Good morning, everybody.
Good morning. If I could ask for your attention so we could start. Great. Thank you. We have
a packed agenda today. So lots of work to do, lots of good reports here to go through.
I want to welcome to — everybody to meeting 7. Welcome to members of the committee and
other members of council in attendance and the members of the public. Thank you for joining
us today. For those in the room with us the screen at the back of the room provides real
time updates concerning where we are in the agenda and what’s coming up next. You can
following the agenda on your computer, tablet or smart phone.
We gratefully acknowledge that the land we are meeting on is the traditional territory
of many nations including the Mississauga of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa,
the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations,
Inuit and Métis peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with
the Mississauga of the Credit . Are there any declarations of interest? Seeing
none, can I have a motion to confirm the minutes of the May 28th, 2019, meeting, Councillor
Perks, all those in favour? That carries perform let’s run through the agenda. Item 7.1, changes
lanes the City of Toronto’s review of laneway suites city wide expansion of city initiate
zoning amendment final report. We have deputant says on that.
Item 7.2cask force zoning bylaw amendment. It’s a timed item, okay. Item 7.4 — no, I
missed 7.3, appeals of city-wide zoning bylaw, 2013 request for direction. And we have deputants
on that. 7.4, revitalization projects we also have speakers on that.
Madam, chair, I may need to go in camera for some of that item.
For some of that item you’d like to go in camera, okay, I’ll take note of that. And
for item 7.5 expanding the housing allowance program we also have speakers. 7.6 activating
federal provincial funding, also have speakers on that. Item 7.7 expanding supportive housing
in Toronto. We also have speakers on that. And 7.8, Charles hastings cooperative inc
postponement of the perspective lenders mortgage. If I could get a motion maybe we can dispose
of this item. Councillor Bradford. All those in favour?
That carries. — we need to hold that for speakers.
7.10 official plan review public consultation comments and revised policies.
Councillor Fletcher moves that. All those in favour? That carries.
And item 7.11 city-wide heritage visibility study we have speakers and 7.12 how does the
city grow we will have a presentation on that. And that is our agenda for today.
Just a short one. Yeah. Lots of good stuff. Okay. Let’s start with item 7.1. That’s changing
lanes the City of Toronto’s review of laneway suites city wide expansion of official plan
amendment and zoning amendment final report and the first speaker is Jeremy schwartz.
Jeremy. Good morning. Yes, you have 5 minutes. You
can keep track on that clock over there. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity
to speak. I’m here to lend my support for the city-wide
expansion of laneway suites without the passage of the amendments last year, my laneway suite
likely never would have been approved. As of this fall, there will now be one more
rental unit available downtown. So thank you for making this process so transparent and
easy. With that being said, I implore this committee to use the momentum it has gained
to unlock other forms of density. As you all know Toronto is beyond desperate for the creation
of new rental stock. And furthermore, we are at serious risk of losing our competitive
advantage. The highly skilled labour force that calls this city home. This is no longer
a housing affordability issue. It affects the city’s ability to compete globally for
the jobs of tomorrow. If businesses cannot attract or retain talent they will create
jobs elsewhere. So I really hope that we don’t find out what that Toronto looks like. So
thank you. Thank you, Jeremy. Any questions? Seeing none,
next speaker Karen — good morning, Karen. Thanks for joining us
today. You have 5 minutes. [off mic].
Okay. So are you sharing the 5 minutes or 5 minutes each?
Okay. I’m a member of the board of directors of
the abc residents association and — is a former member of the board and actively participating
the consultation process last year on laneway housing. For those of you who don’t know abc
we’re the neighbourhood that’s bounded by avenue road to the west, to the south the
cp tracks to the north and Yonge Street to the east and our residents association has
been around since 1957 actively involved in participating in municipal issues on behalf
of our residents. I want to start off by saying that we are not opposed to laneway, that we
do have some policy and practical concerns that were expressed during the consultation
process last year. We — I personally don’t have a invested interest
in whether the housing goes in or not but gain support to honour City Council’s earlier
direction to review on laneway suites. During last year’s consultation process abc expressed
a number of concerns some of which such as height an overlook have been addressed with
the policy but others such as lane size, traffic and neighbourhood character have not been
adequately addressed. Most importantly for our neighbourhood abc feels that neighbourhood
character has not been adequately addressed with the policy. Laneway suite height, size
and setbacks are not the only aspects of character that should be considered when looking at
policy. What may be great in one neighbourhood may not be appropriate fit with the character
of another. Any laneway suites built should be consist with character of the area. I’m
just going to take a moment to show a picture. I hope that it will show up. Toy just put
that on here? The picture on the right shows laneway housing
dwellings. I quite like it myself but it doesn’t necessarily fit into some of the more character
neighbourhoods that we have in the city especially in our neighbourhood where the bay and gables
character is quite dominant. We’re very concerned about the contrast that will arise in the
laneway suites that are in our neighbourhood. The neighbourhood section of the official
plan set a baseline for a is expected throughout Toronto. Secondary mans and site and area
specific policy set out more refined and detailed expectations and criteria that are specific
and unique to an area such as abc. Sasp211 goes beyond at looking at just building
structure and placement on logs and includes unique features and aspects of the neighbourhood
such as the bay and gables architectural style. As part of changing lanes approval in June
of 2018, City Council adon’t the following regarding sasp 211. Please allow me to quote.
City Council direct the chief planner and executive director city planning to consider
any necessary policies and/or bylaw standards to permit and regulate laneway suite as part
of the review of site and area specific policy 211. Abc ra requests the 2018 City Council
direction that laneway suites be looked at in the context of the sasp 211 review be honored.
This is what council agreed to and approved and we do not see a reason why this change
at this time is taking place until we have 211 in place which we expect to be some time
in the fall as far as we’ve been told. Nothing to our knowledge has changed since the date
of City Council’s direction that would warrant a change in that direction. I should also
add that our Councillor Mike Layton has expressed to us that he agrees the neighbourhood — and
we hope that you’ll agree with this position as well today. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you so much. And any questions?
Seeing none, Karen. I’m here at moral support and background in
terms of what is going on. I would comment that we have included a few examples of where
architectural features and things are in other sasps, this is not unique in terms of it being
an important factor of neighbourhood character, and also that some other jurisdictions are
looking more seriously at some of this. So really I’m here if there’s question if
I can be helpful in answering those questions. I don’t think there’s any questions. I just
one for clarification: You’re here just asking that this work on the reviews of laneway housing
be part of the 211, that’s basically — [off mic].
Okay. It’s not that you’re opposing, you’ve started a piece of work that you want to have
this included in there and have a view of everything.
[off mic]. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. And next up Craig race.
Good morning. Good morning.
I’m Craig race from lanescape. We’re fairly involved in the creation of the policy and
we’ve been involved in communicating with many homeowners who have started undertaking
designs and work on laneway houses. I would like to say that the intention I thought that
would come out the policy is one that would allow citizens of Toronto to build their own
laneway houses. This is not something designed for developers, something to create rental
opportunities for families by families. And we’ve found that in almost every single case
for the hundreds of people we’ve spoken to, that has been what has resulted. This is homeowners
building these for loved ones and to rent for themselves.
And if you have any questions I’d be more than happy to provide insight on the people
we’ve been speaking to. Any questions?
Thanks, very much no, thanks, Craig. Is there anybody else that would like to speak
on this item? Seeing none — oh, one more.
Please come forward. Good morning. Good morning. I don’t have specific comment.
— architect and city planner with over 45 experience abroad. There are very good examples
of this sort of development in the U.K., London in particular with housing but some of the
points that I want to raise one is that there’s a consistency of character in the style in
the housing and the height. Over there they allow the ground floor choose to be for carriages
and horses to be included in the accommodations. So you sometimes have ground plus 1, other
times ground plus 2. So my first point is are you going to allow
any style, or is there going to be some kinds of consistency of character? In my case I’m
interested because I have some houses in the annex so the style is Victorian, so do you
get every style, or is there going to be some kind of a relationship to what exists?
The other point is that the road surface, if you want to create a good environment you
need to treat the road surface also. Again, the example of them used that they
have the cobbles, but something of that sort of nature. Really that’s — those are the
sort of points. Thank you. Thanks for joining us today.
Okay. Questions of staff? Councillor Fletcher.
I just have a question because I’ve had a number of applications for laneway housing
in my new ward both sides of the border of the Danforth. And sometimes people are running
into problems with the committee of adjustment or a little encroachment that they’re having
trouble unravelling and I’m wondering if we could comment on how easy the application
process has been and what assistance there is to people who are trying to create these
new laneway houses. Through the speaker and I can have the senior
planner supplement my comment, we’re in a 2-year monitoring period for this first batch
of laneway. We expected that we would encounter a few learning experiences.
Around easementes, other tricks of the trade so to speak as people get used to how they
develop laneway housing. The whole — one of the major intents of this initiative was
to make it easy and make it straightforward. So these will be important things for to us
understand as we go through the monitoring period. I don’t know, Gregg, if you want to
add something. Through the chair, since laneway suites were
permitted as of last year we’ve had ongoing dialogue with the building department, committee
of adjustment staff when issues arise and come to a consistent understanding. That will
continue. Any further questions, Councillor?
No, that’s fine. Okay. Thank you.
I’m assuming as we get wrinkles that we improve on the wrinkles so we don’t have continuous
wrinkles we have continuous improvement. Okay. Thank you.
Councillor Perks. Let’s talk parking. So reading the report
page 20 and 21, you talk about the parking. Suggesting that removing the requirement for
parking is something that — that the transportation department routinely does not have a problem
with. And yet we still require a variance. To respond to that the bylaw for laneway suites
does not require a parking space to be provided on the lot for the laneway suite. It also
does not require that a parking space continue to be provided for the main house on the lot.
That’s the way the current bylaw is written and those provisions are proposed to be expanded
to the area noted in the report. So what does it mean on page 21.
Um-hum. Where there’s a paragraph saying that typically
it’s done by minor variance? That was — so absent the laneway suites bylaw
applying to the expanded area. So the laneway suites takes care of that.
Correct. See, I learned. We’re moving in the right
direction. Thank you.
I have questions. In your report there’s a map on the — Councillor Perks, is there an
issue? Is there an issue? Councillor, can you ask your questions?
Yeah, but there was something going on so I wasn’t clear on what was happening. So in
the report there’s a map and in the map there’s all sort of these little dots.
Did you do any consultation in the affected areas?
Through the chair, city planning staff in consultation with a number of other city divisions
who were involved in processing consideration of laneway suites applications and this report
hosted meetings in each one of the 4 city districts within the month of may. Notice
was given in local newspapers, 2 interested parties and anybody who contacted us in the
interim. We also provided an email update with details
of what was being proposed and what was approved to every residents association email that
the city has on file in the city similar to the approach we took in 2017-2018, when these
were considered initially. So if I 0 in on one ward, ward 15, I see I’d
say 3 masses, small masses, did you drop notices to the people that are actually affected?
That’s what I want to know. Were they aware — outside of an ad in the Toronto star which,
you know, people read different media outlets, they listen to the news, did you drop in these
areas that I see, did you drop notices to those people to know that things are changing
in their neighbourhood, their immediate neighbourhood? No, we didn’t provide notices specifically
to each one of those addresses. And why wouldn’t you have done that given
this is a significant change? We felt that the approach to outreaching consultation
was adequate and engaged you know, a broad number of people in the city even those who
do not live on houses with laneway suites during the consultation process we were approached
by a number of people who may not be able to realize the benefits of building a laneway
suite as they don’t live in a house with laneway but interested in other types of dwelling
units. Those questions were raised fairly frequently.
So we wanted to cast a broad net and in my view that’s what our approach achieved.
So I agree with catching the broad net because it’s a decision for the whole city, but the
neighbourhoods that are affected significantly by the transformation that’s being proposed
should have had individual drops to their homes.
So I guess can you still do that? Is that something you could still do is drop to the
areas where there are changes proposed? Through the chair, that’s typically not our
process on a city-wide policy shift like this. We maintain a very strong social media presence
throughout this initiative. We’ve run ads in the newspaper, we hold district meetings,
we’ve had specific meetings with residents association through the big ground of consultation
that happened with the first initiative. We feel the issue’s been well socialized and
we’ve made ourselves available to anybody and everyone who wanted to talk about this
as a really positive initiative. And we also have really good relationships, of course,
with the residents association and are available at any time to take a deep dive on any of
these matters. And we would certainly be happy to do that before council. I would have trouble
though with a drop in terms of the cost and the added bonus that it would give us in terms
of consultation. I think the matter is well understood from my perspective, but we’d certainly
make ourselves available for any association who wants to have a talk about this before
it gets to council. Be happy to do that.
So you don’t — you don’t think the people who are going to end up with these in their
back yards or neighbourhoods should be notified with a notification that this is happening
— we feel that — being proposed. We feel we’ve provided more than adequate
notice and certainly the statutory notice has been provided, the statutory notice required
under the planning act has been provided. Okay. Well, I don’t agree with you.
Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none. Speakers. Are there any speakers
on the item? Okay.
[off mic] . Councillor Cressy.
Well, thank you, chair. Just a couple words on laneway housing first of all what it is
and what it is not. What it is as it’s being carefully developed fires piloted in tycc
and now coming city wide is purpose built rental, that is what it’s intended to be,
or a accommodations for in laws and others but it in purpose rental within primarily
established neighbourhoods which have been financially inaccessible. And this — this
is — sorry Councillor Perks. It is intended to focus on the so-called missing
middle. This will not change rental affordability overnight but it is smart. It is appropriate.
And it provides an additional housing option for renters who will be able to afford but
currently can’t access this type of housing. What it is not is a affordable housing. And
that’s okay. We need a range of housing options in the city. We desperately need affordable
housing, but this is — this is a by design project increase purpose built rental housing
and built in some mechanisms to improve the amount of affordable housing with this and
that’s all value added and good, but this is about ensuring that we have a range of
market based housing options for those who need it.
I can tell you from when this was the lead up to and the pilot in tycc, city staff worked
exceptionally hard as did Councillors, I know this was brought on by Councillor Bailão
to develop a policy framework that I thought created a box where by — the lack of severance
to make it — to ensure its rental and to me it’s simply in a growing city, not only
is this type of housing appropriate, it’s necessary.
It’s not the solution, it’s not a silver bullet, but it is one increase tool that we need in
a city where people simply can’t afford to live regardless of your income level. Thank
you. Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Robinson. Yes, I have 3 motions I’d like to place. So,
you know, this certainly is an innovative idea and certainly interesting.
I just think that we have to do the right consultation on it with the neighbourhoods
that are actually affected. So that’s why I would like to ensure that, you know, neighbourhoods
are aware this is happening one; two, that all those issues around privacy are managed,
and impacts are mitigated, and 3 I think a lot of neighbourhoods would not be thrilled
if these became airbnbs, they have had a lot of negative impacts on neighbourhoods.
Put it in the bylaw. We have to ensure that’s not the case. And
I know my residents associations are concerned about that, those unintended consequences.
So I’m moving these motions to make sure that we’re doing the proper consultation with the
affected neighbourhoods, and local Councillors have that opportunity. And then also to do
consultation with the federation of the north Toronto residents association which I think
represents I don’t know how many, many, many associations. And then 3 is the committee
of adjustment getting the proper training on this.
And then also back to the committee adjustment that there be a report written from — from
the planning staff on these — on these items. Because, you know, it’s new and it’s different,
and we have to make sure we manage this effectively. Thank you. Councillor — are you expecting
that would slow down any of the approvals because they’re already fairly slow.
Already fairly sorry? Slow. So — no, I don’t think. Why would this
slow it down? This is about consultation and I don’t think this would slow it down.
This is the process. I’m just saying let’s tighten up the process. So ensure that we
have the proper consultation, the proper staff training which we should be doing. We should
be making sure our panels, our appeal panels have proper training any way. So I’m saying
put this in the mix. And I’m saying to ensure that there’s staff reports along with these,
because it’s a new initiative. So when you have a new initiative, you have
to ensure that you’re looking at impacts, that you’re looking at unintended consequences,
and you’re consulting. That’s what we’re — that’s — that’s what city hall is for to ensure
that we’re consulting. I understand, but there’s not normally a staff
report on everything that comes forward to committee of adjustment.
There’s usually only a staff report if there’s a problem with something coming to the committee
of adjustment. That’s my experience in watching the committee that if there’s a variance that
let’s say, you want to front yard parking but you’re not allowed to, then they’ll write,
but other than that our planning staff, as I understand, they’re not writing every time
something’s in front of the committee. So I’m saying — what I’m saying is for — this
is now spreading throughout the city that’s what’s being proposed, so it’s new and it’s
different. And so we have to make sure the right steps
are in place as the process unfolds. There’s no way that any of this could slow it down.
The committee of adjustment hearing is set, the date is set. You can’t change the date.
So that doesn’t slow any of — your thinking that this might slow things down is not accurate.
I’m thinking that having to write a staff report every time might slow that down.
Let me try this. I know where you’re going. Councillor, you’re asking that the — all
the variances are looked at and are part of the monitoring process, so that when we get
the report back there’s actually some analysis on what kind of variances have been asked
and so is that we can monitor that, is that correct?
Yes, I’m talking about committee of adjustment. Yeah, anytime there’s a variance that is taking
in consideration. So when the monitoring report comes back we actually understand what kind
of variances have been asked and so on, right? You’re not asking staff to write to committee
of adjustment every time there’s a laneway housing — well, it depends on — first of
all I don’t think there’s going to be a deluge of them.
So I think it might be a good idea to — to look at everyone that’s coming. Certainly
and I would like to see that happen in my ward.
It’s not a huge — it’s not a huge area in my ward that’s — that this is being proposed
for. You have very few laneways.
Yeah, but I would like those people to be in the loop and aware and consulted with.
So sooner than later. And I’m just concerned that this has happened in a big picture way
and not really in a micro way. [off mic].
If I can you in your verbal said that there would be a report to — a staff report to
the committee. This just appears that there be an analysis. So I’m unclear. I mean, staff
always look — they always look, they only write if there is an issue that they feel
they need to raise with the committee. Um-hum.
Rather than having to write every time. No, but not in North York.
Even when there’s an issue they don’t always write a report.
They don’t do that. That’s what I’m saying is that has to happen.
That has to happen. Okay.
But in your motion you’re including the whole city so you’re actually asking for every — well,
I would have loved to put forward ward 15 but I felt that was a little bit much but
I’m happy to just say ward 15 or North York if that makes people happier. I’m happy to
amend this — I think Councillor — these were the concepts I was going for.
Councillor Perks. Just trying to understand.
So there’s 2 ways this could be read. One is that staff write report when there’s a
laneway suite application and that that report go to the committee of adjustment. Another
way to read it is we have a monitoring report on the overall success of the program that’s
coming in 2 years, and that you would like when that report comes, that this analysis
be included in this. Which of those 2 interpretations is your intention?
Right. So my intention is your former. But you’re — you could be right in saying staff
actually helped me write this, planning staff, so it’s a good — it’s a good point. I was
looking for a report when it goes to the coa. Yes.
The report accompanying that. Okay. If that’s your intention I understand.
Yeah. I guess it maybe was — maybe it should be tweak add little bit here.
Do you have questions of the mover? No, okay. Maybe the Councillor would like to tweak that
a little bit. Just stand it down.
Maybe if I took out the word monitoring of these laneway suites report, does that work?
[off mic] . Councillor Bradford.
So just to speak, no questions. This is my speaking.
I could support that as that’s written. I think it’s a good motion as it’s written.
My thinking on this is actually we’re probably going to learn a lot from this as these applications
are coming in. We’re going to see the type of minor variances
that are coming forward and identify trends and consistencies in those applications which
could lead to direction of us actually updating the bylaw with respect to that that. So I
think that’s why the monitoring report 2 years from now which we’ll have a discussion around
okay, here’s the consistent minor variances we want to take it up here or extend the garage
or whatever that’s what that report is there for. That’s a great place for that discussion.
So as it’s written and everything you’ve apprehend there in 1, 2, 3, I would be supporting what
you had up there on the screen a few moments ago. But really that wasn’t my purpose of
speaking here. What I wanted to say was a big congratulations to Councillor Bailão,
former Councillor McMahon, chief planner — the whole team on getting us to the final report
here. This a pioneering effort in Toronto, long overdo but very happen to see it. Supporter,
would love to see more of these across Toronto and certainly ward 129. And it’s the beginning
of more. As we move forward with looking at house options that’s really important.
It’s incremental, additional housing supply, incremental additional rental options and
that’s all critical. I for one will be coming forward with other discussions about how we
can actually make other changes to our zoning bylaw with respect to our rainy neighbourhoods
and open up opportunities for even more. I think that’s the next — next step for us
to look at. And really the process that you guys went through here over the past number
of years with this, I think is a great process for having those discussions and making those
kind of changes and introducing that conversation with our neighbourhoods and with our communities.
And I will be calling for more from our chief planner and staff looking at our zoning bylaw
and looking at opportunities to — to really bring some of that density to our neighbourhoods.
So this is a pioneering efforts, thanks, everyone for the work on it.
And happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you.
Any other speakers? [off mic].
Madam, chair, the staff just came over and suggested on the first motion I add as part
of the monitoring report, so I’ll add that to it if I can.
Okay. I think that clarifies things. [off mic] .
Thank you. I think that clarifies things. Any other speakers?
Councillor Perks, Councillor Robinson spoke. Councillor Fletcher, do you like to speak
or Councillor Perks. No, okay. So I’ll just say a few words.
Obviously I want to thank staff for another great report. We worked with residents associations
from day 1 with the residents groups, from many community organizations. I usual of usually
say that this policy started from the outside in, and it was a lot of the — the community
groups and non-profit organizations in the city that actually led the initial consultation
efforts and planning was right there beside them, but it was actually a really interesting
way to bring totals into the city. I also like to think of this more as not so much
the bricks and mortars, but about the people that end up living in it.
Because I’ve participated in so many consultations I actually had the opportunity to 1350ek with
a lot of people that are thinking about building laneway housing. And this is really about
the way that people are living in our city. More and more people are talking about multi
generational homes, the amount of people that actually come to me and say you know what,
I’m thinking about building a laneway housing because I want to have my ageing parents close
by. I want to be able to have my young 30-year old that can’t afford anything in our neighbourhood
any more to be able to live close by. I want to be able to buy this property and I need
the whole house because I have a growing family but I need some rental income. So a new rental
unit is built and that person is now able to buy a home. And those are the faces and
the stories that I think we need to put in this policy. It’s how we’re affecting people’s
lives. And this is how people are living in Toronto. And I had a really interesting conversation
the other day I was in Councillor Perks area and we were talking about rooming houses with
the park land trust, and they were telling me that back in the’30s it was extremely popular
to have rooming houses because that’s what people could afford and it didn’t have the
connotation that ended up having after many years after. When we look back at laneway
housing you see so many of them existing already in our city from back in the day that we had
coach houses we nanny suites, people that had some working spaces in the back. So the
built form had actually existed in many, many instances.
And we’re just in many times just going back and addressing and responding to the way that
our citizens are living in our city and responding to some of the challenges that they are facing.
And I think that’s the interesting thing about this policy, and that we have to do more of
that in here is that let’s not the bricks and mortars guide us so much. And let’s actually
have the peoples’s stories what guide some of the policy and some of the ways that we’re
planning our city. And how do we respond to creating a healthy city not only about bricks
and mortars but also about how people are living, interacting and using our spaces.
So with that, I’m also moving a motion on behalf of Councillor Layton which is to continue
the work that we had done with the abc residents association because they are doing the work
on the site area and specific policy 211 that includes this. So this was done when we first
moved the report last year and just continuing to do that. So with that said, if I could
get a vote on the motions. Councillor Robinson’s motions. All those in favour?
That carries. And Councillor — my motion. All those in favour.
That carries. And item as anticipated. All those in favour? Can I have a recorded vote?
All those in favour of the item as amended, Councillor Bradford, Councillor Perks, Councillor
Fletcher, Councillor Bailão, Councillor Robinson. That motion carries.
Thank you so much. That is item number 1. And let’s move on the
agenda to 7.2cask force zoning bylaw amendments for breweries and related uses. Any speakers
on the item? Seeing none, questions of staff.
Councillor Robinson. So some of the planners know I represent an
area that has heavy industrial. And so I’m just wondering about use compatibility. And
I know some of them did appear at the public meetings that were held. And I felt that were
well advertised and promoted. So I guess I would ask that you may be just give me a little
bit of feedback on the use compatibility when you had those neighbourhoods that are really
not neighbourhoods but are business employment areas that are heavy industrial.
Through the chair, during the consultation meetings representatives from particular area
industrial area came out and discussed the compatibility issues received between brewery
uses and heavy industry. And we heard that in the consultation.
We spoke about at length in the report. And in my view, the uses exist in a number of
industrial areas throughout the city. And we’re not specifically adding additional uses,
additional types of uses, restaurants, breweries and in some cases patios are permitted.
In this particular area, and in some areas in the light industrial or light employment
and employment zones we’re introducing the use of patios with similar criteria and provisions
to patios permitted in other industrial areas in the city. And that was the source of some
concern. We had a good conversation and as I said, we understand the issues raised by
representatives from that particular area. And we discussed them in the report.
And so thank you for doing that. And so I guess I’m trying to picture a chemical plant
beside a patio. Um-hum.
So the restaurants fine, the brewery, you know, all that seems to work, but a patio
in really — in as a use compatibility with a chemical plant or a lot of truck circulation
like lots of big trucks trying to circulate through the business park, how does that scare?
So in the city’s view, the patios are not considered a sensitive use in terms of the
planning act or requirements of the Ministry of Environment which is why we felt comfortable
recommending they be included in the 3 of the 4 employment industrial zone categories.
We note that we aren’t recommending that patios be used in heavy industry where is where you’d
find the type of use described in your question. Okay. So as this, you know, as this process
unfolds, and things end up before appeal bodies, I’m worried about what might happen. You know,
I’ve spoken to your colleagues many times about — and we’ve experienced that feels
like monthly. So are we protecting employment land slash, you know, industrial lands or
are we not? Because I’m just worried about all this activity
happening around the edges that are slowly creeping in and various types of outlets there
that really don’t match you know what’s happening in a business park.
Through the speaker, I would certainly concur with the overarching sentiment of the comment,
Councillor. The policy framework that we have very much maintains our employment areas as
places of work. In that context, the nature of work is changing a bit. So we’ve tried
to walk that line between the effect that you’re describing, the incremental changes
that might be negative and the incremental changes that might be positive that are happening
in employment areas. We’ve found with micro breweries for example, and again, this is
not affecting areas of heavy industry, but we found with micro breweries and I’ve been
to several even though I don’t drink beer — [off mic].
I’m just declaring that I have no bias here, but we’ve found with several that it’s that
shift in the way that manufacturers are operating, small micro breweries they want a small eating
or place where you can try the beer or maybe it’s a small patio. Many of the ones that
I’ve seen are very small and very well positioned and very well placed. I don’t think the micro
breweries themselves want to put themselves in a position where they’re going to conflict
with their neighbours. So it just adds to the flavor of some of our employment areas
without crossing the line and causing trouble with some of our major employers, but we’re
very much aware that have line that you are — that you’re speaking about in your comment.
And mindful of that as we look toward the future and the changing nature of work in
the city. So just there is a development right now that’s
being proposed for the laneway business park that is not a brewery, but it is — your team
would know about this with a patio on the edge. So I guess — my question to you is:
Does the city staff support industrial parks to — at this time, and will you continue
to in the future or should they — no, absolutely. We as per the official plan, we very much
support the — the employment areas and the uses that are permitted in the official plan.
The only point and it’s a small point that we’re making with this is certainly micro
breweries are permitted in these areas. Yes.
And incidentally occasionally one or two may want a patio use and that’s really the only
small touch point here that we’re discussing. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions of staff? No. Seeing none.
Okay. Speakers. I’ll speak.
Councillor Robinson. Yes, thank you. So I want to thank staff for
the comprehensive and well thought out report and definitely Toronto craft breweries are
an asset, a great attraction for locals as well as tourists. So I just think we have
to continue to think about use compatibility. And these industrial manufacturers whether
you like them or not, there is business parks in our city, and we have to make a decision
whether we’re supporting them or not. Because they’re feeling very — feeling very much
like they’re being pushed out by some of the approvals of applications around them. And
the creep that’s happening. So I just — this is — I just want to take this opportunity
to highlight the patios are not ideal because what happens is people are sitting on the
patio and smelling smells and seeing big truck trucks and they’re very concerned about the
neighbourhood as it stands. And so the complaints start. So I think we have to really as we
move forward think about all these issues. And how — how we facilitate them and navigate
these things. But I do think this is you know, a great initiative
in the right place. Thank you. Clarifications of the mover?
[off mic]. I didn’t move anything, did I?
[off mic] . No problem. No motion. Any other speakers.
Any other speakers? Councillor Bradford. Just very quickly I’d like to say that I think
this is a great amendment to our zoning bylaw. The east end has a ton of breweries as many
of you guys know. And I had a chance to visit Brunswick beer works last week. They’re looking
to expand. That’s largely because of the success of the craft brewing scene growing in Ontario.
Many are located here in the city. As the economy changes and look to maintain employment,
look to maintain manufacturing having a zoning bylaw that reflects that changing dynamic
is really important. One I want to thank staff for their work on this, and I am biased because
I do drink beer, I actually enjoy it quite a bit. So this a big win for the city and
a big win for the east end. Thanks very much. Any other speakers?
Seeing none. Okay. I’d like to just make a few remarks. I do want to thank staff. I also
want to thank our colleague Councillor Layton. I know he was working very closely with staff
on this piece of work that is in front of us.
I think if I’m not the Councillor with the most breweries I’m pretty up there.
And — [off mic]. Okay. Now, we’re going to have a challenge
on this, but no, the reality is for anybody that has a significant amount of breweries
we know that has been a challenge because if they’re on a main street it’s a challenge,
if they’re on employment land it’s a challenge. And these have been — have turned out to
be great business in our community, who are especially employing people, a lot become
great community members doing lots of activities in the neighbourhood.
They become small community hubs. And I think that it’s about time that we facilitate for
these entrepreneurs to do business in the city. And do it in a way that is well integrated
and that they’re allowed to become parts of our communities.
And this is our city changing, it’s our city evolving and I think it’s a good piece of
work. So thank you for the work here.
And with that all those in favour of the report? And that carries.
Okay. 7.3, appeals to city-wide zoning bylaw 569-2013 request for direction. We have speakers.
Jeff — good morning, Jeff. Good morning, chair Bailão and committee
members. I’m here representing today put on a hat con federation of residents rate payers
association of Toronto. This is the organization that’s been a party
at the — the OMB and now the LPAT hearing with respect to the appeals to the zone something
bylaw 569-2013. And we really representing the interest of
residents right across the city in that important zoning bylaw. The issue today is very straightforward
in that staff is recommending that everything be kept confidential. We would absolutely
oppose that idea in the interest of transparency. And — excuse me — and proposed 3 proposed
amendments to the recommendations. Requesting that the proposed amendments be made public
and open to review by all communities covered by the bylaw. The proposed amendment be added
to the regular public consultation process before they go before a final vote by City
Council. And the planning and housing committee reserve its decision until the requests 1
and 2 have occurred. It’s obviously crucial that the contents of such amendments be publically
accessible so that members of the public can properly access those — and understand those
proposals and weigh in on the issues. So seems to us extraordinary that we want to keep these
confidential. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions of the speaker? Seeing
none, questions of staff. I just want to warn the members of the committee that the pending
— depending on what kind of questions you want to ask we might need to go in camera.
We might need to stand down this item since Councillor Fletcher also said she had another
item to go in camera. So are there any questions of staff?
Seeing none. Can I just given the comment from speaker can staff just let us know why
this a confidential report? Because we’re in the middle of an appeal process.
And we’re seeking instructions and providing legal advice to our client and receive instructions
back on how to continue within that appeal process. So it’s very standard giving legal
advice, seeking legal direction. Okay. Just hoping that it clarifies and informs
the public a bit more. Can I have a motion to move the item? Councillor Perks. All those
in favour? That carries. And 7.4 new approvals, framework
for Toronto Community Housing Corporation revitalization projects.
Michael. Michael. Is Michael — oh, yeah. You Michael? No. Okay.
Andrew — Andrew. No. Okay. Howard cohen.
Howard cohen. No. Okay.
So is there anybody else that would like to speak on this item? Would Howard like to speak?
[off mic]. Okay. So is there anybody else that would
like to speak on the item? Anybody else that would like to speak on the
item? Seeing none, okay. Questions of staff. Yeah. This is on item 7.4 new approvals framework
for Toronto Community Housing Corporation revitalization projects.
Councillor Perks. Okay. So first of all, bear with me. I received
this yesterday at 3:45, and it’s a complete change and a very complex change. So I’m not
sure I understand all of it. If we approve this, comparing the circumstance we’re in
today and the circumstance we will be in if this is approved, how many additional times
does a TCHC revitalization project come to City Council for approval?
Councillor, through the chair, one time. One time. So it does — it brings it to council
one additional time. Okay. How many members of the public service who are not currently
consulted by TCHC as part of a revitalization process will now be consulted by TCHC as part
of a revitalization project? Through the chair, so the additions as a part
of this report would be that the consultation would occur with housing secretary — createTO
as well as city’s real estate division. And a couple of different deputy city managers
as I see it, right? Like the CFO — that’s correct.
And the deputy city manager, I don’t even know, we changed all the titles, cluster c.
Okay. How — so what kinds of city-wide — I forget
the language that’s used in here. You have to forgive me. I didn’t have time
to give this as much of a think as I wanted to.
There’s language in here about, you know, why we have to have conversations with all
these different members of the Toronto Public Service for, you know, city building purposes
or something like that. What are those city building purposes that are different from
things that the planning department would normally review?
Through the chair, Councillor, city planning would review the planning application.
There are other divisions within the city that have an interest with respect to revitalization
given that this is public land and potentially the co-location of other public services and
public facilities on those lands. It’s an important part of city building. And similarly
the financial implications of the project may in some instances involve a contribution
in the form of either capital or operating just by way of example, Councillor, if you
look at the revitalization of Regent Park and the public services that have been added
to Regent Park, that happened not through the planning process, but it happened through
the involvement of other divisions such as the parks department, community services,
and others. And that happened without a shareholder direction
that they had to consult this array of public servants that are listed in this report in
Regent Park, correct? Through the chair, there was a social development
plan that had been created and part of it had happened through that process. And also
some of it frankly, was informal and ad hoc, what we’re trying to do here is to create
a process where there’s certainty where everyone who has a part to play is contributing and
being a part of this — the success of these initiatives.
Is there someone here from TCHC who can answer questions?
Is it part of the normal process there’s a plan when you guys do a revitalization.
Through the chair, previously it was a formalized process. Now, TCHC — it’s not required through
the planning approvals process but we do it as a best practice.
You do it as a best practice, okay. If I’m reading recommendations 3 through 5
correctly, it effectively requires — it’s not the purpose of it, but it effectively
requires the TCHC always have a private development partner.
Is that — it’s sort of built in there, is that correct?
And through 6 actually as well. They all make reference to a private development
partner. Through the chair, given the scale of the
initiatives involved here, and we’re talking about projects frankly in the hundreds of
millions and billions of dollars, the context of this would be that it would be partnered
with a private development company. So that’s yes?
That is yes. Thank you. I might have a second round.
Yes, thank you. And this is report is coming back since we had this earlier we’ve asked
for supplemental and now we have that. I just wanted to go back a little bit. This was coupled
really with the auditor general’s report which indicated that there had not been an introduction
of affordable housing in the revitalizations that TCHC has undertaken any substantial affordable
housing has introduced. The report recommended that TCHC and the city
have a much more stronger and robust process for looking at other city building objectives
or priorities whether it be affordable housing, other communities needs or social needs for
a community as part of the process. And that hadn’t been the case previously until
we had our housing now plan. The housing now process, are we mirroring that a little bit
with what the recommendations are here for these developments?
That’s correct. We’ve aligned this process — it’s hard to hear you. Is your mic on?
Sorry. That’s correct. We’ve aligned this process to how we’re approaching
and managing the housing now projects. And when I’m looking at the 3 projects that
we asked you to take another look at, the one at Firgrove has not started at all. So
it’s quite possible that that could be a much more robust, more fully developed replacement,
new affordable and market plan, is that right? Through the chair, the master plan we’ve been
working with city divisional table, and what we’ve built into the plan is additional net
new affordable rental housing provided funding is available.
So that’s new. And that’s started. And then Lawrence heights as well, but there’s no MOU,
no formal development proposal that you don’t have a private sector development at this
point through you, correct? Through the chair, that is correct.
And the same with the Lawrence heights for the next phases?
Correct. So really they’re at a different stage for
Don Summerville there is a MOU with the developer, correct?
Yes. And since we start this conversation on October
23rd, 2018, at that time there were 500 market condos and 620 replacements, I’m looking at
this. That’s valid dated, correct, that’s what it is?
120 rental replacement. Yeah, rental replacement, no new affordable.
And since October 23rd, 2018, we’ve now added in and made a number of changes reducing market
condos to 360, and having basically 50% of the site would be rental, have I got that
number right? Correct.
And 75 new affordable? .
So that is — and there is an MOU, so we do have to take that into account, would you
advise us to take that into account? Yes, there is a signed MOU between TCHC and
the developer partner and I don’t know what in there. One of the reasons I wish to go
into camera. I wish to understand that a little bit more. And that’s it. So the — also in
tenants first which is coming to executive on July the 4thth, that’s tomorrow, there’s
a plan that the revitalization operation at Toronto community housing would migrate to
createTO, I’m just going to ask the deputy city manager if that’s the plan. So the overall
housing now approach would be very much applied to all of the sites including Don Summerville
should we proceed it wouldn’t be proceeding in the normal way, it would be proceeding
in a different way. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Bradford.
Thanks very much. Through the chair, to Mr. Gannon, I think, could you explain to me the
role of the strategic program management committee, who’s on that and what the intention, what
it’s there to do? So that committee through the chair, consists
of senior staff. It’s co-chaired by the head of createTO Brian
Johnson. And the chief corporate officer. Okay. And the intention of that, this is something
different — this is a different framework now than what we saw in the report from 2
months ago, can you explain the intention of the strategic program management committee?
Through the chair, yes, it is an updating of the approach, if you will, which also is
in line with the report that will be before the executive tomorrow.
As to new directions in the development process at Toronto community housing. And essentially
bringing them in closer to the city, recognizing the range of implement cases — implications
that these revitalizations have, and also to ensure their future success.
Okay. So from my reading of the report, it looks like for the specific sites identified
the committee will be evaluating whether or not to go ahead with these sites, is that
— is that what it’s doing? Is that what you’re coming back with in the fall?
Essentially, Councillor, the committee will be receiving a report from my office, will
be prepared in caught — caught takes with Toronto community housing. And this may sound
— the intention here is to stream line and get these things done.
So that everybody’s on site. Okay. What — what exactly is the process
for analyzing these sites? What standards are you testing against, what analysis is
going to take place? I didn’t see any of that discussion in the
report here. The due diligence exercise on the sites will
include particularly a check in with planning with respect to proposed built form. This
is exactly what we’re doing in the sites that we’re pre zoning related to the housing now
initiative. It will also include due diligence around the financial implications of redevelopments,
risks associated with the developments and what other city building objectives and co-location
of city facilities could occur within these developments.
So you don’t think that that discussion precinct planning exercises, built form studies, you
don’t think that that will lengthen the process to deliver these sites?
I think, Councillor, through the chair, it’s important that we get this right. We’re building
communities that will be there for a hundred years plus. And as I’ve indicated, I think
everyone is looking to grow in the same direction and expedite and speed these revitalizations
along. But we also want to get them right. I guess, yeah and I’m with you a hundred percent
and I guess my certain and I’m sorry to belabor this but the 3 main recommendations in the
report setting out the new process direct this management committee to make a decision
before anything actually comes to council, but the report doesn’t give us any information
about how those proposals will actually be evaluated. That’s like we can talk about built
form and we could talk about the financial impacts but there’s not a lot of detail. We’re
making a decision — through the chair, on page 6, just to clarify we have guideline
principles, it’s really on focusing on any redevelopment whether it be on TCHC lands
or other city-owned lands that we work with all of our partners across the city and the
agencies to assess what is needed, what’s best and how we can best utilize those lands.
So the guiding principles are fairly similar to what was adopted by council for housing
now. Does anything in the framework here require
TCHC to come to the city with new development sites, recommendation 2 requires TCH to identify
opportunities for new affordable housing, was this a scenario before where TCH board
wouldn’t bring toward sightings and just simply choose to renovate instead?
So through the chair, the my recollection of that process is that the revitalization
sites would come through for council approval but other reset projects, et cetera, would
not necessarily come through for council approval. So this is looking at TCHC will continue to
look at their lands and identify opportunities whether they need to replace the rgr units
or redevelop a site, all that we’re asking is as they identify those opportunities, to
have a preliminary discussion with the — with the city divisions here through coordinated
through the housing secretary water so when we come forward to counsel we’ve already done
our due diligence. We’re not coming forward with one — for opportunities that TCHC has
identified with isolation, we’re coming forward with taking a whole city approach to it.
Okay. And does this framework — okay. Does this framework take the same approach for
sites that are larger scale, multi phase, decades long and for sides which will be smaller,
quicker in fill sites, more sensitive in fill is it the same approach?
It’s same approach. There isn’t going to be as much time required on the smaller sites
hopefully. They should go — that process should be a little more streamlined. We’ll
work with planning to understand the densities and the opportunities on the smaller sites.
The idea isn’t to slow it down. It’s scombruft that when these opportunities come forward
to council that council has the full information before it so it can make its best decisions.
Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Any further questions? I do have
some questions. I just want to clarify a few things and maybe use some examples of what
we’re going through. So for example, the site at Firgrove it includes everything from a
possible child care, a pool, a community space, that we for example, don’t know if those divisions
are going to be funding or not funding. Is the intent to — when we have that first approach,
when we go to the market, to have all these divisions buying into the project and assessing
what the best use of that land would be? Through you, the choir, yes, it is indeed
the intention to do that, so that we’re not missing opportunities for city building.
For city building. So that we create the highest amount of possible affordable housing and
any other communities uses that are important in the community.
Through the chair, absolutely. This is about the public benefits generally speaking. And
to date what we have found in most of the revitalization projects is yes, we have replaced
the — to income housing in stand-alone buildings and we have then also created new condos but
we have not created a range of income opportunities and housing opportunities for future residents
including those that can’t afford to buy condominiums. So what you’re basically saying to your corporation
is that, you know, we appreciate the work that you do, but we’re going to get closer
to you to actually build stronger communities and leverage the asset to your residents and
the community in general. That’s correct.
That’s correct. And this table that — I can see how some people look at all these people
that have to be consulted and it’s like a lot of them, but all these people are actually
part of your strategic table. There’s going to be a review table that it’s
going to be then able to comment from all the different areas, correct?
That’s correct. Okay. I think those are my only questions.
Councillor Fletcher, would you still like to go in camera? Okay. So I’m going to have
to ask for a motion to go in camera. So I move that this meeting of the planning
and housing committee recess its public session to meet in closed session to consider disposition
of land by the City of Toronto to receive advice that is subject to solicitor client
privilege or to consider a position planned procedure criteria or instruction to be applied
to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the City of Toronto.
All those in favour? That carries. And I’m going to have to ask
you to step out for a few moments. We shouldn’t take too long. We should be able to resume
shortly. And we’ll let you know. .
I’m calling the meeting to order once again. And are there any questions of staff? Seeing
none speakers. Councillor Fletcher. Yes, I do have a motion that I believe has
been circulated or if not it’s going up on the board.
Which would basically have us work on the Don Summerville project between now and council
which gives us a couple of weeks, and look at doing a number of things. You can see them
all there. I think that it would be great to achieve more affordable rental on the site
as I did say this site has gone from a 100% market condo to outside of the replacements
to total of 50% rental, but getting more affordable rental units would be fan test particular.
I’d like to see the engagement run a little bit differently and look at a resident sector
target as we’ve done in a number of different places. We’re talking about sector housing.
Is it possible to do that? Look at having our — right across the street be more involved
and I guess I’d be directing that to the dcm as ways to do that.
They are staying in the neighbourhood. And they will be there for a long time. So having
those relationships built now is very important. And then look at the guiding principles that
are in this report and just see how we’re able to match up.
I have gone through myself and see that out of 8 of them, I think that we can achieve
about 7 out of the 8 but I want to make sure that we’re all in agreement to that. And I
think there — is there one more h, is there an h there? No, is that it? Just g, there’s
no h. Just g, okay. So those are the motions. And I want to thank everybody for working
very hard on this. And I do want to really thank Mr. Cohen, where is he today, for your
patience in this long exercise of the city and TCHC figuring out how we’re going to approach
revitalization sites. And you have been on a site and in the election it was very clear
that affordable housing is something that is on everybody’s mind every day, every family.
And achieving affordable housing on the TCHC revitalization sites is — been my goal since
I took this area over. As TCH knows, city knows and developer knows, and as well it
is a subject of the auditor general saying you can’t just use this land for replacement
and market condos. So I do want to thank everybody particularly Mr. Cohen and the TCH staff and
Mr. — for coming up with a different model here that I think will meet what I’m going
to say the city’s needs at this point. And also it comes at a time when we’re shifting
how development would be done in the city regarding affordable housing and for TCHC.
So this gives us a chance right off the get-go to look at how to manage this redevelopment
probably in a little bit of a different way with much more involvement by the housing
secretariat and createTO, and I did mention executive we’ll have tomorrow a plan to shift
the development — development portfolio to createTO. So this is actually a good way to
initiate that and do that. I’m very happy to be able to do this. And kind of open the
relief valve after I forget how many months since October, the end of October until now,
and see if we can achieve some of these things. I’m sure everybody’s relieved as well. I think
they are achievable. I know we can work together in the next 2 weeks to make some of these
changes so that this will be a development that didn’t get left behind in the housing
now approach, it didn’t get left behind in how important affordable housing is to the
city, to the residents, and that we’re up to the minute in what we’re doing. As far
as the Lawrence heights and remaining 80 acres and achieve affordable housing on those I
think that’s a goal of the city and Firgrove it’s basically the same because there are
no binding agreements. There is is a binding MOU on this site which
really I’d say that within that these negotiations have been very successful and I hope will
continue onto achieve what this motion sets out. So thanks, everybody. Let’s get to council
and have a few more things that we can achieve, and then have a great development on Queen
Street. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Bradford. Oh, okay.
The number item a, 1a, the number 50, is that your number or did you pull that number from
somewhere? [off mic].
Did you just — where did the number come from?
The number came from me. And at 120 replacement we’d have close to 120 affordable. So how
ever gets moved around on the site, that would be my goal on this site having worked very
hard on that. There’s 75 already. Look at adding up to 50.
Unless you don’t want any more affordable housing on the site, Councillor. You’re okay
with that adding 50? [off mic] .
Thank you, I think we’re done with the questions. Councillor Bradford question of the mover,
please. Would you just consider it a friendly amendment on bullet e there with consultation
with Councillor [off mic] as we share a border. Yep.
Great. That’s a friendly amendment, great. Thank
you. [off mic] .
Okay. And any other speakers? Councillor Perks. So I have a motion as well.
But the clerk went away. Oh, there we go. Okay. So my motion is the deputy city manager
community and social services report directly to council to act as the developer.
This report is enormously complex in terms of moving roles and responsibilities around
to get better outcomes, and that’s all great. But in here it’s cements the notion that on
every single revitalization project of Toronto community housing there will be a private
sector development partner. In other words, what it does is cement the notion that the
way we pay for maintaining the social housing that we have is to sell publically owned land,
land that is owned by our housing company to a for profit developer.
Effectively what this does is shrink the city’s capacity to provide affordable housing in
the long run by selling off our housing lands to make sure that for profit developers, land
financers and mortgage brokers all get richer off a public asset. Everyone in the city keeps
insisting that the number 1 priority is to build affordable housing. But our actual actions
seem to be that our number one priority is to take a public asset and hand it over to
people who want to enrich themselves. It’s exactly the opposite of what we claim to be
doing. If we truly believed that we should be taking public lands and building affordable
housing, we would not be inviting in private sector development partners, we would be building
the capacity either within TCHC, or within the not-for-profit and co-op sector to act
as the developers on these lands. Sure, they’d have to hire a builder, but we would maintain
these lands as lands where we build social housing.
If we really meant what we say in public about our committee to solving the affordable housing
crisis we would be taking a different approach. It’s time to look under the hood for how we
actually deal with public lands and ask ourselves the simple question who should benefit from
things that we as a society own through or governments, should it be private land speculators
and developers and mortgage landers or should it be the people who are struggling to find
housing. To my mind the solution is simple and obvious.
I want city staff to show us the path how the social side co-ops and public housing
— can act as the developer so that the profits instead of going into private hands and then
disappearing from the housing sector altogether with kept in the housing sector to maintain
the quality of the building and to build the next traunch of affordable housing.
It’s simple and obvious as that. Questions for you, Councillor Fletcher.
The currently in the housing now plan there is a piece of it that says built the capacity
of non-profits and co-ops to be able to develop. Would it be appropriate — would you expect
that you would hear something about where that’s at if this comes to council?
So if the staff want to put that into the report, sure. We directed them to do this
on previous occasions, to do some work to build the capacity. I’m aware that a wide
variety of social housing providers have been working to retain additional capacity, have
been meeting with City of Toronto staff to talk about capacity building. I also believe
that it’s necessary that we send a clear signal to TCHC or createTO or the director of housing
or somewhere in the city that we also build the capacity to act as the developer on the
public side. Obviously we’d need to do some capacity building and I think that’s implied.
Okay, I won’t amendment that as long as you’re expecting that.
I am expecting that, yes, yeah. Those who currently actually do building on
their own such as wood grain. Yes.
Very accomplished builder, there may be others, and others in the sector who haven’t built
for a long time. Yeah.
And that would be — [multiple speakers]. I know this is something you’re passionate
about. I know just recently there was a conference that you attended where those — those actors
that you’re describing brought in expertise from British Columbia where they are building
the capacity not-for-profit and public housing expecter to do this work. It’s something that
unless we as a committee and council send a strong message on will never happen.
Then I’m not amending it but I’m going to ask that you would expect that some of those
examples like the bc example would be included here to show that that’s very possible once
you can develop the capacity. I’m pretty sure that the deputy city manager
and community and social services is aware of our views and will include it in the report.
Include the examples of that would be extraordinarily helpful.
Fantastic, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Bradford.
Thanks very much. So I see this report kind of in 2 pieces, the first part is setting
out a framework for making sure we’re trying to leverage the most at a very limited city’s
sets, these are once in a generation opportunity. If we can get a good process in place we will
look back on this and will be grateful and have actually made some progress on our goals
and targets here in the City of Toronto. The second piece is more concerning for me as
you’ve heard in my questions and comments today, and I’m concerned that we’ve actually,
you know, in the need to develop a modernized process, we’ve muddied that with the urgent
need to deliver affordable housing on these 3 sites. When I read the report and admittedly
we kind of read it last night, and it is a complicated report, but I’m not seeing how
we’re delivering new affordable housing on these 3 sites as quickly as possible. What
I’m seeing with the recommendations is they were proposed was leaving these real projects
that could have shovels in the ground leaving them into further reports, further discussions
and delays on these sites. We do need to be building affordable housing and how we’re
going to build it we can discuss but we do need to be building affordable housing as
quickly as possible. We’re supposed to be working towards our city’s priority of 40,000
units. And it seems like with some of the discussion and the process here we’re actually
setting up barriers to 3 sites that are ready to go. My comments and questions were, of
course, around Don Summerville, that’s immediately adjacent to my ward there, and when you look
— when look at the report on page 13, you know, you see the new proposed plan, you see
195 market rental units, 75 reportable rental units, 270 new rental units you got the 120rgi,
this is stuff that we have to make sure that we’re moving forward and staff directions
to report back again after 2 months of reporting with another report update that actually doesn’t
give us the direction I’m not happy about that. There’s been tenant consultation meetings,
q and a online for tenants. The process actually started in 2012, that’s on TCHC’s website.
And again, the report is saying let’s have another report in the fall. So you’ve got
to ask ourselves like how did we get here? I don’t know what the answer is to that, but
I think it’s critical at that we move faster on the sites where we can really deliver affordable
housing. I really do appreciate Councillor Fletcher’s motion to bring this to council
in 2 weeks time. I will certainly be looking forward to having a decision on this. And
I think it’s an important conversation. It really sets the tone here in the city.
We have 11 housing now sites, we have more sites coming in the pipeline, and the message
we need to send is that there is a clear and predictable pathway forward to actually unlock
these sites. And whatever that looks like, that’s something that we can discuss, but
it has to be clear, it has to be consistent and we have to get going with this. There’s
also, you know, a number of additional city-owned parcels in this area and I think if we’re
moving forward with this new process we should be identifying all of the opportunities in
the wards, lining them up and leveraging those assets together. I’ve spoken with staff at
createTO about these properties and these opportunities. There’s some agreement there.
So I would like to see that move forward with some precinct planning or discussions around
these opportunities and the collective. We’ve had a very productive 6 months here on this
committee. We’ve passed and moved a number of really important initiatives, but we have
to do more. I do find aspects of this report were frustrating but I am glad we’re moving
forward with the clarity on how we’re going to accomplish city building objectives, we
talk about a lot, but again, we do need to get on with the affordable housing piece.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers from the committee?
[multiple speakers]. That is I’ll be supporting staff recommendations
and Councillor Fletcher’s. I’m not supporting Councillor Perks because there simply isn’t
any capacity for such an effort. It’s already very strained. We all know that.
And it’s not the role. So I will not be supporting that motion before us.
Thank you. To speak, let me time myself. I’d like to start by thanking staff for bringing
us this report. I think many of us had some concerns from the last time the report was
here. And I think we need to step back and understand
the actual shift that has happened in the city in the way that we’ve been dealing with
our land. Just a few years ago not that long ago, maybe I would say, 3, 4 years ago we
were selling land for cash. That’s what the city was doing.
We were selling land for cash. We have now created createTO when housing
now program and we’ve had a very conscious decision that we were going to use our land
and we’re going to leverage or land to create affordable housing and to create city building
opportunities. We’ve also now worked with TCHC who let’s
be honest has done an incredible amount of work given the resources that they had to
leverage their land to actually deal with an issue that was for many years ignored by
all 3 levels of government which was the backlog. For years this corporation was left to themselves
without, you know — and to deal with revitalizations and everything to deal with the backlog. What
we’re doing now is partnering with our own corporation to say no, it’s not only good
enough to replace the rgi units because we’re coming to the table, we’re bringing cash,
we’re bringing other levels of government to help with that issue as well, and since
we’re doing that, let’s take the opportunity to use that land and do something else. And
it’s not only on TCHC to do that, it’s on the city, it’s on all the departments, it’s
about building communities. So, yes, from a few years ago we’ve started new processes
and there has been a couple site that is got in the mix in here. And I think you know,
it’s created a level of frustration to a few of us, but now I think we have a path forward.
That’s what I’m hoping to have. And once we look back, we actually say, you know what,
this is in response to what a new approach the city has, which is actually not only replacing
the rgi, but creating mixed communities with some affordable housing. And that’s what we’re
doing here with Don Summerville. And I’m actually looking forward to having the 2 other sites
coming back in September. There’s great potential on these sites to have more affordable housing,
to have other city services in there. And therefore, I think that having this holistic
view and approach from different departments right at the beginning, right as the site
is identified, I don’t think is going to slow down things. I think actually it’s going to
speed them up, because instead of through the end coming to City Council and saying
we’re short like we just happened at Regent Park for 2 of the buildings or we need a centre
or fund raise for a library because we would love to have a library at Regent Park but
it’s not funded, I think we need to turn that process around and start it with a bigger
commitment from the city on city building and community building from the beginning
and saying TCHC, go ahead, we’re right here behind you and acknowledge this is not your
project this is our project and that the city buys in. And at the end of the day what we’re
hoping this is going to create is more certainty to the developers, so that after you sign
an MOU, after you sign, you go out, you know for sure that the city is already behind this
project. And that you have no surprises throughout the process. So I think that that’s the — that’s
why we want to head is that that create some certainty, it creates better communities,
and at the end of the day we leverage or assets to the highest potential. And I think that
Councillor Perks brings an important point which is the capacity building non-profit.
We’ve been trying hard to do that. We did it through the housing now.
There’s specifically money allocated, there’s specifically sites allocated that are going
to be marketed specifically to the non-profit sector. And that’s work that we as a city
need to do is work hand in hand. We need to do capacity building without or
non-profit sector. So that eventually when we have sites that
we need to build 2 thousand units we have the sector out there that they’re going to
be able to say we’ll take it, we’re going to do it, and that we have it — we have it
in perpetuity. So I am happy to support that. I do have also a motion to add to Councillor
Fletcher’s motion on Don Summerville which is actually about the jobs that sometimes
we get created through these programs. We can leverage these things, I’m a big proponent
of social procurement and leveraging job opportunities. As we are developing these sites, as we are
creating jobs, let’s make sure that our tenants are also benefitting of that and let’s do
it in a proper way. Let’s make sure we document that, let’s make
sure we understand that we’re giving the opportunity, giving careers to some of our tenants, that’s
how you fully revitalize the communities, it’s not only about the brick and mortars
it’s about people’s lives as well. I hope I can get your support for this part of the
motion and I’m moving staff’s recommendations. So — [off mic] .
This one is Don Summerville. [off mic].
And the other 2 staff recommendations, yes. Okay.
Councillor Fletcher’s motion all those in favour. Recorded vote.
All those if favour of Councillor Fletcher’s motion, Councillor Bradford, Councillor Perks,
Councillor Fletcher, Councillor Bailão, all those opposed? Are you in favour?
Yeah. Councillor Robinson, that motion carries.
Councillor Perks motion, all those in favour? [off mic] all those in favour of the motion
before put, Councillor Bradford, Councillor Perks, Councillor Fletcher, Councillor Bailão,
all those opposed? Councillor Robinson. That motion carries.
And staff recommendations. Recorded.
Recorded vote. All those in favour of the recommendation
and staff report for a, Councillor Bradford, Councillor Perks, Councillor Fletcher, Councillor
Bailão, Councillor Robinson, any opposed. That motion carries.
One more. [off mic].
Yep. And my last motion all those in favour. Recorded.
Recorded vote. All those in favour of motion before you from
Councillor Bailão, Councillor Bradford, Councillor Perks, Councillor Fletcher, Councillor Bailão,
Councillor Robinson? Any opposed. That motion carries.
Okay. And that takes care of item 7.4. Item 7.5 expanding the housing allowance program.
No. [off mic].
Okay. [off mic]. Your name is — yep, your name is further
down. Yep. Bar pre, okay. Good morning. At least for another 7 minutes.
Good morning still. Yeah, still.
Good morning Councillors and staff. I’m a resident of ward 11, university Rosedale and
I’m speaking on behalf of the coalition which encompasses several grass-roots organizations,
a number of members of which are seated behind me. For a number of months I have sought to
address this committee on the subject of Toronto’s housing crisis and what we think this city,
this province and this country can learn from a highly successful social housing program
underway in the — I endorse all efforts to expand Toronto’s housing allowance program
including the creation of a new upper tier of the land transfer tax, the Ontario priorities
housing initiative should address priorities in the areas of housing supply and affordability
and frankly, as the discussion recently just moments ago reflected, we need a crash program
of land assembly and housing construction to house the homeless and to take pressure
off rents. And that is where Venezuela enters the picture. Its achievement over the past
8 years is nothing less than spectacular. I call it a social wonder of the modern world.
And I propose that this committee and council as a whole take some positive action. I suggest
that you invite experts from Venezuela to come to Toronto to share their knowledge of
the person to person to the great housing project and send some City Councillors or
social housing officials to witness and learn about housing achievements in that south American
country. This can be done at no expense to City Council.
Here are some facts: 1, the united nation has recognized Venezuela as one of the top
countries for guaranteeing people’s right for housing at the first assembly which took
place may 27th-31 this year with 190 countries represented there. The un habitat is the highest
decision making body on the subject of sustainable urban development and housing. Venezuela’s
minister for habitat [indiscernible] told the assembly quote the grand — continues
to be an example to the world that housing in Venezuela is a social right rather than
a commodity, closed quote. The — has been operative for 8 years. Its aim is to counter
social exclusion and injustice due to the historic housing deficit in Venezuela. It
has housed 2 million 6 hundred 21 thousand 7 hundred 3 families throughout the country.
It was created by president — inspired when in 2011 a powerful storm left 1 hundred thousand
families homeless. It has been carried forward by president — even in these days of economic
warfare waged against the country. Illegal sanctions by the USA, Canada and the
eu have robbed Venezuela of its foreign accounts and have disrupted oil exports, blocked international
commerce causing a shortage of food and medicines. This has caused the deaths of 40 thousand
especially those in a precarious state of health. In November 2018, the key to say home
number 2 million 4 hundred thousand were given to a family in the state of — currently 130
thousand units are being built of the 500,000 that are scheduled to be finished this year.
A total of 3 million housing units are to be reached this December and 5 million more
are scheduled for completion by 2025. The program consists of housing that is sometimes
fully constructed by professionals and others constructed by the communities themselves
with professional supervision. It is not simply a program of a building houses on an empty
lot, it is an endeavour of building communities with work programs, schools, day care, government
service offices, markets, it does not build isolated low income ghettos where the poor
are kept at bay. The units are integrated throughout the cities and towns as an organic
part of city and rural life. The program develops, agreeable and integrate housing zones that
make available a full range of social services from education to health care which likens
its vision to that of the new urbanism model. There are 3 categories in this project.
Personal, familiar y’all and community. [off mic].
Well, I’ll have to come back 5 months from now to finish this proposal, but I’ll just
conclude by saying that people can access credit for the program called credit habitat
which president — has just increased to U.S. 40 million dollars and allows individuals
to — thank you. Engage in this thing.
Thank you. Last sentence.
Thank you. You’re well over your five minutes.
Undertake an exchange in the subject of housing provision, Toronto Venezuela — thank you.
[multiple speakers]. Any questions of the speaker.
[multiple speakers]. Sir, sir, you’re well over your five minutes.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Any questions of the speaker, seeing none, thank you for joining us here today.
Pablo, I don’t think Pablo is here. Kiera — good morning.
Good morning. So thank you for the opportunity to speak to you Councillors and staff. The
Toronto alliance to end homelessness as you know is a collective impact initiative working
to end homelessness in Toronto and the city’s community advisory board on homelessness.
Our vision is zero — we — I should say too that we appreciate the — the motions and
the amendments and the discussion around 7.4, really important to see a variety of city
interests working together in a coordinated way to address these issues.
So we wrote in support of motion mm 52 when it went before council in March initially
introducing the housing allowances an commend Councillors Bailão, Cressy and Bradford for
tabling it then and continuing to champion it along with Mayor Tory as well.
There’s no doubt that housing allowances are a critical tool in ending people’s homelessness.
Allowances provide a pathway to stable housing and effectively divert people from experiencing
homelessness. In turn this keeps people out of shelter releasing some of the well documented
and wildly understood — sorry — widely understood pressures on our city’s emergency system including
respite centres where people are now ageing into chronic homelessness. The submission
that is attached to your report today was originally written in may and it spoke to
that context. My next comments are going to speak more to what’s happened since then and
the sum tear report. So since then the use of the Ontario provincial housing initiative
funds for this allowance has been established. It’s in the report, and it’s critical that
this funding be used in this way because it maintains not only the benefits of those people
that were on the old Toronto housing allowance program, it adds significant new people to
that allowance. Beyond this, however, we are looking forward
to exploring other review tools in order to make deeper housing allowances available.
Housing allowances to be effective for all people living in homelessness must also be
designed to meet today’s realities. This means that they — and the disparity between this
and the income between most people needing an allowance. It must be deep enough per household
to make up the difference, maximum of 390 dollars per month for a single adult and the
true average market rent in Toronto. The affordability gap here cannot be overstated. In 2017, the
city itself identified that the difference between CMHC average market rents which is
our traditional bench Mark and the real asking rents in Toronto was anywhere from 40 to 68%.
There’s a chart if the deputation we submit back in may that shows the difference for
a variety of apartment sizes. It means, however, that instead of designing and allowance to
meet average market rent, we need to make these allowances deep enough to afford the
asking rent of — in real time. In other words, a target of 80% of average market rent is
no longer enough to create true affordability and to end people’s homelessness, we recommend
it be a hundred percent of average market rent.
2 other critical points we recommend as part of any new tool are that it reflect the real
cost of rental housing by moving up and down as rents do, and that housing allowances become
permanently available for all relocations including illegal evictions and that could
be something that the new task force, I think that came from the last meeting of this committee
on a legal on rent evictions could look at. As the city’s community advisory board, we
will be working with SSHA and the housing secretariat to identify opportunities through
or coordinated work including but not limited to housing Toronto, the SSHA service planning,
and the reaching home investments will be able to work and look at how all these revenue
sources and program guidelines can be used to increase our pool of housing allow banses
and to make some of the deeper for the reasons I just noted. We’ll also be looking at the
investment plan the first part of that will be articulated and due in September as your
following motion let’s you know. And we’ll be looking at opportunities — I’m
going to have to ask you to wrap up. Asking all of you to do that as well so that
we can maximize the impact of the allowances overall in the City of Toronto.
Great. Thank you. Any questions of the speaker? Seeing none, thank you for your support and
partnership. Any other speakers on this item? Seeing none, questions of staff.
Councillor Robinson. [off mic].
I didn’t see anybody else. Okay. So I guess, you know, in reading the
report, I’d just like you to clarify your concerns about using the MLTT to fund this
program. Councillor, through the chair, it wasn’t as
much the concern with the mlgt it was the fact that there was an alternate source of
review that was provided by the federal provincial governments. This was essentially a tailor
made revenue source that could be used to do this, and that seemed to be the approach
— the best one to be taken. So how much funding is the city set to receive
through the cochi and ophi? So in total, I believe the number is 178 million
and a portion of that would be attributable to the 3,200 housing allowances that are proposed
to be delivered. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Councillor Bradford. A couple quick questions.
As part of the Ontario priorities housing initiative, what other programs are eligible
to receive funding under this initiative besides the housing allowance program?
Councillor, through the chair, there are a number of other initiatives that this funding
will be used and deployed for next report deals with those. And it also includes capital
for new housing development in partnership with the non-profit sector as well as repairs
for seniors eligible repairs for low income seniors in their homes. And then lastly it
provides for a small home ownership component for first time buyers as well.
Okay and the next report will have some of the more specifics on those pieces?
That’s correct, Councillor okay. Do we have an estimate as to the upcoming pressures on
our shelter system what was the change from 2017 to 2018?
Through the chair, through the chair, our occupancy remains fairly steady at above 90%.
Even though we have increased capacity by a few thousand beds.
It’s very difficult to predict demand in the shelter system given the complexities of people’s
needs but I anticipate we will continue to experience the same level of pressure.
Okay. And then our goal of a thousand new shelter beds, how are we progressing in terms
of delivering that goal? Through the chair, we had a report for information
at ECDC this month giving an update on that. We have located 80% of the beds required for
the thousand beds, they will come online over the next couple of years various construction
schedules. We continue to search for the last few properties but staff have made excellent
progress on that initiative. However, even with the 300 new beds that we already have
online this year, we have not seen an impact on the occupancy.
Okay. Thanks very much, appreciate it. Thank you. Councillor Perks.
Yeah. My question isn’t on the main line, it has to do though, with a paragraph on page
5 of the report where you’re examining council’s direction to consider using the MLTT, or a
tax on the top end of the MLTT — sir tax — surcharge on the top end of the MLTT to
fund some of this. Paragraph 3 says corporate finance will table the report on the city’s
revenue options in Budget Committee in June 2019, and suggests that that’s the proper
place to have that discussion. I went and looked and there is no report that
went to the Budget Committee in June, 2019. Can someone tell me when we’ll get that revenue
option report? Through the chair, there was a report to council
in executive on budget implications but it was more specific to the impact of the province’s
changes. I will report back to you on that and I’ll consult with our colleagues in corporate
finance on when that report will be coming. Okay. Just once again, Madam Chair council
directs finance staff to give us some options on financial planning and once again it’s
used to just — not happen. Duly noted. Any other questions? I do have
some questions. I just — so the 3,200 housing allowances are on top of the existing ones
that we have? That’s correct, Councillor.
We currently have about 5,400 people receiving allowances, this money would allow us to continue
placing about a hundred people per month over the next few years.
Okay. And are we targeting specifically our homelessness population or at risk of being
homeless, is that the goal? Currently our focus is on chronically homeless,
a period of more than 6 months. And remind us again, what’s the cost of a
night in one of our shelters? How much does it cost the city?
We have an average per diem of about $105 a night for a shelter bed, and typically that
shelter bed is used over the course of a year by about 5 different people.
So is — and this — the housing allowances goes for about how much do you need to have
a housing allowance to house somebody that is chronically homeless?
There are various levels of existing housing allowances.
The ones that we’re proposing in this report are $600 a month.
Okay. So significantly more economic than continuing just to build more shelter beds?
That would be correct, Councillor. It also be the per river benefits of people have secure
and stable housing which has an impact on their overall health and well-being.
And I want to touch a little bit on that. So how do we make sure that people are being
housed in a stable condition? Are we following up, are we keeping track
to make sure that we are being successful, and that people are not just you know, housed
for a few months and then you know, back on the street again? Like, how do we support
that work? Councillor, so we do track people. We continue
to follow-up with them. We’ve been really pleased to see that we have more than an 80%
rate staying housed after 1 year. So you know, when people are matched with the right supports
and the right housing solution they do on the most part have success.
Okay. Good. And the 3,200 subsidies that were created, so we used now this — the money
from the provincial and federal government, and we have different programs that could
be used but we choose a big chunk of this to be specifically targeted — to target this
issue, is that an option we had? That is correct, Councillor.
We had a pressure where the money that we had been using to house people with housing
allowances had reached the end, and we needed to either stop placing people with housing
allowances, or find a new funding source. And this provided us with that option.
And again, we need to make sure we continue to move people through our homeless shelter.
It is meant to be a temporary place for people until they can secure housing.
And when is this money starting to flow? It will start in August.
Okay. So as of August we’ll have access to these funds. So this is eminent to start at
any minute, we can start placing people? That’s right. We’ll be seeking council approval
in July, and then we’ll be ready to start placing the following month.
Okay. Great. Thank you. Speakers.
Nobody wants to speak on the item. I will if nobody else will.
I’ll make a couple points and that is I agree with staff’s take on this. And their recommendations
and the availability of the other — of the other funding sources.
That are now in play. And that’s really all I wanted to say. I thank them for this report
and for looking at these alternate options. Thank you so much.
Councillor Robinson. I do have 2 motions. One motion is to basically continue the very
close work collaboration that we’ve been having with the Toronto alliance to end homelessness.
It has been really beneficial, I think staff could agree with me that it’s been really
beneficial to work closely with them on implementing and tracking and getting their feedback on
how to target chronic homelessness and really focus these funds to ensure that we’re housing
people and that we’re keeping them housed. And so I want to make sure that this collaboration
continues as some of you remember, we brought this request to have more housing allowances
knowing that our shelter system continues to be under a lot of pressure. And what we
want to create is different ways to maintain people housed, and to create more capacity
without continuous having the discussion around building more shelters.
Everybody understands that we need to build is more housing and that takes time. And that’s
why it is so important to have programs like this around housing allowances, so that we
can immediately as of August, start taking some of the present pressure away and making
sure that we house people as soon as possible. So it’s over 3,000 that we’re going to have
at our disposal. It is a great number. I think that as a committee we’ll be playing close
attention on how successful the program is. We know last year we had a pilot with 200
housing allowance s and was extremely successful. This is, I think takes it to a totally different
level. Happy to see that and looking forward to seeing the results and continue to work
with the Toronto alliance — a source of revenue that we had identified.
We were able to get this program using one source of revenue that is the provincial and
federal funds. However, with conversations with many people around this — the municipal
land transfer tax which is all around housing and real estate, it’s the funds that we take
from our real estate, lots of people said, you know, maybe it’s time to have a review
on for example, the tiers and to make sure that it actually responds to the housing positive
that we’re trying to create. So for example, we have tiers, we have exemptions for first
time home buyers we had a proposal to make a different tier. I think that instead of
going into the idea of one creating a new tier maybe what we need to do is ensure that
our taxing owned our financial policies match the other policies that we’re creating in
the city. And so that’s why I’m asking the planning and housing secretary and our chief
financial officer just to make sure as we embark on a new ten-year housing man that
we have the financial tools that actually go hand in hand with — with the policies
that we’re creating, and that assist in furthering those goals. So with that said, ask for your
support for these 2 motions and for the report. And again, thank you staff for a good report.
Okay. First motion — question for the mover. Yeah.
On the second motion. Yeah.
So what do you think is not correct about the way it’s knowing right now and how it’s
being disbursed, the MLTT? So I don’t know for example, so we have an
exemption for first time home buyers for 4 hundred thousand dollars, right, is that the
right amount in Toronto any more, should we have it, should we not have it, should we
actually have a little bit more on that, can you buy anything with 4 hundred thousand dollars
nowadays. So that’s the kind of conversations I think instead of just focusing on one, we
have to — what kind of points of the housing spectrum we’re going to be touching with the
housing policy and something like the land transfer tax which is all around the use of
land and real estate should actually work hand in hand to make sure that, you know,
we’re giving with one manned and taking with the other, that actually it works hand in
hand for the goals that we have as a city. So I’m sure you’re aware the MLTT is not really
a stable source due to market fluctuations. Yeah, if it was for me I would have it all
going to capital projects all housing. [multiple speakers].
Housing paying for housing, I’d love to do that.
I would too. So it’s not really a stable source.
Yep right, it fluctuates every year as we well know.
Yep. And changes in the sales year to year.
Yeah. So it’s not — yeah, and this is — this is,
there is certain things that you’re doing, like I gave you the example of the first time
home buyers. Yeah.
You exempt first time home buyers, why because you want to create the opportunity for first
time home buyers to make it easier for them to buy. You need to make sure that your fiscal
policy actually responds to your housing policy. We have as you said been told by our finance
department that the MLTT is not a stable source of revenue that we should divert much of that
money to capital which we’ve started doing as of last year. Should that be going to housing
that’s another conversation we should have. I want to make sure that we don’t have a fiscal
tool that’s not responding to the new housing policy tools that we’re actually creating.
These things need to work hand in hand. So you’re not saying that — I mean — this
line of aligning and supporting that’s what I’m concerned about, is that changing the
envelope? Are you trying to alter the where the funds go? With that line or — I’m not
sure what your objective is from that last 3 lines of your motion.
It could be. I mean if staffs actually say you know what by doing different tiers we
could actually probably expect a little bit more revenue and it should be directed to
the capital support of housing, I would be fine with that.
Um-hum, okay. Okay.
First motion. First motion all those in favour, that carries.
Second motion all those in favour? That carries. [off mic].
Okay. Recorded vote. All those in favour of the motion before you
Councillor Bradford, Councillor Perks, Councillor Fletcher, Councillor Bailão, any opposed?
Councillor Robinson, that motion carries. Okay. And that takes care of item 7.5.
Thank you. 7.6 activating federal provincial funding to increase housing options for Toronto
residents. First speaker Derek German. [off mic] .
No. We’ll probably have a chance to hear maybe one or two speakers, that’s about it.
[off mic] . We have speakers everywhere else, yeah.
Derek Derek. Good morning. Good morning.
Five minutes. Thanks for joining us today. Good afternoon.
So I’m supporting the acquisition by the city of the property right on the corner neither
corners of Dundas and sherman — 230 — the city knows about that property, they know
a lot about that property. They know some of the illegal things that happened on that
property, the suffering of the people on that property. And in 1985, I was one of the people
that found — in the back alley or just on the — that property.
The death of — led to an amazing anger at that time of ordinary people and of Councillors
and of the bureaucrats naturally who wanted homeless people to die, to be frozen to death
in the back of a truck. So there was a response and many of the people
even in this room if they’re old enough in 1985, they were part of the process that brought
about after the inquest around — and the great protest 3,000 units of single housing
came about across Ontario. That has to do with this property.
And beyond that the subsidies we’ve just been discussing subsidies, singles were suddenly
allowed to get subsidies in public housing. This was a great, great reform.
And now we come back to this property which has seen such damage and seen such horror.
It’s been used for speculation, it sat there looking across the street at the suffering
and the people dying. We’ve had many deaths on that street, people
froze to death, we demonstrated once when a man hung himself behind — just south of
this building. This happens all the time. And this place,
this building must be ours, we must make it a monument to this kind of — this kind of
world that we want, we want — we don’t want homelessness, I don’t think you want homelessness
I think there’s a degree of cowardness involved but most people don’t want homelessness. We
want that place to be ours, a place for ordinary people where I and other ordinary people can
live and afford them. So just one more reason on Canada Day I wonder how many people celebrated
Canada Day the way I celebrated Canada Day, that was just a couple of days ago.
I live south of this building on Sherbourne, 176 — and in the morning at around 10:00
a.m., my roommate said there’s something happening in the backyard here.
And we looked out over the balcony and we saw numerous police. Maybe 15.
And they were all near the garbage bins. A homeless man there named erin died there
that morning in my backyard he died. And this building has remained empty, this
building remains empty laughing at the homeless people as they pass it. This building should
be made for us, for us ordinary people in this city and we’ll chat no more.
This will be one place and it should be an example that you don’t speculate and laugh
and make fun, because it’s making fun when you do nothing when people die and get injured.
So I ask that you expropriate this property and make it ours, make what happened it in
1985, 1986 happen again — I’m going to have to ask you to wrap up.
People here know what happened there and it can be replicated, thank you.
Thank you. Thanks for joining us today.
Any questions of the speaker. Thank you for joining us today.
We’re going to have to wrap up because we don’t have enough time to have another speaker
before lunch. So we’ll see you all back here at 1:30.