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'.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
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.
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'.
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.”
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?
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?
Friday, October 1, 2010
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!
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!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Citizen anger.
Citizen anger is the dominating force in the 2010 Election. In Ward 16 the anger is evident on personal levels. It got personal after Councillor Stintz reckoned she had every reason to believe she could be Mayor. Rather than continuing with her sleepy existence at City Hall, she now needed to show she could "get things done". It wasn't enough just complaining about Mayor David Miller. The big money backers had to be shown they could trust Stintz. That she meant "business". To do this she needed to short-change her constituents and suck up to developers. She saw her job now as moving files through the Council system.
Her new attitude first emerged with a 7 storey development proposal for the St James Bond Church site at 1066 Avenue Road. Nobody liked the idea. Not even the City planners, at the start. Seven storeys in a two storey 'neighbourhoods' area was against all the principles of stability enshrined in the Toronto Official plan. The developer "needed" 7 storeys to make financial sense of the purchase price he paid for the tiny lot in the "Lower Avenue". The community needed to protect the neighbourhood. The natural alliance should have been Councillor and community against the developer. That didn't happen. Stintz had already committed to the deal. She needed to demonstrate that she could break ties to the people who had elected her in 2003. The City needed to intensify, it needed money. Developers had money, lots of it, enough to finance election campaigns.
The 1066 debacle is burned into the minds of the residents in the "Lower Avenue", but it is not on video. However, the battle at Council in support of the neighbourhood at Orchard View and Duplex was recorded, and available for all to see. At its2big we've taken some segments to expose Karen Stintz's cold and callous heart.
First up is a clip of the opening minutes of the last Council Meeting of 2010, held on August 25th. In it you will see the Councillor for Ward 16 deny the opportunity to have the Orchard View and Duplex item marked 'urgent'. This is a routine procedure that allows councillors to control when an item will actually be heard. For example, if residents from a Ward wish to see and hear the proceedings around a particular issue they can better schedule their time away from home or work.
On that morning, the Chamber was occupied by a gathering of residents. They would have appreciated the item being heard while they were in the audience. Two of them were using wheelchairs to get around City Hall. Others had work to go to or family to attend. It was only 8 days since the last gathering at the North York Community Council and time was precious.
All of that didn't seem to matter to Councillor Stintz.
When Councillor Walker asked for the matter to be marked 'urgent' it was because he knew a number of the residents were in the audience. Michael Walker was councillor for the area for many years. Consideration for these people would have been on the top of his mind. But not on Karen Stintz's mind. She objected to the item being marked urgent. She said the residents were happy (remember the deputations at Community Council?). Councillor Walker failed and the residents had to leave the Chamber, muttering "what a waste of time, who does she think she is?".
Have a look for yourself - who acted more like a councillor should - Michael Walker or Karen Stintz?
Councillor Stintz lends no support to constituents in the Council Chamber.
Underlying the denial for urgency was a rebuke to Councillor Walker for breaking the rules of 'Ward politics'. Fortunately, Michael Walker had more integrity than Karen Stintz. He wasn't going to back down in a fight for NEIGHBOURHOOD PROTECTION.
Her new attitude first emerged with a 7 storey development proposal for the St James Bond Church site at 1066 Avenue Road. Nobody liked the idea. Not even the City planners, at the start. Seven storeys in a two storey 'neighbourhoods' area was against all the principles of stability enshrined in the Toronto Official plan. The developer "needed" 7 storeys to make financial sense of the purchase price he paid for the tiny lot in the "Lower Avenue". The community needed to protect the neighbourhood. The natural alliance should have been Councillor and community against the developer. That didn't happen. Stintz had already committed to the deal. She needed to demonstrate that she could break ties to the people who had elected her in 2003. The City needed to intensify, it needed money. Developers had money, lots of it, enough to finance election campaigns.
The 1066 debacle is burned into the minds of the residents in the "Lower Avenue", but it is not on video. However, the battle at Council in support of the neighbourhood at Orchard View and Duplex was recorded, and available for all to see. At its2big we've taken some segments to expose Karen Stintz's cold and callous heart.
First up is a clip of the opening minutes of the last Council Meeting of 2010, held on August 25th. In it you will see the Councillor for Ward 16 deny the opportunity to have the Orchard View and Duplex item marked 'urgent'. This is a routine procedure that allows councillors to control when an item will actually be heard. For example, if residents from a Ward wish to see and hear the proceedings around a particular issue they can better schedule their time away from home or work.
On that morning, the Chamber was occupied by a gathering of residents. They would have appreciated the item being heard while they were in the audience. Two of them were using wheelchairs to get around City Hall. Others had work to go to or family to attend. It was only 8 days since the last gathering at the North York Community Council and time was precious.
All of that didn't seem to matter to Councillor Stintz.
When Councillor Walker asked for the matter to be marked 'urgent' it was because he knew a number of the residents were in the audience. Michael Walker was councillor for the area for many years. Consideration for these people would have been on the top of his mind. But not on Karen Stintz's mind. She objected to the item being marked urgent. She said the residents were happy (remember the deputations at Community Council?). Councillor Walker failed and the residents had to leave the Chamber, muttering "what a waste of time, who does she think she is?".
Have a look for yourself - who acted more like a councillor should - Michael Walker or Karen Stintz?
Councillor Stintz lends no support to constituents in the Council Chamber.
Underlying the denial for urgency was a rebuke to Councillor Walker for breaking the rules of 'Ward politics'. Fortunately, Michael Walker had more integrity than Karen Stintz. He wasn't going to back down in a fight for NEIGHBOURHOOD PROTECTION.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Ward Politics.
The redevelopment proposals for the small site at Orchard View and Duplex first appeared in 2002. The plans were rejected by the Planning Department and no other plans appeared until 2008. At that time a Working Group was struck. It was comprised of representatives from two local community associations, the Stanley Knowles Cooperative and local residents. The Working Group didn't have much to do since nothing new appeared again until April 2010. That's when things were speeded-up.
A new plan was presented to the Working Group on May 20th but rejected by all the members. The Application was scheduled for the June 22nd North York Community Council. Things were going very fast now. So fast that the item was pulled from the Agenda due to community anger at the speed of "the process". On July 13th the Planning Department met the community to hear its concerns and, miraculously, a new plan emerged on July 18th. This was set down for hearing at the August 17th Community Council.
The plan had all markings of a "done deal".
This link will take you to Ann King's presentation to the North York Community Council meeting of August 17th. Notice the number of empty chairs? This is typical of Community Council meetings. Citizens make their way to these meetings thinking they can make a difference but that's just not true. Decisions among the councillors are made before the meeting. Few, if any, are told about this and it always leads to disappointment and frustration. This contributes to the low turnouts we get at Municipal Elections.
It's called "Ward Politics" which refers to councillors trading votes behind the scenes. For example, a councillor wanting a particular matter approved at Community Council will ask their fellow councillors to back them. That councillor then owes a debt of a promise to vote. It means items pass Council based on votes promised but not on the issues.
It's how Ward Councillors get proposals approved even if there is widespread objection from constituents. It's what happened at Orchard View and Duplex, 1066 Avenue Road and the Open Space at the Yonge Centre.
It's what must change if we are ever to improve local democracy.
A new plan was presented to the Working Group on May 20th but rejected by all the members. The Application was scheduled for the June 22nd North York Community Council. Things were going very fast now. So fast that the item was pulled from the Agenda due to community anger at the speed of "the process". On July 13th the Planning Department met the community to hear its concerns and, miraculously, a new plan emerged on July 18th. This was set down for hearing at the August 17th Community Council.
The plan had all markings of a "done deal".
This link will take you to Ann King's presentation to the North York Community Council meeting of August 17th. Notice the number of empty chairs? This is typical of Community Council meetings. Citizens make their way to these meetings thinking they can make a difference but that's just not true. Decisions among the councillors are made before the meeting. Few, if any, are told about this and it always leads to disappointment and frustration. This contributes to the low turnouts we get at Municipal Elections.
It's called "Ward Politics" which refers to councillors trading votes behind the scenes. For example, a councillor wanting a particular matter approved at Community Council will ask their fellow councillors to back them. That councillor then owes a debt of a promise to vote. It means items pass Council based on votes promised but not on the issues.
It's how Ward Councillors get proposals approved even if there is widespread objection from constituents. It's what happened at Orchard View and Duplex, 1066 Avenue Road and the Open Space at the Yonge Centre.
It's what must change if we are ever to improve local democracy.
Monday, September 27, 2010
The overwhelming Orchard View and Duplex development proposal.
The Orchard View and Duplex saga started in 2002 but didn't make it to Toronto Council until August 27th, 2010. In the final minutes of that last four year Council meeting, in fact. That's a story worth telling too but here's a shorter one. One that's just as enlightening as to what's wrong in Ward 16.
Why Councillor Stintz didn't deal with the Orchard View and Duplex item in the first few minutes of Council on August 25th is a startling story. Over the course of the 3 day Council, the Ward 16 Councillor looked visibly agitated. She was reluctant to deal with the Motion she had committed to present.
This was quite understandable of course. Nobody in the Orchard View and Duplex community supported the proposal but she had yet to do the final deed. What they did support was a set of amendments to the development application that the community had unanimously agreed on.
Here's a link to Terry Mills's presentation to the Community Council on August 17th. It's about 14 minutes long but the other three presentations are less than five minutes each and clearly show how united the community was on the issue.
Terry Mills - presents the Community Solution -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0FJ_IxaIB0&feature=related
Tom Cohen - a Board Member in one of the two local community associations that strongly objected to a building that is more dense than any in the Yonge-Eglinton Growth Centre -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIabYXGZd-4&feature=related
Lydia Levine - another EPRA Board Member also supporting Terry Mills -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gNk611Uwe8&feature=related
These deputations lasted for about 90 minutes after which Councillor Stintz presented her own version of the amendments. Ones she had agreed with the developer days before the Community Council but forgot to mention to the community or the Working Group.
Why Councillor Stintz didn't deal with the Orchard View and Duplex item in the first few minutes of Council on August 25th is a startling story. Over the course of the 3 day Council, the Ward 16 Councillor looked visibly agitated. She was reluctant to deal with the Motion she had committed to present.
This was quite understandable of course. Nobody in the Orchard View and Duplex community supported the proposal but she had yet to do the final deed. What they did support was a set of amendments to the development application that the community had unanimously agreed on.
Here's a link to Terry Mills's presentation to the Community Council on August 17th. It's about 14 minutes long but the other three presentations are less than five minutes each and clearly show how united the community was on the issue.
Terry Mills - presents the Community Solution -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0FJ_IxaIB0&feature=related
Tom Cohen - a Board Member in one of the two local community associations that strongly objected to a building that is more dense than any in the Yonge-Eglinton Growth Centre -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIabYXGZd-4&feature=related
Lydia Levine - another EPRA Board Member also supporting Terry Mills -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gNk611Uwe8&feature=related
These deputations lasted for about 90 minutes after which Councillor Stintz presented her own version of the amendments. Ones she had agreed with the developer days before the Community Council but forgot to mention to the community or the Working Group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)