A Parcel of Rogues.

SUCH A PARCEL OF ROGUES T'WAS THAT ORGANIZATION!

Farewell to Ward 16 fame

Farewell our old glory

Farewell even to the name

So famed in municipal story

Now Stintz runs over the Official Plan

And Tall Buildings tower over the horizion

To mark where Miller’s province stands-

Such a parcel of rogues in an organization!

What force or guile could not subdue

Through many troubled stages

Is wrought now by an elected few

For parties, suits and speeches.

A councillor’s arrogance we disdained

Secure in honest condemnation;

But developer’s funds have been our bane-

Such a parcel of rogues in one organization!

If only we had seen the day

That blind ambition could sell us,

My cool head would remain

With Sewell and loyal Jacobs!

But with Mills in Ward 16, till the last hour

I will make this declaration :-

'We were bought and sold for developer’s gold'-

T'WAS SUCH A PARCEL OF ROGUES IN THAT ORGANIZATION!

What was Karen Stintz thinking?

The TTC subway doesn't work. Our sewers are bursting. The water supply is leaking. We're out of open space. Our roads are gridlocked. Summer smog, winter choke. Yet, willy-nilly we stuff more condos into our neighbourhoods. Where's that plan taking us?

There should be no plan but the Official Plan.

Some readers may see parallels in this poem to the Council of the past 7 years with it’s ‘Political Elites’ handing Toronto over to the greed of developers. Through a sense of entitlement, a corruption of planning principles, we've become a 'condo-nation'. All at the expense of the ideals in Toronto’s Official Plan.

The "corruption" at City Hall is best exemplified by the practice of "ward politics". It has to stop, we must raise the level of integrity in decision-making on Council. 

Development is good, over-sized development is not!

Deja Vu for Karen Stintz

The Eglinton-Lawrence councillor, who rode into office on the wave of community opposition to Minto Towers at Yonge and Eg, is facing some unlikely opposition. It's from some of the same folks who drafted her to run against Anne Johnston way back when.

Enter Patrick Smyth, one of five in the Coalition for Municipal Change who paid for the Councillor Wanted ad that drafted Stintz in 2003. "She's never met a developer she couldn't trust!" now says Smyth. Ouch.

Residents are angry, says Smyth, at Stintz's efforts to push through a number of developments, creeping into established residential neighbourhoods.

Enzo DiMatteo, NOW TORONTO, October 6, 2010.

How low is "too low" for Karen Stintz?

There is much to consider in the video record of the exchange between Councillor Walker and Karen Stintz on the last day of Council in August. The part after where she says she screwed-up on her 7 year career on Council, Karen Stintz says "there is nothing to tell us if it's too hign or too low"is a stunning admission that she is largely ignorant of the many rules and regulations that do exactly that - if they are applied properly.

It's clear Karen Stintz is development-challenged. The Tall Building policy has a number of limitations that determine if a building is too high. The 45 degree angular plane tests are designed to mitigate any loss of quality or equality in the neighbourhood. Design Guidelines, adopted by Council, contain minimum setback measurements that ultimately limit height and density.

That all of these protections were circumvented by the developer has given rise to anger in the community. That the development has fettered the development choices of the publicly owned land next door has far reaching consequences for affordable housing in Toronto.

Remember as you watch this episode that Michael Walker has represented North Torontonians for 28 years. Karen Stintz took a long shot in 2003 and has been around development issues, in between preening her PC political ambitions, for less than 7 years.

Oh, and when you get near the end when Karen Stintz reverts to her signature shrill routine (what did we get for the $4,500 speech training?) she bemoans the fact that Terry Mills helped the Orchard View and Duplex community in dealing with the developer, the City and the Ward Councillor. Her "political opponents" attended public meetings, were paid nothing for their contribution and served the community well.

It's not a pretty scene - political warning strongly advised. 

A councillor who is a stranger to the truth.

Michael Walker knew he was fighting a losing battle. The community members who remained in the Chamber wanted to be witness to what was about to happen. Their loyalty was to the hundreds of local residents who opposed the development. The last leg of Karen Stintz's journey were about to unfold. There would be a video record for the electorate of Ward 16 to consider prior to October 25, 2010 when she would ask to be given a third term as Ward Councillor.

Councillor Walker asked Karen Stintz if the Working Group came to the consensus she claimed in her address to Council. She avoided his question and responded by saying that "the residents that are directly impacted by this development came to the consensus we have achieved".

This of course is not at all true. Remember the deputations of the EPRA Board Members? Remember the deputations from the members of the Stanley Knowles Cooperative? These, and others not shown here but which exist, prove that no such consensus existed. In fact, the unanimous consensus reached by the community was ignored by Karen Stintz when she presented only her own private agreement with the developer.

Councillor Walker was aware too of some 200 names on petitions and speculated that there was more. He knew many of these people and knew them to be from the immediate area. Karen Stintz then extends the lie by claiming the Working Group and the Stanley Knowles Cooperative came to "an informed decision".

This statement is not true either. There were many questions still unanswered on that last day of Council. Questions for which Councillor Stintz had refused to secure answers. These answers would have weakened the developer's case and exposed the farce.

Politicians have a shelf-life and we have seen in the past what happens to representatives whose shelf life has expired. As we sweep the lawns of leaves, Ward 16 residents should be thinking about the needed change of who represents us at City Hall.

Have a look at this episode and ask yourself if this is the level of integrity you want from your local councillor?

The fog of 'Ward Politics'.

Councillor Michael Walker made a brave attempt at raising the many planning issues associated with the proposal to erect a 20 storey condo building on the small Orchard View and Duplex site. He had already demonstrated that there was much opposition to the plan from within the local community. Now he rose to debate the planning anomalies. He dealt with each, one at a time.

At a 1000% increase in density, Councillor Walker felt justified in believing this was excessive. He referred to the previous item on the agenda that day where much lower densities had been recommended and accepted by City Planning Staff.  He intimated that the same should happen at this site.

He made the case for something being terribly wrong because the Angular Plane Tests had not been applied. These tests are incorporated in the City's policies with respect to Urban Design.

He highlighted the 10.2 times coverage planned for the site. Nothing of this magnitude exists in the YE Urban Growth Centre and never likely to exist given the Design Guidelines Policies for the area.

He cited the Tall Buildings Policies with respect to the size of the floor plate of the proposed building. At 850 square metres it exceeded the recommended 750 square metre maximum contained in the policy.

He questioned the correctness of the lack of discussion about the rental housing stock that existed previously on the site. The same situation had existed on the Berwick site to the south and remarked how the rental stock there had been preserved through that redevelopment process.

He commented on the appropriateness of the setbacks provided for in the plan and bemoaned the fact that so little valid information was available. He had been unable to get exact information on setbacks stating that the figures changed at different times during his questioning of Mr. Keefe. He commented that the setbacks did not represent good planning or good design.

He believed the issue of the impact on the Library had not been adequately addressed. He noted that many of the views in the building above the Library would now be lost. Building so close to the east property lot line he feared the publicly owned Library land could be fettered. He referenced a letter to that point from the Library Board.

All in all, Michael Walker made the case for a community concerned about excessive development in the neighbourhood. The transition to a two storey community to the west was not in keeping with neighbourhood stability policies within the Official Plan. He suggested that the City had good policies and they should be applied.

His recommendation was that the matter should be sent back to Community Council after a public meeting to resolve these issues. His motion was put to a vote but it failed by 26 to 4. The three councillors supporting the motion were Rob Ford, Ron Moeser and Cliff Jenkins who had voted in favour of Councillor Stintz at the North York Community Council on August 17th.

Here's a link to Councillor Walker's attempt to cut through the fog of Ward Politics.

"The community, sensing this application was on a juggernaut to approval decided it was prudent to prepare a "Conciliatory" proposal that might mitigate some of the major excesses. This was presented to the NYCC on Aug.17 last in some detail and supported by numerous deputations. Nonetheless, NYCC gave this no consideration and instead proceeded with a number of amendments arranged between the Applicant and the Councillor the week before. In that this NYCC meeting was declared a Capital "P" Public Meeting it's highly doubtful if it's process satisfies that purpose"

Keeping City Hall staff from 'going native'.

When Councillor Walker started asking questions about the proposed building setbacks, it became obvious why this particular planner was sent to Council. (He was there for each of the 3 day Council too. Imagine what that cost.) Mr. Keefe was woefully unprepared to answer Michael Walker's questions.

These were important questions too, if a poorly planned idea was to be exposed. The community was hoping that, if enough councillors noticed the error, the Council would not approve it. However, it was beginning to look like that wouldn't happen. Ward politics and apathy were too prevalent.

The following two videos are examples of what was going on that day.

The first video exposes the dark side of this issue. Michael Walker asked about the type of housing (rental) that existed on the site prior to it becoming a parking lot. Mr. Keefe claimed ignorance of the facts, killing that line of questioning. Next Councillor Walker asked about the remaining buildings on the site. Mr. Keefe claimed there are no buildings remaining. This was wrong - there are still two rental dwellings on the property. Councillor Stintz knew this but remained silent. If she had corrected the error on a point of order it might have weakened the chances of success for the developer.

The second shows how useless it was to question Mr. Keefe. He just couldn't, or wouldn't, provide answers on setbacks. Building setbacks are elements of urban design that are policies that govern height and density. Like the angular plane tests, Toronto adopted these policies to protect stability in neighbourhoods. Mr. Keefe didn't seem to know anything about them.

Video one - Rental housing, what houses? There are no houses - no comment.

Video two - Setbacks, what setbacks? Who cares?

"The problem is amplified by City Staff being corralled around Community Councils, un-reflective of the incremental Ward-terrain. It's a practise expressed in the self- serving term of: 'keeping staff from going native' - bureaucracy's parallel term to the derogative expression: 'NIMBYism'"

Karen Stintz meets her Waterloo.

On Friday morning August 28th, 2010, Councillor David Shiner assisted in the rescue of Karen Stintz. Everybody knew she was having trouble rising to the occasion. Perhaps it was pangs of conscience that caused her to wait until the very last minutes of the final Toronto Council, the first to have a 4 year term. Perhaps it was a sense of foreboding, or maybe just shame.

Councillor Stintz was again about to refuse the wishes of her community. Being the last act of the last Council prior to asking to be re-elected, she was visibly shaken. That could be why it was a Council colleague who asked the Speaker to schedule the item for after the lunch recess? Just before proceedings commenced, David Miller approached Karen Stintz's desk to ask, "Are you all right?" That was the mark of the man who Karen Stintz attacked at every opportunity, for seven years. It's also an insight into the culture at City Hall. It is ironic that without the NDP vote the item might not have been approved!

In any event, Michael Walker rose to ask questions of the planner sent to defend the Planning Department's approval of a 20 storey, over 10 times density building. The planner was Mr. Tom Keefe. He is Paul Byrne's boss. Mr. Byrne was Christian Ventresca's boss. Mr. Ventresca was the community planner most familiar with the plans and who did not support the proposed super-sized development. However, Mr. Ventresca was removed from the file before Mr. Byrne wrote his infamous  report favouring it after all. All that might explain why it was Mr. Keefe who was sent into battle?

Michael Walker asked the planner about the angular planes used to approve the plan. Angular plane tests are designed to protect neighbourhoods. They ensure that new buildings adjacent to stable neighbourhoods mesh visually with two storey single family residences. How a 20 storey building on the opposite side of Duplex Avenue could have passed the 45 degree angular plane test (and be approved) was a mystery to Councillor Walker. His questions exposed the charade.

Mr. Keefe explained that the angular plane test, designed to protect neighbourhoods from de-stabilising high-rise encroachment, only applied to buildings that front low-rise neighbourhoods. And, because the Planning Department agreed with the developer that the front of the building faced Orchard View Boulevard, the protections afforded by the Official plan did not apply in this case. What is farcical about this is that anybody looking at the proposed building would agree that the front is actually the longest side, the one with the door openings and which runs along Duplex Avenue. The intent of the planning principle enshrined in the Official Plan is specifically intended to mitigate the size of a building in sites such as Orchard View and Duplex. Proper use of the angular plane test would have reduced the height and density of the proposed building.

We refer to this as "the planner's switcheroo". It's the kind of thing Councillor Vaughan refers to as not exactly corruption but "a corruption of planning principles". By all accounts, Torontonians favour a city that looks more like London, Paris or Madrid. There, 5 and 6 storey intensification has resulted in pedestrian friendly communities. We'll never get there with massive 20 storey buildings designed only with the developer's return in mind.

Watch for yourself and see if you agree that it is time for change at City Hall, an end to abusing the Official Plan and a new councillor for Ward 16.

The planner's 'switcheroo'.