Toronto 175 Cummer | 10.49m | 3s | City of Toronto | Montgomery Sisam

dustcollector said:
it sounds like you just want to dominate and prevail, without reading what's in those reports. they are saying that they want to build this as affordable housing, but with a condition (suggested by the exact institute who the city seems to go to for these things) that it is an abstinence focused housing. there are people trying to quit drugs, and want to reduce exposure to others using drugs, so this site coudl be for them.

honestly, what you wrote is so aggressive and dismissive, it makes it seem you are just totalitarian. is it either totally how you want it, or it's war?
Click to expand...

First, if you are going to answer someone in thread, you need to use the reply or quote functions so that person knows they are being replied to and what post/text is being commented on.

Second, I think you would find, if you read through my posts, that I tend to commit to being balanced and weighing competing interests; In this case, the community has waged war on this proposal from day one, and shown no inclination to balance; or a fair discussion.

In the context of a crisis of homelessness, the onus needs to be in favour of housing for those without a place to call home. "But I don't want it" is nowhere near sufficient as a justification for saying 'let them sleep on subway grates'.

I'll happily entertain that this isn't the perfect spot, because everyone would agree it is not. I'll happily agree it would be nice to save some of the mature trees.

Great, in one of the wealthiest neighbourhood's on the planet.........I think you can all chip in a couple thousand bucks and raise a few million to buy a nice chunk of land on Bayview for this; or fund a reorganized version of the modular housing on the current site, that saves some of the trees, entirely at the cost of the community.

That would be reasonable and demonstrate some measure of good faith.

Democracy is not a license to be selfish, nor to proclaim that you can have anything you want because you voted it so. It's a chance to be heard, to be listened to; and to offer constructive input.

This community has been heard, and listened to, no one fails to understand what is desired here. As for constructive input, that has been sorely lacking.
 
dustcollector said:
in reply to ProjectEnd, who had earlier written:
I can't fathom what the hell you're on about. It's a 3 storey, 59 unit, supportive housing project. You absolutely are bigoted to oppose it and your 'discussion' deserves nothing more than to be shut down.
Lily can kick rocks, this is absolute garbage.


it sounds like you just want to dominate and prevail, without reading what's in those reports. they are saying that they want to build this as affordable housing, but with a condition (suggested by the exact institute who the city seems to go to for these things) that it is an abstinence focused housing. there are people trying to quit drugs, and want to reduce exposure to others using drugs, so this site coudl be for them.

honestly, what you wrote is so aggressive and dismissive, it makes it seem you are just totalitarian. is it either totally how you want it, or it's war?
Click to expand...
It absolutely is "dismissive", because that's about the level of response this whole fiasco deserves.
 
dustcollector said:
from the report that's linked:

Summary​

The proposed modular supportive housing for 175 Cummer Avenue is currently awaiting an Ontario Land Tribunal hearing while the units sit in storage in Owen Sound at a current rate of $77,000 per month. The seniors and surrounding community are anxious to settle the matter sooner than later. During the process of proposing this site, serious gaps occurred, most importantly - a lack of listening and consideration for the 600+ seniors who currently reside on the same property. Therefore, the design and site plan were created without consideration of those most impacted by this decision. Further, the units were ordered without the zoning being firm - resulting in the current situation. This Motion addresses some of their main concerns and provides a way forward. We have commitment from the Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association that they will drop the appeal if this Motion is passed. This would create the fastest path to implement the stored units and create housing in a way that is harmonious with the surrounding community.
Click to expand...
Looking forward to requesting that the City require that the OLT pass-along those "$77,000 per month" costs (approx. ~$1.38-MILLION) - plus all of their other costs to the Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association (BCNA) and the McMansion developer across the street.
 
HousingNowTO said:
Grasping at straws - is the NIMBY way. Will be interesting to see how the other Councillors (and Mayoral candidates) react to this next week ---
https://twitter.com/x/status/1667179211059081216
Click to expand...

The first one, politically, ought to be DOA.

Even members of Council sympathetic to the argument would look terrible, not just to housing advocates if they openly voted to scuttle the proposal.

The second motion may be a different matter as it may provide the veneer of a solution.

But if one were to whisper in the ear of a pro-housing councillor; maybe one would tell them they ought to offer to vote for the second motion, if, it comes with a letter from the residents association and any other appellants offering to settle, and agree to the housing on site (but more vertical and some of the land made park) .

I expect Councillor Cheng would have difficulty producing those letters, which might work to defeat the motion. For all the added hassle cost, a settlement that approves the same number of units at a comparable cost (it will be more), on the same site, might be worth it, rather than letting this thing languish for another year.
 
Northern Light said:
The first one, politically, ought to be DOA.

Even members of Council sympathetic to the argument would look terrible, not just to housing advocates if they openly voted to scuttle the proposal.

The second motion may be a different matter as it may provide the veneer of a solution.

But if one were to whisper in the ear of a pro-housing councillor; maybe one would tell them they ought to offer to vote for the second motion, if, it comes with a letter from the residents association and any other appellants offering to settle, and agree to the housing on site (but more vertical and some of the land made park) .

I expect Councillor Cheng would have difficulty producing those letters, which might work to defeat the motion. For all the added hassle cost, a settlement that approves the same number of units at a comparable cost (it will be more), on the same site, might be worth it, rather than letting this thing languish for another year.
Click to expand...
You don't redesign a modular housing building AFTER you have already built the modules.

The choices are "build NOW as architected" --- or Start over from Scratch.
 
wow, seems they John Filion and Abi Bond really should have thought about all of that before 1) not having zoning permission, 2) acquiring all of the materials, 3) buying all that stuff without zoning permission despite it being a contractual requirement for the federal funds, to have zoning permission before acquiring materials

so, all of this waste is directly the result of that. it was spelled out in the contract, but hey, who wants to really follow those things, with other justifcations like "i'd happily ignore the contract because it's a righteous cause". all of this wasted time, money for storage, having modular homes purchased which may not ever be approved for use... thank Filion and Bond, and probably some other beauraucrats who didn't care to do due diligence
 
dustcollector said:
wow, seems they John Filion and Abi Bond really should have thought about all of that before 1) not having zoning permission, 2) acquiring all of the materials, 3) buying all that stuff without zoning permission despite it being a contractual requirement for the federal funds, to have zoning permission before acquiring materials

so, all of this waste is directly the result of that. it was spelled out in the contract, but hey, who wants to really follow those things, with other justifcations like "i'd happily ignore the contract because it's a righteous cause". all of this wasted time, money for storage, having modular homes purchased which may not ever be approved for use... thank Filion and Bond, and probably some other beauraucrats who didn't care to do due diligence
Click to expand...

You do realize you're doing nothing to buttress your cause here, right? That the manner in which you present yourself is one of open hostility to everyone else and one in which your perceived self-interest takes priority over human decency and that doesn't merit a single thought or consideration from you.
 
Northern Light said:
You do realize you're doing nothing to buttress your cause here, right? That the manner in which you present yourself is one of open hostility to everyone else and one in which your perceived self-interest takes priority over human decency and that doesn't merit a single thought or consideration from you.
Click to expand...
projections?
anyways, this is a forum to discuss developments and construction. not so much about psychological development and constructs. thank you to the earlier contributor who posted the city council document by people who have the actual ability to get things done, looking forward to this thread getting back on track and less of the yelling about opinions
 
dustcollector said:
wow, seems they John Filion and Abi Bond really should have thought about all of that before 1) not having zoning permission, 2) acquiring all of the materials, 3) buying all that stuff without zoning permission despite it being a contractual requirement for the federal funds, to have zoning permission before acquiring materials

so, all of this waste is directly the result of that. it was spelled out in the contract, but hey, who wants to really follow those things, with other justifcations like "i'd happily ignore the contract because it's a righteous cause". all of this wasted time, money for storage, having modular homes purchased which may not ever be approved for use... thank Filion and Bond, and probably some other beauraucrats who didn't care to do due diligence
Click to expand...

Don't forget Mayor John Tory who signed off on it! Housing Czar Abi Bond should be fired - for ramming through without proper zoning approvals which is now costing Toronto Taxpayers $77K per month storage plus $300K one way trips to Owen Sounds,... Here, seeing how the City of Toronto lied - get Federal funding for Modular Supportive Housing at 175 Cummer without proper prior zoning approval, as required!,... I suspect this was the same process at other Modular Supportive Housing sites throughout the City,... for which the City of Toronto could also be held liable in a class action suit! Housing Czar Abi Bond is a huge liability,...
1686329562623.png



BTW,.... there's a reason why BC - where Abi Bond was previously employed - won't allow Modular Supportive Housing near Senior Residence and Schools!
 
Last edited:
dustcollector said:
projections?
anyways, this is a forum to discuss developments and construction. not so much about psychological development and constructs. thank you to the earlier contributor who posted the city council document by people who have the actual ability to get things done, looking forward to this thread getting back on track and less of the yelling about opinions
Click to expand...
"Getting this thread back on track" would mean getting the project approved and built. The fact that the province has been able to derail this by not issuing an MZO, precisely because it's Cho and Ford's Conservative stronghold, is contemptible. So yes, let's "get this thread back on track".
sunnyraytoronto said:
Don't forget Mayor John Tory who signed off on it! Housing Czar Abi Bond should be fired - for ramming through without proper zoning approvals which is now costing Toronto Taxpayers $77K per month storage plus $300K one way trips to Owen Sounds,... Here, seeing how the City of Toronto lied - get Federal funding for Modular Supportive Housing at 175 Cummer without proper prior zoning approval, as required!,... I suspect this was the same process at other Modular Supportive Housing sites throughout the City,... for which the City of Toronto could also be held liable in a class action suit! Housing Czar Abi Bond is a huge liability,...


BTW,.... there's a reason why BC - where Abi Bond was previously employed - won't allow Modular Supportive Housing near Senior Residence and Schools!
Click to expand...
What's that?
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
BTW,.... there's a reason why BC - where Abi Bond was previously employed - won't allow Modular Supportive Housing near Senior Residence and Schools!
Click to expand...

Not to cast any doubt on your assertion, but I could not, on a cursory search, turn up any such restrictions on modular housing in BC/Vancouver.

Could you provide me a link to that regulation please? I'd be interested to give it a read. Thanks.
 
Kenojuak said:
Matt Elliott column: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...-site-should-be-a-mayoral-election-issue.html

Why this neighbourhood’s fight over a modular housing site should be a mayoral election issue: Much-needed housing units sit in storage more than two years after they were approved, a victim of government inaction and local NIMBYism.​

Click to expand...

and the councillour's response to the article:
www.lilycheng.ca

Regarding the motions moved for 175 Cummer Ave. proposed supportive housing location

The motions I have submitted are in response to a serious lapse in the democratic process where the voices of the seniors at 175 Cummer were never heard, acknowledged nor incorporated into the end design and decision. Further, the units were ordered before zoning was firm in an attempt to “force...
www.lilycheng.ca www.lilycheng.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top