Rooming house tenants fight to save some of Toronto’s last affordable homes

By Laurie Monsebraaten
Sun., Feb. 2, 2020

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

Outline is a free service for reading and annotating news articles. We remove the clutter so you can analyze and comment on the content.
outline.com outline.com
www.thestar.com

Rooming house tenants fight to save some of Toronto’s last affordable homes

“Everybody here is worried about what is going to happen to us,” says rooming house tenant whose building may soon become another downtown condo.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
Last edited:
This project must never be allowed to go ahead. Period. Our homeless problem is bad enough. We don't need any more people living on the streets. Especially at a time like this.
 
TheKingEast said:
Tenants really live in lala land.
Click to expand...

"We're not trying to halt development in the city," said Da Silva, who pays about $925 a month in rent. "We simply want to want to find our place in the city. We don't believe that it's to anybody's benefit that we be tossed out on the streets," he said.

Yeah, these vulnerable tenants are out of their minds eh? /s
 
ericn said:
This project must never be allowed to go ahead. Period. Our homeless problem is bad enough. We don't need any more people living on the streets. Especially at a time like this.
Click to expand...
Maybe they could include electric and water hook ups under the new section of the Gardiner
bjrkz said:
"We're not trying to halt development in the city," said Da Silva, who pays about $925 a month in rent. "We simply want to want to find our place in the city. We don't believe that it's to anybody's benefit that we be tossed out on the streets," he said.

Yeah, these vulnerable tenants are out of their minds eh? /s
Click to expand...
But if they're not doing anything productive like speculating on property, flipping condos, running multiple Airbnbs..
If they're not contributing anything to the Skyline then.. what good are they?
Besides, there should be lots of tent space available when the New Gardiner is finished.
 
ferusian said:
Now with Tricon & purpose-built rental, not condo:

Minto Communities Inc. v Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 41853 (ON LPAT)
Click to expand...

But the appeal will not be going forward.

So Tricon will have to start the process over.

1622137455960.png
 
Northern Light said:
But the appeal will not be going forward.

So Tricon will have to start the process over.

View attachment 323097
Click to expand...
Not sure what the point of that make-work project is.
you'd think that the outcome can avoided in the future by structuring a sale as a share purchase agreement for a project-specific holding company (not my area - so if I'm wrong, happy to hear why). so I wouldn't think there's any kind of precedent for achieving substantive outcomes here.
 
bilked said:
Not sure what the point of that make-work project is.
you'd think that the outcome can avoided in the future by structuring a sale as a share purchase agreement for a project-specific holding company (not my area - so if I'm wrong, happy to hear why). so I wouldn't think there's any kind of precedent for achieving substantive outcomes here.
Click to expand...

As I understand the decision (I'm not a lawyer); the substance was this.

- Minto had a conditional purchase agreement; with a specified time limit in it.

-The time period passed/agreement expired.

-Minto therefore moved to withdraw its appeal as it had no legal basis on which to proceed and no opportunity for financial gain, as they now lacked any option to purchase the site if successful.

-The owner found another prospective buyer in Tricon.

- The owner wanted Tricon to be able to assume the appeal.

- The Tribunal found that Minto was never the owner's agent, it wasn't the owner's proposal, it was Minto's.

- Ergo neither Tricon nor 'the owner' had any legal standing to challenge Minto's withdraw. Therefore, the appeal died, as its proponent was gone.

You can't substitute an appellant on a non-existent case.

****

This could have been structured from day 1, with Minto acting as the owner's agent; however, there is no indication that the owner wanted this; and this is an explicit position from Minto that they did NOT want this.

The argument was made that since Minto was to purchase the land; and bare full financial responsibility for any ensuing development; its financial interest was to acquire the land for as little as possible.

By definition, this is in opposition to the interests of 'the owner/seller' who would wish to maximize the purchase price.

The owner/seller was never proposed to take any ownership stake in or put up any capital towards the Minto proposal.

Therefore, when Minto chose to withdraw; the application died.

****

Had Minto agreed to sell their proposal to Tricon/the site owner, this ruling may have been different.

However, the fact that Tricon's idea for the site is rental is not an immaterial difference in the project.

It was not clear to the tribunal that a substantially similar building was being contemplated.

Which may have further impaired the application to transfer; even if Minto had consented, which they did not.

Minto expressly opposed this; and made arguments amounting to unfair gain that would be received by the owner at Minto's expense if they were able to assume the appeal.

****

But that's just my lay person's read (which may or may not be correct) , and I would encourage anyone to read the decision for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
As I understand the decision (I'm not a lawyer); the substance was this.

- Minto had a conditional purchase agreement; with a specified time limit in it.

-The time period passed/agreement expired.

-Minto therefore moved to withdraw its appeal as it had no legal basis on which to proceed and no opportunity for financial gain, as they now lacked any option to purchase the site if successful.

-The owner found another prospective buyer in Tricon.

- The owner wanted Tricon to be able to assume the appeal.

- The Tribunal found that Minto was never the owner's agent, it wasn't the owner's proposal, it was Minto's.

- Ergo neither Tricon nor 'the owner' had any legal standing to challenge Minto's withdraw. Therefore, the appeal died, as its proponent was gone.

You can't substitute an appellant on a non-existent case.

****

This could have been structured from day 1, with Minto acting as the owner's agent; however, there is no indication that the owner wanted this; and this is an explicit position from Minto that they did NOT want this.

The argument was made that since Minto was to purchase the land; and bare full financial responsibility for any ensuing development; its financial interest was to acquire the land for as little as possible.

By definition, this is in opposition to the interests of 'the owner/seller' who would wish to maximize the purchase price.

The owner/seller was never proposed to take any ownership stake in or put up any capital towards the Minto proposal.

Therefore, when Minto chose to withdraw; the application died.

****

Had Minto agreed to sell their proposal to Tricon/the site owner, this ruling may have been different.

However, the fact that Tricon's idea for the site is rental is not an immaterial difference in the project.

It was not clear to the tribunal that a substantially similar building was being contemplated.

Which may have further impaired the application to transfer; even if Minto had consented, which they did not.

Minto expressly opposed this; and made arguments amounting to unfair gain that would be received by the owner at Minto's expense if they were able to assume the appeal.

****

But that's just my lay person's read (which may or may not be correct) , and I would encourage anyone to read the decision for themselves.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the closer read of the decision then I had given it when I made my post. I guess that unfortunate decision makes sense then. Although I’m sure the City solicitor was more than happy to litigate an application they don’t like on a point of procedure, rather than address it on its merits. And Minto certainly comes off as the kid that’s takes his ball home with him.
 
Well......

This one is back, with a new application...............but she ain't 35s no more........in Toronto-esque style.........the proponent would now like 60s!

Underlying proponent is unchanged.

Architect has changed to IBI

1670068460275.png


app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca

1670069687195.png


1670069766714.png


The above are the only renders with this submission, at a size where I can capture the whole image. Below are enlarged, but partial images to reflect greater detail:

1670069931463.png


1670069990796.png



Site Plan:

1670070089419.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1670070184753.png


West Elevation:

1670070280433.png


North Elevation: (good illustration of the impact of the overhang)

1670070340983.png


1670070474018.png


Brief comments for now:

1) Height is being argued for based on nearest comparables that include Grid Condos at 52s and consideration of MTSA based on being 660M north-west of an Ontario Line Station.

2) Falls within the Sick Kids Flight Path, but is below the regulated maximum height.

3) Owner is unchanged from previous application; no involvement from Tricon is indicated, and no clear commitments to purpose-built rental as was previously suggested when Tricon became involved.

4) Owner is arguing no obligation concerning replacement of the rooming house units, but is willing to consider that a 'Community Benefit'.

I'll save the rest for after more sleep and some coffee!
 
Last edited:
Must say I love the older building! It appears to be being left alone (though 'somewhat" over-shadowed.)

1670083813320.png
 
DSC said:
Must say I love the older building! It appears to be being left alone (though 'somewhat" over-shadowed.)
Click to expand...

I think think the massing on the proposal is an over-reach and crowds too much density on too small a footprint.

I'd be less concerned with the height than tightening floorplate size so the overhangs go away; I think the podium should be 3s, with the whole building setback further, including at-grade, to play more respectfully with its heritage neighbour.

Knock this sucker back to a 550M floor plate and we have something to discuss; providing the architecture is otherwise passable.

***

Realistically, I think this site needs to await redevelopment of the Court House to the north and they need to be bundled together.

Something much better can be achieved that way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top