Monday’s Headlines

18 comments

1. “The issue is, what’s the easiest way and the quickest way to replace the units?” said Vaughan. “And we have a housing project starting in the neighbourhood just a couple of blocks away.” However, those units aren’t open to the Beverley St. tenants.

   Does anyone know why this development is precluded to these tenants? It certainly seems like they got screwed here. I’m not sure the city was obliged to see them rehoused in the exact same site but in colluding with the developer to circumvent the continuance of tenant housing on the site the city should have inherited the obligation to see them rehoused on a first-offer basis in the development the funds are accelerating.

2. From Integrity chief puts more heat on Rob Ford:

   “The report says that, when asked about the issue, Ford responded: ‘I do not understand why it would be inappropriate to solicit funds for an arm’s-length charitable cause using my regular employment letterhead.’ ”

   That really sums up Rob Ford. He refuses to understand that things may not be as simple as he thinks it is.

3. Another headline:

   Toronto Police stepping up bicycle and pedestrian enforcement in wake of deaths [National Post]

   http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/23/toronto-police-stepping-up-bicycle-and-pedestrian-enforcement-in-wake-of-deaths/

   Of course, I would prefer if the headline read “Toronto Police stepping up auto enforcement in wake of deaths”. But it’s just so much easier to blame those annoying bikers and pedestrians and their soft fleshy exteriors.

4. What kills me about Ford and the whole “Toronto can’t take a million more people” is that few media outlets have pointed out that the official plan doesn’t say we will. It says that the GTA will house 2.6 million more by 2031, of which TO will take 20%. Under 500,000 over 21 years.

   The 1,000,000 number is either out of thin air, or it’s an approximate stab at the number of migrants to the entire region in the next decade. But the way Ford has said it (i.e., “We can’t deal with the 2.5 million we have”) it sounds like he’s expecting the actual city of Toronto to balloon by a full million in that time. If this was correct it would indeed be ridiculous, but it’s obviously wrong.

   The Globe made mention of this, but I didn’t see anyone else do it. Ford was on Metro Morning today and Galloway didn’t challenge him on it. And now this has become a campaign talking point. Is Ford intentionally misleading people, or does he actually think this? Either way, bad news.

5. It really is quite interesting why the media are not gunning for Rob Ford’s withdrawal from the mayoral race as they did with Adam Giambrone. Giambrone’s transgression seems quite tame now in retrospect in comparison to Ford’s many gaffes, blunders, staggers in Flordia etc., no?

6. The integrity office is nothing more than a tool for Miller’s politics and for serving the political left.

   The integrity commission slams Ford for using a letter head to promote a charity, but Kyle Rae can throw himself a huge party on the taxpayers dime, but he get’s no sanction? Perhaps there should be an integrity commissioner for the integrity commissioner.

   I wouldn’t trust any finding from that office until after Miller’s reign of terror is over.

7. It seems that HTML formatting does not show up in the comments, but it does when viewed as an RSS feed through Google Reader. This makes it harder to differentiate quoted material. Fixable?

8. “Does anyone know why this development is precluded to these tenants?”

   It’s a condo. The developer wants to sell all of the units off, not rent them out.

   Of course, the tenants are free to buy one or rent one from one of the future owners.

9. Darwin, my reading of the article was that:
   1. The condo development which booted the sitting tenants should have included rental.
   2. A deal was done that the developer pays the city $$$ and the city uses those $$$ to fund a DIFFERENT rental housing project
   3. The tenants were told this OTHER project funded by their tenancy rights was not available to them.

10. “The integrity commission slams Ford for using a letter head to promote a charity, but Kyle Rae can throw himself a huge party on the taxpayers dime, but he get’s no sanction?”

    Did the integrity commission rule on Kyle Rae’s party? I can’t find anything saying that it did, or even that a complaint had been submitted.

11. This project has gone through a two and half year public process with the community and neighbours. Tenants have also been included in this process. The building came in as too large, badly designed, and disrespectful of the heritage in the area, with no family housing and a very aggressive approach to the street.

    The owner who assembled the project also refused to acknowledge the tenant rights on site. The developer claimed that there only five units between the three properties. The company also claimed that three of the apartments were empty and as such the existing city rules designed to protect affordable rental housing did not apply. My office refused to accept the developer’s position.

    Working with the local resident groups we have taken close to 12m in height off the building, shifted the massing of the project and angled it south to respect homes to the north as much as possible under the zoning, the project was moved back from the street to allow for tree planting and a wider sidewalk, we improved the city lane to the south (at the developers cost) and achieved family housing by way of larger units and the inclusion of town homes at grade on the Beverley side of the project.

    We have also negotiated a $800,000 package to deal with tenant issues and the replacement of rental housing on site. This last piece of the puzzle required establishing that there were 6 units on site not five. My office played a pivotal role in getting city staff to investigate and build a case to challenge the position advanced by the developer. We won. The city now has the resources to work out a compensation package with the renters that satisfy the main concerns being raised by two long term residents mentioned in the article.

    This is the next step. The motion going to council authorizes staff to evaluate and secure compensation for the affected tenants with the provision to make sure that those with the longest term as tenants are given priority. There is close to $800,000 available now to resolve this issue. If I have done anything I made sure that this settlement was secured before demolition was possible. If there is no, deal the developer cannot demolish the buildings or evict the tenants.

    There is nothing in the agreement precluding the city from re-locating the tenants on site as renters or as owners. While the City’s Official Plan does not allow the city to take possession of free hold condo’s and rent them out as individual units, it is possible to waive this rule in exceptional circumstances. If this is what he tenants want, this is what my office will support.

    The issue in front of council instructs staff to sit-down with residents and work out details. It is not an inappropriate way to resolve the issue, nor is it fair to call it inadequate as no agreement has been reached yet.

    As mentioned, this project has gone through a substantial set of public meetings and my office has been in contact with other neighbours as well as the affected tenants. We have several competing issues to contend with and the process is not over. We must balance the height, building dimensions and heritage issues from a planning perspective. There are tenant rights to be factored in and there is the crucial issue of getting new rental units built in the community to accommodate both the existing and future tenants who want housing in the area. At all times the applicant can by-pass council and go straight to the Ontario Municipal Board. So far we have prevented that.

    Tenant issues matter to me, planning issues matter to me, heritage issues matter to me. Sometimes it is impossible to solve all three issues to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Every step in the process attached to 15-27 Beverley has been done with the community, in accordance with city policy and brought before my colleagues for ratification.

    The last issue to be resolved involves tenant compensation. It is not being dealt with last because it is an after thought, it is being dealt with last because until we secured a decision on the significant planning issues on site, it would have been premature to resolve the rental issues. Before the project can be built the issues related to rental housing must be resolved and that is what my office will work on between now and January when the issues comes back before Council.

12. The tenants on Beverley: I think there’s two things going on here. One is this rule the city has that a developer is supposed to chip in for new rental spaces because there’s a lack. Vaughan and the city decided they’d take the money now for that now to speed up opening up new rental spaces elsewhere rather than have rental units at this location.
    The other thing is how these tenants are caught up in this. I’m sure they’re being given the required 3-months notice (probably much longer) and I see no reason why the developer or the city should help them find another place to rent, unless they have some issue that requires ‘assistance’ from the gov’t and in that case there’s another program for that. 

13. Re: Rob Ford: The gadfly that Toronto needs

    I forced myself through the first few paragraphs clichéd anti-Toronto garbage, after that it became nonsensical rambling with no real point whatsoever.

    Anyone here with a higher tolerance for stupid care to summarize the point she was trying to make in her editorial? Assuming she ended up having one, of course…

14. @Ben Smith
    I honestly believe that she was just doing what her editors and the newspapers owners and advertisers wanted – generate controversy and clicks/views. 
    But Shawn Micallef seems to have agreed with her argument:
    http://twitter.com/shawnmicallef/status/21932248040
    But perhaps he can say more here.. 

15. I will if it works out – an upcoming column.

16. Re: Rob Ford: The Gadfly that Toronto Needs

    Spacing readers seem to be, in general, “of that gentle arty or intellectual stripe wherein they associate primarily with others of the same ilk and assume that this is indeed the norm and that all others are suburban knobs” that Blatchford references. Your heads are exploding.

    It’s a big world out there, it’s a big city, there are a lot of viewpoints and a lot of different ways to live your life.

    I’m annoyed with the Rob Ford campaign because he gets to yell things like “the gravy train is going to stop!” without having anything to back it up, with no details of how exactly he’ll accomplish that. But I realize that my desire for political discourse to be about ideas and policy is nothing more than a fantasy. It is a popularity contest and a gossip-fest. People become entrenched in ideology, and we can’t possibly concede that the other side has anything to contribute, or even that they should contribute.

    If you don’t want Rob Ford to win, then work to get all of your friends to vote. Give a shit, do something about it.

17. @Crimson

    It may surprise you that the person that pointed out the stupidity of that column lives in Richmond Hill…

18. @Adam Vaughan

    I appreciate your detailed reply. It seems to me from a reading of the piece that the tenants would rather be housed than compensated. Could you confirm the Star’s assertion that the units in the project being accelerated by the offset payment is not available to the tenants here, and if so why?

    @”Mark”

    The Star’s piece said: “under the official plan the city usually requires developers to build apartments in a condo building to replace those that were lost, and to allow the former tenants to pay rents there comparable to what they had paid before”. Plainly the city’s usual intent is not to buy off tenants and set them adrift, as the tone of the Star piece implied they were.