Toronto One Delisle | 155m | 44s | Slate | Studio Gang

NeilV said:
I wonder why the Cooks don't have a problem with the significantly taller proposal just across the street...
Click to expand...
They won't be aware of it until hoarding is up, despite receiving multiple certified letters, the sign on the property, the agenda in the newspaper and on public access, the facebook post, and the tweets
 
WislaHD said:
They won't be aware of it until hoarding is up, despite receiving multiple certified letters, the sign on the property, the agenda in the newspaper and on public access, the facebook post, and the tweets
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they just aren't as "horrified" by that one because it's positioned a bit less unfavourably relative to their window at 10 Delisle.
 
Kenojuak said:
Let's call out these ridiculous people by name.

View attachment 252328

William John Cook and Carol Burnham Cook are the bullies. There are so many levels of ignorance in this letter.

"Our understanding is that Yonge and St. Clair is not a designated growth area..." -- WRONG. But don't let ignorance of the planning framework get in the way of a strongly worded letter from some rich white boomers.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to bring race and age into this? They could be any age and any race. You don't even know, you're just presuming. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion or supporting them, just don't think this kind of attitude is a good one to have.
 
khristopher said:
Why do you feel the need to bring race and age into this? They could be any age and any race. You don't even know, you're just presuming. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion or supporting them, just don't think this kind of attitude is a good one to have.
Click to expand...
You are actually the one presuming. I looked them up before making my comment. They are not “any age and any race” — they are white boomer property owners. I am not going to share more details about them as it’s unnecessary and perhaps a bit invasive despite their names being public.

In my experience, having been to many dozens of public meetings, old white property owners are significantly overrepresented as NIMBYs. I believe this comes from a self-centred worldview in many cases. Plus retired property owners of privilege have the time and confidence to aggressively participate in processes in this manner. Read the letter, dude. It’s problematic.
 
Last edited:
I am astounded by the ignorance and toxicity in these last few pages. First, the race, age and any other immutable characteristics of the nimbys are irrelevant. You can respond to their arguments without the racial and ageist slurs. Raise your argument, not your voice. Sure, nimbys' arguments are often silly, but why not just say that without the toxic racial rhetoric?

How well do you think it would go down in this forum if someone dismissed a black/brown/Asian person's argument with the phrase "oh, he's just a black"? And it would be rightly dismissed because it's a racist ad hominem - but for some reason, you're allowed to do so when responding to a white person's argument and find support from many other users on this forum. In addition, the moderators' silence (aka complicity) is deafening (and tone deaf).

Not to mention it's pretty ironic that you're complaining about some silly nimby "outrage" with extremely toxic outrage of your own. Pot, meet kettle.

Finally, it is deeply disturbing if someone holding such views is employed in our city's planning/administrative structure. I sure hope you are not involved with planning in any way as I doubt local residents would get a fair hearing for their concerns (frivolous or otherwise) if their public servant holds these extremely problematic views toward their damn race, of all things. Are you not bound by provincial and/or federal legislation to provide non-discriminatory service?

All in all, this is some next level BS in sharp contrast to the spirit (and maybe even letter) of our cherished values of tolerance and inclusivity as Canadians. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
 
kali said:
I am astounded by the ignorance and toxicity in these last few pages. First, the race, age and any other immutable characteristics of the nimbys are irrelevant. You can respond to their arguments without the racial and ageist slurs. Raise your argument, not your voice. Sure, nimbys' arguments are often silly, but why not just say that without the toxic racial rhetoric?

How well do you think it would go down in this forum if someone dismissed a black/brown/Asian person's argument with the phrase "oh, he's just a black"? And it would be rightly dismissed because it's a racist ad hominem - but for some reason, you're allowed to do so when responding to a white person's argument and find support from many other users on this forum. In addition, the moderators' silence (aka complicity) is deafening (and tone deaf).

Not to mention it's pretty ironic that you're complaining about some silly nimby "outrage" with extremely toxic outrage of your own. Pot, meet kettle.

Finally, it is deeply disturbing if someone holding such views is employed in our city's planning/administrative structure. I sure hope you are not involved with planning in any way as I doubt local residents would get a fair hearing for their concerns (frivolous or otherwise) if their public servant holds these extremely problematic views toward their damn race, of all things. Are you not bound by provincial and/or federal legislation to provide non-discriminatory service?

All in all, this is some next level BS in sharp contrast to the spirit (and maybe even letter) of our cherished values of tolerance and inclusivity as Canadians. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
Click to expand...

E92E8EB2-358D-4171-91C8-25EFB4E0777C.jpeg
 
kali said:
I am astounded by the ignorance and toxicity in these last few pages. First, the race, age and any other immutable characteristics of the nimbys are irrelevant. You can respond to their arguments without the racial and ageist slurs. Raise your argument, not your voice. Sure, nimbys' arguments are often silly, but why not just say that without the toxic racial rhetoric?

How well do you think it would go down in this forum if someone dismissed a black/brown/Asian person's argument with the phrase "oh, he's just a black"? And it would be rightly dismissed because it's a racist ad hominem - but for some reason, you're allowed to do so when responding to a white person's argument and find support from many other users on this forum. In addition, the moderators' silence (aka complicity) is deafening (and tone deaf).

Not to mention it's pretty ironic that you're complaining about some silly nimby "outrage" with extremely toxic outrage of your own. Pot, meet kettle.

Finally, it is deeply disturbing if someone holding such views is employed in our city's planning/administrative structure. I sure hope you are not involved with planning in any way as I doubt local residents would get a fair hearing for their concerns (frivolous or otherwise) if their public servant holds these extremely problematic views toward their damn race, of all things. Are you not bound by provincial and/or federal legislation to provide non-discriminatory service?

All in all, this is some next level BS in sharp contrast to the spirit (and maybe even letter) of our cherished values of tolerance and inclusivity as Canadians. Unbelievable and unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Big "All NIMBYs Matter" energy.

The reality is wealth and property ownership is highly mapped onto whiteness (and it is very generational too). Discussion of whiteness and older generations having all the wealth is inseparable from any discussion of inequality and property-owners' reflexive defence of the status quo. White people (fwiw I'm white) need to reckon with this and it's not wrong to recognize this aspect of it. Racism is a dynamic of *power* not just a word game where if you sub in one word for another it is the same.
 
Last edited:
If only NIMBYs would channel some of that energy into being horrified at developers bullying their way into razing historical buildings for bland glass boxes, getting rid of Toronto's interesting buildings.
 
Nice, still no coherent counter argument that doesn't involved bigoted slurs.

concrete_and_light said:
Discussion of whiteness and older generations having all the wealth is inseparable from any discussion of inequality and property-owners' reflexive defence of the status quo. White people (fwiw I'm white) need to reckon with this and it's not wrong to recognize this aspect of it. Racism is a dynamic of *power* not just a word game where if you sub in one word for another it is the same.
Click to expand...

yea, not the actual definition of racism but ok. Most of my friends are non-white and nearly all agree this kind of rhetoric is very toxic. Interestingly, it's mainly white people who buy into this self-flagellating crap.

ChesterCopperpot said:
William? Carol?
Click to expand...

No, just a normal person calling out bigotry when I see it.

BubbleTea said:
If only NIMBYs would channel some of that energy into being horrified at developers bullying their way into razing historical buildings for bland glass boxes, getting rid of Toronto's interesting buildings.
Click to expand...

Sure, but irrelevant in the current context.
 
Last edited:
kali said:
Nice, still no coherent counter argument that doesn't involved bigoted slurs.



yea, not the actual definition of racism but ok. Most of my friends are non-white and nearly all agree this kind of rhetoric is very toxic. Interestingly, it's mainly white people who buy into this self-flagellating crap.



No, just a normal person calling out bigotry when I see it.



Sure, but irrelevant in the current context.
Click to expand...

Acknowledging white privilege is racist? uh no.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top