News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

guavadelic said:
So why not just restrict it to convenience stores and cafes then to address concerns about Cannabis and Vape shops? Seems like this is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...

FTA:
In an interview with TorontoToday, city chief planner Jason Thorne acknowledged the city does not have capacity to prohibit the establishment of certain types of businesses, such as cannabis shops or stores that sell vapes.

He also acknowledged that since liquor licenses are provincial jurisdiction, the city cannot prevent beer or wine sales on neighbourhood streets.

Don't know if it's capacity as in ability to oversee, or if they don't have the ability/authority because of limits in legislation
 
txlseries4 said:
FTA:
In an interview with TorontoToday, city chief planner Jason Thorne acknowledged the city does not have capacity to prohibit the establishment of certain types of businesses, such as cannabis shops or stores that sell vapes.

He also acknowledged that since liquor licenses are provincial jurisdiction, the city cannot prevent beer or wine sales on neighbourhood streets.

Don't know if it's capacity as in ability to oversee, or if they don't have the ability/authority because of limits in legislation
Click to expand...

It's an authority thing. That's why nearly every convenience store now has beer/wine without any city approval required.
 
evandyk said:
Sounds like the debate is going well...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1937941065815724156

https://twitter.com/x/status/1937946797990658430
Click to expand...
LOL as if anyone was confused about Holyday's position on this he forcefully declared "I will not simply put lipstick on a pig, I will not simply accept the multiplex program the way that it is. I will be voting against this"
oh nooo you don't say....

2022-2026 voting record of No votes at council:
1750879178554.png

Councillor Bravo had a motion which passed 22-3,
"1. City Council request the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to consider limiting the number of on-street permits issued per eligible address in zones that are at or near capacity, and report back on feasible changes to the on-street permit parking program as part of Transportation Services’ Residential Parking Review."

But Holyday got himself all twisted up about how it would impact the people who benefit most from multiplexes (which he's against) and asks why not mandate parking on-site instead of limiting parking permits. Bravo neatly replies "mandating on site is a very clever way to kill what you don't want which is multiplexes"
I cannot fathom having the patience some of these councillors posses to deal with all of Holyday's bs

Multiplex vote carries! 18-7
Ainslie, Burnside, Crisanti, Holyday, Kandavel, Mantas, Perruzza vote against

Sixplexes up next...
 
evandyk said:
The first ten posts in Matt's megathread about today's meeting is stuff that Holyday put on the agenda just so that he could be the only councillor to vote against it.
Click to expand...
If someone ever created a City Council bingo card "Holyday votes no alone" would be the free space in the middle
 
rdaner said:
So the sixplex issue was held. Meaning?
Click to expand...
The item with several amendments just carried on a vote 18-6 with Vincent Crisanti, Stephen Holyday, Parthi Kandavel, James Pasternak, Anthony Perruzza, Michael Thompson against.

It seems like some councillors against sixplexes (in their wards or just in general) were oblivious that allowing them is tied to funding from the federal housing accelerator fund, and voting against it may result in losing 25% of the funding, meaning Toronto may lose out on approx $28 million. Even some of the motions in favour of sixplexes that would water down the policy come with the risk that the federal government may see it as not good enough and withhold that 25% of the funding. There have been several letters from the federal government to Toronto Council that outlined the requirements for the funding, so a bunch of time was spent calling people out on not paying attention. Very messy debate

This is the important part of the amendments to the item:
City Council amend the draft Official Plan Amendment 818 attached as Attachment 1 to the report (May 28, 2025) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning so that the policies apply only to Toronto and East York District and to the lands generally bounded by Steeles Avenue to the north, Midland Avenue to the west, Highway 401 to the south, and Neilson Road and Rouge River to the east.

and

City Council request Councillors from other wards outside Toronto and East York District and Ward 23, wishing to have Official Plan Amendment 818 and the Zoning By-law Amendment extend to their ward, to send correspondence to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

Meaning the sixplexes policy will only apply to these wards, unless other councillors wish for their ward to join:
Beaches-East York, Davenport, Toronto-Danforth, Spadina-Fort York, Toronto-St. Paul’s, Toronto Centre, Parkdale-High Park, University-Rosedale, Scarborough North
 
I’m not expecting the federal govt to show much backbone here unfortunately. Hope I’m wrong and council gets the HAF money swept out from under their feet.

But I don’t have that much confidence with Gregor Robertson in charge of the file now.
 
What a disgraceful vote that was. A cash strapped City giving up millions over a nothing vote. Shame on every Councillor who didn’t support this.

Why did Mayor Chow not speak on the item? Pathetic.
 
txlseries4 said:
The item with several amendments just carried on a vote 18-6 with Vincent Crisanti, Stephen Holyday, Parthi Kandavel, James Pasternak, Anthony Perruzza, Michael Thompson against.

It seems like some councillors against sixplexes (in their wards or just in general) were oblivious that allowing them is tied to funding from the federal housing accelerator fund, and voting against it may result in losing 25% of the funding, meaning Toronto may lose out on approx $28 million. Even some of the motions in favour of sixplexes that would water down the policy come with the risk that the federal government may see it as not good enough and withhold that 25% of the funding. There have been several letters from the federal government to Toronto Council that outlined the requirements for the funding, so a bunch of time was spent calling people out on not paying attention. Very messy debate

This is the important part of the amendments to the item:
City Council amend the draft Official Plan Amendment 818 attached as Attachment 1 to the report (May 28, 2025) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning so that the policies apply only to Toronto and East York District and to the lands generally bounded by Steeles Avenue to the north, Midland Avenue to the west, Highway 401 to the south, and Neilson Road and Rouge River to the east.

and

City Council request Councillors from other wards outside Toronto and East York District and Ward 23, wishing to have Official Plan Amendment 818 and the Zoning By-law Amendment extend to their ward, to send correspondence to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

Meaning the sixplexes policy will only apply to these wards, unless other councillors wish for their ward to join:
Beaches-East York, Davenport, Toronto-Danforth, Spadina-Fort York, Toronto-St. Paul’s, Toronto Centre, Parkdale-High Park, University-Rosedale, Scarborough North
Click to expand...

I am sure said councillors probably consider losing the Federal funding as a win-win. Frankly I'd rather see this compromise die - and let council own it and have the jackals show themselves.

AoD
 
Last edited:
rdaner said:
^While disappointing this is a good first step that can be expanded later. Don't forget that there are always CofA apps as well as the new 4 units/lot.

And what about Avenues rezoning?!
Click to expand...
I was disappointed at first, but when you look at the land area and density where sixplexes will now permitted, it's actually a solid step.

I suspect most of the demand initially would be in the approved wards anyway, since there's better transit. I have a hard time believing that you'd have the demand for 6 units on a 120 x 50 North York detached lot where you often need to walk 10 minutes to a bus stop, since most people living in these won't have cars.
 
I suspect (without adding it up) that the wards that are included make up about half of Toronto's population, and as noted, have access to the best transit. You can celebrate getting half a loaf! And credit to Jamaal for getting his slice of Scarborough included. The rest of Scarborough will eventually be jealous. And then Etobicoke and North York will want in on the action.

I still think the federal government should withhold the 25% of HAF funding. Fair's fair.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top