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.