Things really do have to change at City Hall. It has become like a puppy mill. Developers wanting super-sized buildings simply visit the Planning Department and City councillors, show them pictures of what they'd like and, hey Presto it happens. On the way there are traps to be avoided but there seems to be plenty of help for developers.
Some projects take a long time. Like Orchard View and Duplex. When it first emerged the local councillor was Anne Johnston. She supported the community but she departed the scene in 2003. The residents remained though and they got support from her replacement. To the developer it looked like it was going to be a waiting game. They'd have to wait until another councillor came along, particular residents relocated or there was a change of heart. That's why we got a crappy, really expensive parking lot.
For that the developer needed to remove the buildings. It has long been City policy that demolishing rental housing without an approved replacement plan was not permitted. It was part of Toronto's commitment to rental and affordable housing. The idea to demolish the vacant buildings on the Orchard View and Duplex site was rejected out of hand by the Planning Department. They frowned on early demolition and the creation of parking lots because it allows developers to 'wait-out' the City. The revenue generated by parking fees kept the developer's costs low.
However, Councillor Stintz conjured up one of her famous "compromises". The kind of one where only "those residents closest to" liked. She didn't have much sympathy for the rest of the community or City policies. She sought Council's permission to overrule the Planning Department and have the buildings removed. Council rubber-stamped her idea. It was put forward by the "sitting Councillor" and, in spite of it having been rejected by the Planning Department, it was approved.
She claimed it made the neighbourhood look shabby. Supposedly, if a local resident who was "closest to" wanted to sell their property it would fetch a bigger price if the site was flattened. Well, as it turned out, a few did make some good money. The developer was now sitting comfortable and poised for some good timing.
And timing is what it is all about. At the start of the Wednesday session of Council we heard Karen Stintz shout out to Michael Walker that the item he wanted to mark urgent was in "her Ward". That was a hint that he was interfering. That was a 'no-no' on Council. A councillor was allowed to bring forward items that had been approved by Community Council and rarely were they contested. Certainly not mere planning applications. It meant even poor planning would be rubber-stamped. It meant proposals resented by residents would be rubber-stamped.
At the start of business on the second day of Council, Michael Walker rose to present the community's petitions. The ones Karen Stintz refused to submit to the Clerk the day before. Again, she resented his intrusion. Councillor Walker can be heard responding to Councillor Stintz, "well you wouldn't do it. I know these people!"
See for yourself!
