comply With MZO Framework.

The proposed Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) for Midtown Oakville blatantly fail to meet the Ontario government’s own post criteria for issuing MZOs. There is no municipal support, Town Council has not endorsed the project and community opposition is clear and documented; no justification for overriding established provincial, regional, and municipal planning policies, including OPA 70; and no credible urgency, given the proponent’s own timeline shows construction effectively starting after 2030 with build-out stretching two decades beyond. MZOs are meant to be exceptional tools, not a self serving substitute for proper planning, yet the only rationale offered here is “zoning certainty,” which in reality serves a single purpose: to lock in speculative land value, shift risk from the developer to the public, and freeze an outdated proposal while stripping the Town of its ability to adapt to real housing needs, infrastructure capacity, and changing conditions over time.