[AlvinofDiaspar]

Love this place - I even profiled it in my Cozy Cafes thread. Again, why can't we have container retail in every park??? It adds so much value. Good on Matlow for trying to generate some momentum.

Generally pro the idea - though I can see either the City (through overrestrictive policies) or the vendors messing up a potentially good thing.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Did we not already try this with the Ala Carte program?

Similar, but A la carte was specifically targeting street food vendors in carts.

This motion is targeting Parks, not streets and a full range of options from carts to new buildings.

 

[Northern Light]

A la carte was the exact opposite of "fewer restrictions". It was restricted right into the ground.

Indeed. That program was sabotaged by Toronto Public Health.

Some of its restrictions were appropriate, if challenging (around refrigeration and hand washing etc.) but food safety is of the most importance.

But it tacked on a host of additional restrictions and mandates, items must represent diversity; items must be healthy, all sorts of criteria from cart ownership to hours.

All that and they limited it to 13 vendors.

It was a completely preposterous (non-real) attempt to liberalize street food vending, which is to say there was no intention to deliver the stated objective whatsoever.

 

[txlseries4]

"Solve homelessness!"
Council: ok we'll convert a parking lot
"No not like that "

‘They have just shut us out,’ Etobicoke residents sue City of Toronto and local councillor for $1M over homeless shelter site selection - NOW Toronto

A group of Etobicoke residents is suing the City of Toronto and their local councillor over homeless shelter site selection.

nowtoronto.com

"The New Toronto Initiative, also known as the South Etobicoke Community Association, says it filed a statement of claim to challenge the site selection of a homeless shelter located at 66 Third Street in Etobicoke.

The claim was filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the City, Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore councillor Amber Morley, and consultant Bruce Davis of Public Progress."

Spokesperson for the group Dan Perdue tells Now Toronto the lawsuit was a last resort after spending months attempting to engage in conversations with the City, Mayor Olivia Chow, and Morley.

“The best that they have done is provide information sessions telling us what they’re going to do, but there’s been zero engagement, and we have tried everything at every opportunity, and they have just shut us out,” Perdue said.

I believe city staff in certain divisions have been asked to consider different terminology to use other than "consultation" about a variety of issues, particularly shelters, because people opposed are under the impression they will given the ability to change the plans, when really they're just being informed.

 

[evandyk]

They're not being shut out at all, they're just not getting what they want.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Purdue says the group has no problems with the city attempting to offer support to unhoused community members, and has no issue with a shelter in the neighbourhood, but says the main concern is with the site itself.

“What caused us massive concern is that they chose a site that’s 9,200 square feet. The city’s own guidelines are 15,000 minimum, and they’re choosing a site that’s 40 per cent less than their minimum,” Perdue says.

Due to the square footage Perdue says the site may not be able to offer the necessary services tenants will need to be and feel supported.

“We’ve got to be looking at at least a 20,000-square feet facility so that we can assure that when these people come in, they feel safe, they feel supported, and we’ve got mental health support systems,” he said.

Ah yes, the we care so much that we just wanted them to have all the services, and if they don't get a roof over their head because good isn't sufficient, sucks to be them.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

"Solve homelessness!"
Council: ok we'll convert a parking lot
"No not like that "

Having read the story.

Setting aside merits/motivations for just one moment....

I'm not clear on what the actual legal argument is; someone feel free to link to the Statement of Claim here.

The residents are not entitled to consultation as such on this application, or at least I'm not aware of any wording anywhere that supports anything close to a veto.

On guidelines the City uses for designing facilities, they are guidelines, just like the 'Tall Building Design Guidelines'......they are there to provide.........duh, guidance, they are not regulation, they are not binding.

Seems like another association like the one up at Willowdale/Cummer setting itself up for a fail.

*****

On the merits here, I have no time for opposition to affordable housing. Zero. But I do have time for opposition to shelters, because they are inordinately expensive, and typically offer inferior living conditions that even people in encampments frequently decline.

I would prefer to see permanent, affordable, rental apartments, with subsidies as required to keep that manageable.

I do recognize that we also need some facilities to provide assisted/supervised living arrangements; but I think the City generally provides facilities where treatment isn't mandatory and additions and psychosis are often tolerated.
Which is to say, we need better facilities of this type, where people are actually helped and not warehoused.

I don't have all the details for this site handy to assess it better; but I will say, my instinct here is that any arguments against this facility come off more as disingenuous nimby than concerned citizen.

***

I said this in the Cummer case; that site wasn't ideal for a number of reasons; but it was what could had for free (land) and so it was advanced, "If you want it built somewhere else nearby, prettier, better, divided into two different sites, great, you pay the difference in cost vs the existing proposal, and you find the land, and I can persuade the City to listen."

Same applies here. Don't like, do better yourself, and pay the difference.

 

[txlseries4]

I'm not clear on what the actual legal argument is; someone feel free to link to the Statement of Claim here.

For anyone curious enough with access the case is CV25007530700000

 

[ShonTron]

Ignoring the casual racism for a minute, I doubt that Brampton has worse drivers than any other GTA suburb. Differences in auto insurance rates by address have more to do with car theft than driving skills.

Exactly. York Region and the DVP is where I do my most cursing at drivers. And I’m in Brampton – my hometown – quite a bit.

 

[Richard White]

Exactly. York Region and the DVP is where I do my most cursing at drivers. And I’m in Brampton – my hometown – quite a bit.

My Aunt lives at McCowan and Steeles and driving anywhere in that area requires your head to be on a swivel. Same for the area around Pacific Mall which is scary to say the least.

My father drove TTC buses for 30 years with a safe driving record that entire time (no at fault accidents). He refuses to drive in Northeast Scarborough because as he says, he knows how to drive but those in that area do not.