Is this fair?

"Engaging in a “fair, open and accessible public process” that includes community consultation should not be confused with an ultimate decision – by the community, by the planning staff or by the Council – to support or oppose any given application. The spirit of a “fair, open and accessible public process” that includes pre-application consultation was not met by the City in this case."  

DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER AND ORDER OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD Sept. 14, 2009

http://www.areca.info/Documents/TOT/decision-sep-14-2009.pdf

That was late 2009. In early 2011, nothing seems to have changed. 

At the February 7th Council Meeting, Councillor Stintz, in support of the Developer, agreed to table a Motion at Council that no further notifications or communications were necessary and proceeded to finalise the Orchardview/Duplex development application. In a Motion for which there was no prior communication to the community, and which was not on the Agenda until the day of Council, Karen Stintz rescinded promises previously made to the local community by the North York Community Council. 

Among other things, her Motion removed the need for a Site Plan Agreement. This part of the planning process would have allowed the community to participate in crafting the overall "look" of the development, the streetscape and landscape. In its stead Councillor Stintz went in secret to her closest political allies and one other local resident to conduct a meeting which was then referred to in the Motion and characterised as a "Working Group Meeting". 


We've seen this before, haven't we? 


Furthermore, Karen Stintz now has her own "MINTO". With her underhanded action not only did she show disrespect for the community she is supposed to represent, she increased the DENSITY of the building to the same as the DENSITY of the MINTO building.

its2big has learned that ARECA and the Stanley Knowles Cooperative are pressing ahead with their appeal to the City Ombudsman. There's a "heads-up" going to the City Auditor too. And, now that Councillor Stintz has completely turned her back on the Orchardview/Duplex community, ARECA will be taking this awful affair to the OMB. 

We will be keeping you up to date via this blog.

Did you vote for this?

Karen Stintz stumped with David Miller and the New Development Party in April in support of Transit City. Now she heads up the TTC and will soon be cutting bus routes and increasing fares for students.

The people of Ward 16 did not vote for Mayor Ford and our councillor should not be cutting services to hard working constituents who use the bus service along Avenue Road.

The Toronto "Planning Department".

It appears we have two "Planning Departments" in Toronto. There's the group headed up by Gary Wright and then there's the local councillor.

During the Miller Administration the local councillor needed the approval of the New Development Party and that's about the extent of planning in this City.

The "Planning Department" is seriously underfunded for these very reasons. Why pay for more professionals when Council need on order-takers. "I'd like a 20 storey building here but the Official Plan says I can't have it" says a councillor to the planner, "OK, here's how we will get around that" says Mister Wright.

Where's all the money from development?

You all agree, Toronto grew up pretty fast in the last 30 years. It was during the time that Alberta was becoming an 'oil Province'. Albertans did very well but Toronto doesn't seem to have benefited from all the intensification it has experienced.

With development comes Development Charges. These are the fees property owners must pay the City to finance the additional infrastructure required to service new condo and office space. No matter what we think these charges should be it is obvious whatever the City received doesn't seem to be paying off.

The puny amounts developers pay makes us think this has been a major part of Toronto's budget problems all along. When you see the levels of profit companies like Minto and Riocan generate every time they build into the sky it is obvious the City and existing residents aren't getting what is needed to accomodate them.

The Ward Councillor has all the power.

We learned a lot on the campaign trail. What stood out was how few residents understood where the power lies in our municipal affairs. Many believe the big issue of the day is who will be Mayor. Will Smitherman be the man who will do what Miller promised or will Ford be the guy who finally gets the job done.

Who is Mayor is important but consider this. Regardless of who makes it to that position, and regardless of what happens to the functionality of Council, there will be many issues confronting Ward 16 constituents that will be decided by the councillor.

That's what happened on Orchard View and Duplex. It took from only May the 20th to July 18th for Karen Stintz to make up her mind and support a 20 storey building that will overwhelm the adjacent neighbourhoods. That wan't very long given all the deliberations communities deserve. The community met only once with the planner and that was only 5 days before he made his final decisions. All along, the local residents believed the councillor was opposed to a 17 storey plan and were taken completely by surprise when she supported a 20 storey plan!

Of course things had all been decided on long before that. That's how they get done under Karen Stintz. The same strategy was used on projects like the open space at Yonge and Eglinton and 1066 Avenue Road.

If you are comfortable in your lifestyle, the local councillor has all the power to change the view from where you live in a very short time. If the local councillor doesn't understand the Official Plan or the many policies designed to protect our neighbourhoods, matters can get a whole lot worse.

Look at what happened at 1249 Avenue Road.

Planning is important.

The large building behind this accident is 1066 Avenue Road. 

Imagine what it will be like with snow and ice on it!

The local community isn't happy.

But, that didn't seem to matter to Councillor Stintz.

She wanted to show she could be Mayor.

Development dominates Ward 16 debate

Orchard View and Duplex apartment building raises the ire of some candidates

Tags: VoteTO 2010, Ward 16

By Shawn Star

October 20, 2010

Neighbourhoods: Hoggs Hollow, Allenby Ledbury Park / Cricket Club / Bedford Park / Caribou Park / Lytton Park / North Toronto

SHAWN STAR/TOWN CRIER TAME DEBATE: While some had been expecting an evening full of personal attacks and fireworks between the Ward 16 council candidates the event was rather civil. Hopefuls, from left, Michael Coll, Roy MacDonald, Terry Mills and Karen Stintz answered questions from the audience on issues related to development, arts funding and infrastructure improvement. Personal attacks and mudslinging were kept to a minimum at the most recent Ward 16 debate.      Avenue Road Eglinton Community Association (ARECA) at the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre hosted the congenial debate on Monday night.       The more than 100 people in attendance posed questions to the candidates on topics ranging from arts funding to improving sidewalks and even to the candidates’ favourite restaurant in the ward. The most consistent issue was development, which was incorporated into one-third of the questions.      At the forefront of the development talk was the approval of a 20-storey apartment building at the corner of Orchard View Boulevard and Duplex Avenue and the role of The Working Group, an organization of community members and associations that opposed the development.      The most raucous moment came when incumbent councillor Karen Stintzdefended her role in the approval of the new building by saying the majority of people in The Working Group supported it.       “The Working Group was created about two years ago and we had some new members who were added in the last few months,” she said, before suggesting those late-coming opponents were seated with her at the candidates’ table.      Candidate Michael Coll said he was there from the first meeting and there was no such majority. He then pointed to fellow candidate and member of The Working Group, Terry Mills and his work as an example of Stintz not taking the community’s opinion into consideration.      “Terry (Mills) put forward a thoughtful proposal,” he said. “And I’m sure he can testify that his recommendations were not followed through.”       Mills addressed the issue by citing his track record on the issue of development, and how the community can stop the approval process of a development site it’s not in favour of.       “In 2003 I stopped Greenwin from doing an enclosure of that corner,” he said. “RioCan then came back with an application and Karen (Stintz) endorsed it saying it was great. I stopped it. So you can do it.”      Rounding out the four candidates was elementary school teacher Roy MacDonald, who said when it comes to development, he thinks Stintz has her priorities backward.      “With what Karen was saying, the first thing I heard was ‘developers’, then I heard ‘city planners’, then farther down the line I heard ‘residents’,” he said. “I think that needs to change a little bit.”

h
























































http://mytowncrier.ca/development-dominates-ward-16-debate.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Do Politicians Have A “Best Before” Date?

While it might seem odd to compare people and products, sometimes it's informative to do so.

Many products are stamped with a “best before” date.  Using the product after the “best before” date has its risks.  Knowing this, we abide by the date to ensure our safety and well being.  Ask any parent and they will tell you they don’t give their children things that have gone beyond the “best before” date.

Seems like politicians, by and large, also have a “best before” date.  There are exceptions of course and we don’t mean to lump all politicians into the same category.

In Toronto’s Ward 16 we have a history of checking the "best before" information on our elected representatives. For example, the current Councillor won in 2003 because her predecessor had reached her “best before” date.  And, there's nothing predictable about the actual date of deterioration. Rather it is something that seems to be central to the person.  Shortly after her first 3 year term, current Ward Councillor – Karen Stintz – had already passed her “best before” date.

When she was first elected in 2003 there were many supporters who were happy that she won and would bring a freshness to the Ward.  In her first term she was open, willing to listen, willing to work with, and for, constituents.  This continued for only a short time after her re-election in 2006. In 2007 there was a marked changed of attitude.  Like someone leaving the bag of bread open, the councillor started becoming “crusty”.  Despite massive objections, a huge, misplaced development won approval in the "Upper Avenue". The following year, the hugely-out-of-place development at 1066 Avenue Road (St James Bond UC) also met with her approval.  

Like eggs that had been kept too long, the air was starting to smell as the community sensed something was foul.  Next, Riocan’s desire to close in the public open space on the north west corner of Yonge and Eglinton.  While in 2004 Stintz was against such a proposal, she chose to support it now despite major push-back from the Community and many other areas of Toronto.  With this, many in the Ward felt they had consumed something that was well past the “best before” date and were sickened by her turncoat attitude.  Most recently, Karen Stintz reversed her support for the community and approved of an over-sized, misplaced building to be erected at Orchard View and Duplex.  

This was the one that 'broke the camel's back'. Many more residents now believed she too had consumed something that was past its “best before” date.  She stands staunchly on her decision to change her opinion and now supports a development that is outside the “growth area” and outside the City’s “Official Plan”. This has left many feeling betrayed, disappointed and solidifying the commonly held view that she is well beyond her “best before” date.

If I was to be a politician.

If I was to be a politician …

Have you ever asked yourself that question?  If not, sometime you should and maybe, just maybe, you should think that one through before you go to vote this October 25^th. I have asked that question to friends and colleagues over the last while and what emerged was very interesting.

Most people I asked based their response on their own experiences.  Since politicians at the Federal and Provincial levels are somewhat removed and distant, people seem to relate more (if at all) to their City Councillor.  In Toronto’s Ward 16, we have a large number of residents who tend to live here for a long time. If they move, they do their best to move within the Ward.

So, for the past 7 years we have had just 1 Councillor.  Before that we had 1 that was around for 15 years.  That's a small sample - 2 councillors in 22 years. However, some who are actively engaged in City issues have seen how other councillor act, behave and interact with their constituents.


The sceptics' view is that all politicians are, shall we say, less than trustworthy and follow the interests of big business, developers and other large organizations. This has given rise to the notion that the local folk living in the Ward have a diminished influence on important issues.  Others have the feeling that politicians adopt a certain type of “attitude”.  Some call it “arrogance”, some call it “holier than thou” and others refer to it as “self-serving”. Whatever it is called, it too nurtures a feeling of disconnect on important issues.  

This last sense of impotence is the one that folks seem to resent most.  They feel a councillor is elected to serve the electorate. It is they who put the person in office. In turn residents feel the councillor should support the Ward and in the larger view, the City.

So, asking oneself … “If I was to be a politician …?”

Most people therefore would say they wanted to be a councillor to serve those who voted.  
To serve their constituents.  
To stand up for all residents.  
To inform and promote programs and developments (changes in traffic patterns), that would enhance the quality of life for the people in the Ward, and the City.  
To be honest and up-front with people.  
To be clear about their position on any given issue.  
To uphold City policies and guidelines. 
To arrive at a position based on open, informed and fair dialogue.  
To have the courage and conviction to change their own position if, through open, informed and fair dialogue, other points of view make sense.  
To not be intransigent.  
To be an active listener and to consider the best advice of residents.

Revitalising and refocusing Toronto.

George Smitherman has issued a statement on the revitalising and refocusing of Toronto, should he become Mayor. 


its2big sent the following comments to John Sewell.


1) We need to refocus City Hall so that local issues can be addressed more efficiently and effectively.


That sounds great but the last time this happened things got worse. Right now we have 4 Community Councils that bring motions that have been "debated". In our case, that's just not true. Decisions on agenda items are decided before the meetings start. It's how councillors have crafted a way of dealing with many issues they don't know anything about (a development) or which are remote from their constituency.


2) At the same time we need to ensure that our city is capable of addressing the regional issues and is able to focus on those issues.


This doesn't resonate with us at its2big.


3) We need more transparency in decision-making, budgeting and the spending of money.


Agreed, especially in decision-making. The budget thing gets all fired-up once a year and then gets forgotten for the rest of it. Let's hope spending isn't covered-off by reference to some bullshit rules either. For example, Karen Stintz spent $4,500 on private speech lessons to further her political ambitions and when challenged said, "it was approved", end of story.


4) We need to be more creative in using the tools available to us to facilitate development not only in our downtown but across the City, to ensure that all City neighbourhoods have equal access to good neighbourhood facilities and services, jobs and housing choices.


I'm sure Mr. Bedford is disappointed with the implementation of his New Official Plan. The last 2 councils have made a good job of punching holes it it already. So much so that we might need another "Newer Official Plan" soon. (And, we don't mean the 5 year review that is upon it next year.) Development is the area where the greatest corruption has occurred. As Adam Vaughan said about Karen Stintz's approach to development, “a corruption of planning principles. I’ve never seen anything more unprincipled.”


Let's hope the next Mayor of Toronto can finally get the job done and tell him to not bother with David Miller's broom. We have a better one here called - www.its2big.ca.

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'.

Last minute Stintz.

Things were not going smoothly for Councillor Stintz on August 26th. She was having trouble picking her spot to dump on her community. A few of them were keeping a vigil in the Council Chamber, simply to bear witness to the event. All the planning and timing hurdles had been overcome but it looked like things could be tricky with Councillor Walker still on the look-out.

Often, motions are introduced at Council when opposing councillors are absent. Sometimes when the opposing councillor is visiting the washroom! If Karen Stintz was to get the developer's plan approved she would have to pick her moment.

That didn't come until late in the day. The meeting was to terminate at 9pm. At 9.01pm, Karen Stintz rose to "try a quick one". It was in "her Ward". A resident had been in the Chamber for two days and, apparently, she wanted to put that person out of their misery.

Take a look at the disappointment on Councillor Stintz's face when she learned that Councillor Walker had questions. This wasn't going to be a "quick one" and Karen Stintz was going to be called out on it.  The Speaker knew this too. By this time, Stintz's dilemma was the talk of City Hall.  The Speaker ruled that the item could not be heard and called on Mayor Miller as the Council Meeting came to a close.

Councillor Stintz tries to pull a 'fast one'.

Karen Stintz to try to pull a fast one. Here's a link to an article that mentions another "fast one".

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=171430

"Ask about that little fast one she tried to pull to win approval for a 60-space daycare for a friend – in Bill Saundercook’s High Park ward, no less – and the guard goes up. Some called it meddling. Stintz says she was “standing up for daycare.”

It’s a little more complicated than that. Turns out the plan’s backer is a constituent of Stintz’s who runs two daycares in her ward.

Councillor Adam Vaughan didn’t exactly call it corruption. He called it “a corruption of planning principles. I’ve never seen anything more unprincipled.” Enzo Di Matteo, Now Magazine.

Ward 16 is fed up with this kind of behaviour. We don't want "fast ones" or politicians on a "fast track". 


What will it be next - a run for MPP?

The status quo, has to go, down at City Hall.

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!

Councillor Stintz was scared to face her constituents.

There was ample opportunity for Karen Stintz to introduce the Orchard View and Duplex item for questions and debate on Wednesday August 25th. She did not. Remnants of the crowd that had gathered earlier in the day remained throughout Wednesday in the Council Chamber. But, nothing happened.

The culture on Toronto Council was such that matters of a local interest were to be debated and discussed at Community Council first. If approved at Community Council the item progressed to the full Council, downtown. At that final hearing no audience participation was permitted. Residents of Toronto could attend, see and hear the proceedings but could not comment from the floor of the Chamber.

They could however meet with councillors. Community representatives did that. They met with Councillor Michael Walker who speaks for the Ward adjacent to Ward 16. Michael Walker was attending his last Council Meeting after a 28 year career representing Wards in North Toronto. He knew many of the local residents who showed up that day. In fact, he had represented about 75% of Ward 16 in previous Municipal Administrations.

The community explained to Michael Walker that Councillor Stintz had refused to present the community's petitions against the Orchard View and Duplex proposal. This was in keeping with the kind of arrogance we were now all too familiar with. Nobody in the community approved of this overwhelming building. It was to be higher than any in the Yonge Eglinton Growth Centre, where the Official Plan intended massive intensification to happen.

That the local councillor refused to present the petitions at the time such matters are dealt with at Council infuriated everybody. The resentment was as great as when it first became obvious Karen Stintz was ignoring the consensus amendments given to her before the Community Council on August 17.

She needed to present her version of amendments at Council if her developer friends were to be successful. Obviously, she was reluctant to do that with witnesses in the audience. Perhaps she would attempt it the next day? Little did she suspect, representatives from the community weren't going to let her off the hook that easy. They planned to be there again and they had a surprise in store for the arrogant Ward Councillor for Ward 16.

There were to be two surprises for Councillor Stintz the next day.