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.