Housing & Development

      Housing and development matters are prime issues in Ward 19 as it has seen both phenomenal price increases, and is currently slated for very intense development, especially around our local TTC, and Go Transit stations.

      However, development needs to be sensitive to the infrastructure conditions necessary to support them. This should be at an appropriate scale, where we already have current signs of inadequate infrastructure presenting themselves. For example, whenever it rains and raw sewage and garbage floods into the lake. It is false to believe that more growth is the only solution. The City, in general, has seen enormous increases in housing units, and recent census data is showing that unit growth exceeded population growth,  yet prices steadily rose for homes and rentals. Higher density always leads to higher prices and poorer affordability as has been the experience of the last 15 years.  Throwing up a ‘for sale sign’ across the city is not the answer. Follow this link to read more:

https://betterdwelling.com/home-prices-are-rising-as-more-supply-is-built-thats-how-it-works/

      Right now it is vital to evaluate the benefits of a building moratorium or development freeze. If,  even for a short while, for the city to catch it’s breathe or until, and if it is known, that development plans of today and in the future, can be well supported with the existing infrastructure. The possible infrastructure expansions required otherwise will cause large increases in both property tax and utility rates which even now, post pandemic, many cannot afford with their already high housing costs and future disruptions across the city.  This pause is even more appropriate as an alternative, when you consider that there are already 9 years worth of APPROVED units,and 13 years worth of APPLICATIONS, that do not have a single shovel in the ground today. That strongly suggests that infrastructure constraints among other things are already harming development. Perhaps worse, many of these un-built proposals are speculative and may never get built. The City needs to do all it can to reduce speculative intent from home creation, and a development freeze would help address this issue.

      We need to promote more gentle density in the form of laneway homes and garden suites, at an appropriate scale. We need robust, and open, in-person community consultations that are respected by the City. We need to refrain from anymore ‘backroom deals’ favouring developers alone or residents only minimally. Skyscrapers along Queen Street are not the only answer, presuming there are no serious geological and/or hydroloical constraints which is likely to be the case being so close to the lake.

       Accepting developer donations as the incumbent Brad Bradford has done, to a very large degree in the past, is not acceptable for the appearance of impartiality and independence, and I will not do so myself.  There will be no question that I will be representing residents first, not developers.  Follow this link below to read the independent results reported by Acorn Canada, as they examined the campaign finances of Council in the last election.

https://acorncanada.org/news/storeys-one-third-toronto-city-council-donations-linked-development-industry-report/

      The City also needs to take a “go it alone approach” to affordable housing as the development industry does not wish to do so, unless greatly incentivized with scarce and costly public funds.  Inclusionary zoning will not be fully effective for almost another 10 more years. We can’t afford that wait. The plans of the City to create affordable units depends too much on partnerships with a development industry who have cherry-picked the best sites the City provides for free, with the number of affordable units to be created being below expectations to date. These affordable units are still years away since the overly large developments the City supports via this program require much longer time lines to plan, design, approve and construct. They demand more labour and resources with huge Green House Gas(GHG) impacts, and will in any event, take away future infrastructure capacity that could be used to create even more affordable housing. This is continuing, all while many units under TCHC control continue to languish and suffer from lagging maintenance and disrepair. The City should change the focus of the program by inserting these units into the TCHC portfolio and raising their performance metrics to ensure that a high quality of livability is maintained for all of the thousands of residents it already houses.

      Specific to the 1631 Queen Street proposal, the City’s plans for it, is a good example for what is wrong with its affordable housing program. It has been stalled now for two years and despite the clear advantages it offers by being close to the lake and the wonderful park amenities at its doorstep, the City has yet to secure a development partner. Why? The likely reasons are that the scale being supported by the Councillor is too high and is not economic to construct, due both to its alarming height, at three times what the Urban Design Guidelines applicable allow, and the opposition that has created in the neighbourhood. In addition, the developers may be deterred by the sites’ likely foundation issues due to the poor soils it is situated on.

      Clearly, developers know and investigate these matters while the Councillor has not, and rather than have affordable housing created at a lower scale that would still exceed the City’s affordable unit targets, while not being affected as much by local soil conditions, the Councillor has preferred to dig in and promote a ‘Trojan Horse’.  That would only serve as a precedent that could be used by developers to destroy those urban design guidelines that have helped preserve this part of the city.  The question is; Why would the Councillor so naively believe that this isn’t the probable result? Isn't he a professional planner? 
So, from his interpretation, affordable housing has to wait to serve developer’s desires first,  and that is wrong. This and other considerations has led some to call this program ‘fake’ affordable housing, which I tend to  agree with.  We don’t need more of that.

https://nowtoronto.com/news/affordable-housing-crisis-toronto-homelessness?fbclid=IwAR2P5f-U1ZKrHaCS1CMQsYlXhFBzsVYZ_AU8zLLEHWhuxOmLGDtVRKK7xFU

      I support building 100% affordable units at this address respecting the Urban Design Guidelines without further delay or political ‘game playing’.