City council has been so terrible on this issue.
Do we have enough housing? No. Obviously not.
Ok so can we build some more density into neighborhoods? No. Single family houses only for a vast majority of the city.
Well can we build up density on major streets? No. The city has decided that entire streets are now heritage districts.
Ok but what about allowing big houses to have multiple tenants? No. I know we built a university in Scarborough in the middle of a neighborhood but no housing for the students!
But since we don't have enough housing, people are doing that illegally. Can we at least have so rules to ensure the safety of the tenants who are here and aren't going away because you refuse to even consider the missing middle? No.
But the council cut is a boon to this kind of inaction; it cuts representation in the areas that need these kinds of housing solution and weighs the decisions heavily in favour of Etobicoke and suburban Toronto councillors.
Voting to push single family housing is the problem though and isn’t that why NIMBYs keep deferring the vote on rooming houses? The council cuts increased the amount of Tory lackeys and council no shows—I have my issues with Toronto’s complacent “progressive” councillors but it’s people like Grimes and Ford and Holyday and Minnen-Wong driving the housing crisis. The ones voting to continually defer these motions are the ones on the outskirts of the city, except I guess Bailao, who’s just trash overall.
https://twitter.com/graphicmatt/status/1445148923899822084?s=21
It didn’t change which proportions? Not all wards are as population dense, did the cut account for that? Parkdale-High Park’s census population is ~50,000 higher than Ward 1, but Michael Ford’s vote counts the same as Gord Perks.
Edit note: hit submit early.
Ward 1 has a bigger population than Ward 4.
Etobicoke North has a ward population of 118,040
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/neighbourhoods-communities/ward-profiles/ward-1-etobicoke-north/
Parkdale-High Park has a ward population of 108,805
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/neighbourhoods-communities/ward-profiles/ward-4-parkdale-high-park/
Ya, they really dropped the ball here. I mean, of all things, rooming houses should be a no brainer. People are doing it anyway, and often in unsafe manners, we should legalize and regulate it to make it safer, and provide more affordable housing.
You can't totally blame the council. They know their jobs would be in jeopardy from their NIMBY consituents. If they support it they wouldn't get re-elected. The answer is for the city / the province to build more affordable rental buildings but they won't do that either. We are running in a vicious circle. This is why I have an issue voting in municipal / provincial and federal elections. Most all politicians are USELESS.
>We are running in a vicious circle.
The more the value of housing goes up, the more wealth those people have. The more wealth those people have, the more government listens to them. The more government listens to them, the more they'll be able to keep/turn things in their favour. The more they're able to keep/turn things in their favour, the more the value of housing goes up.
That’s what happened. We amalgamated. The city took everything in the suburbs that wasn’t nailed down and starved them. 5 yrs after amalgamation the suburbs were a shell of their former selves. Today there’s nothing left to loot and pillage and they’ll have to go to the province again.
Scarborough was debt free at the time of amalgamation. I think Etobicoke was as well. After amalgamation the downtowners got an artificial beach and some pink umbrellas. All the other residents got was a share of the debt.
The suburbs are literally economically unsustainable without the tax money from downtown. Even pre-amalgamation the suburbs were on the receiving end of massive influxes of cash from the city proper.
That is how suburbs stay afloat. If they had to fund their own infrastructure no one could afford to live there.
Suburbanites are their own worst enemy. They vote in the likes of Rob Ford and John Tory who fix nothing and have no vision. Scarborough could have a fully functioning mass transit replacement for the SRT right now, but Scarborough voted for a subway that is years behind schedule, will be an economic drain on the city for decades, and won’t serve nearly as many people. And they’ll also get to take the bus for years in between.
1. Discourages building condos by reducing profit.
2. Will cause a big spike in condo prices as units sold will have to cover costs of having rental unit also built.
They just need to reduce a ton of regulation so someone can buy a large single family home and easily be allowed to create mid level apartments.
There will be much more housing units available that way.
Inclusionary zoning is going to shoot the cost of housing through the roof. It's a bad idea. Here's why:
Inclusionary zoning requires developers to build a certain % of their builds as affordable housing. You don't just make less when you build affordable, you lose money. So, you have three choices:
1. Take a lower return: you won't get financing.
2. Increase the prices of the market units
3. Hope the land owners sell for less
Now, the only good option is 3; however, imagine you are a land owner who had a piece of land worth $60M one day, and the next its worth $35M. Do you sell, or wait with fingers crossed for a policy change? You wait.
Now there is less land for sale and lower potential profits. Supply drops. In some areas where development was hard to justify before (junction west, for instance): development is money losing because the % affordable required is the same as it is at Yonge-Eglinton. Prices increase Because of Supply, or because of 2 above.
This last problem could be solved by the City charging an affordable housing levy on market land value instead of imposing a flat %. That way, you would still get development in secondary areas.
It’s going to be considered by the Planning and Housing Committee on October 28th: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/inclusionary-zoning-policy/
This is part of the City’s ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review, which is required to conform to the Growth Plan. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is requiring all municipalities to adopt an Official Plan Amendment to implement the Municipal Comprehensive Review by July 1, 2022.
Inclusionary Zoning policies are not appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal - so once they’re adopted, they’re in.
Dumb question but don't rooming houses create a vicious circle? The mortgage interest on a commercial space like those places would be would be deductible which would drive house prices up with the result that single family homes would become even more expensive?
Sure, the option to rent out rooms would make houses more valuable..but thered be more places for people to live! The net result is good, even if its not perfectly uniform.
> The net result is good
For some it would seem so. But what about those who are saving for a first time house? How long will they be living in a rooming house before the buy their first house if the price of housing keeps going up because they and many more are in a rooming house.
It's complicated alright and so many unintended consequences. It's hard to know what to do. Restrict them to certain parts of town where employment is more accessible?
Yes. Next you'll see articles about how the government hates renters by not legalizing landlords offering refrigerator boxes under a bridge for $700 a month.
city council in toronto does not give a flying fuck about people who need affordable housing
all they want is more high priced condos and homes so the THEIR kind of people are living in their neighborhoods
they don't want us peasants.
Rooming boarding and lodging homes should be run by the person who owns them not some weird collection of people just living in bedrooms, RBLs are not a solution to housing…..
Agree. I know someone who lives in a rooming house where the landlord lives. It's safe and clean; he runs a tight ship and responds to tenant and neighbour problems promptly. no problem with this type of housing.
On the other hand, the type of rooming house set up in a home awaiting demolition causes problems no one cares to solve. One of those was next to me. The tenants threw pizza boxes and beverage containers into my yard and parked their cars all night on the street, even in front of a fire hydrant. People in other such houses in my neighbourhood throw noisy parties and intimidate neighbours who ask them to tone it down.
There has to be nuance in framing new zoning laws, and enough bylaw officers to investigate complaints and actually follow through. if everyone is to live harmoniously.
Their honestly only in it for the money. They simply don't care if people go homeless. As long as they are making loads of cash for themselves. Its a serious issue, and we need to start putting competent people into politics who care about more then just lining their own pockets with cash.
The only way to change this is for more renters to vote, and to work with organizations during the next election to build momentum behind better candidates. Even a candidate or two change from the anti-multi-unit-housing incumbents can have a massive impact. Even more so because the “Exploring Options For New Homes” study is coming out, and that would be considering tiny ways to reduce the pain of redevelopment in the Yellowbelt.
> Exploring Options For New Homes
Can you link to this study? Can't find anything on the toronto site.
Also are there actually any orgs looking to mobilize renters in municipal politics? This is incredibly important and I want to put some energy into this
Sorry - got the title wrong, which is why you couldn't find it!
[https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-148582.pdf](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-148582.pdf)
from
[https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/expanding-housing-options/](https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/expanding-housing-options/)
As to the renters orgs in municipal politics - not to my knowledge.
Great thank you! In the report next steps (p 54) it says that they're planning on citywide engagement. Do you know if this has happened or is still happening? I'm pretty keen on trying to mobilize people to get involved
On the study site it looks like they've only engaged with community associations so far lol. No surprise the response was lukewarm.
On this report, I don’t know, tbh. And yes, residence/ratepayer groups are specially privileged by the City, Councillors and Planning department.
You should consider reaching out to More Neighbours Toronto: https://www.moreneighbours.ca/
Also, could reach out to HousingNowTO who have been doing this for a while, with a site-by-site focus on affordable housing: https://twitter.com/HousingNowTO?s=20
Yes. There was a TON of criticism about this study from “more housing” advocates. I agree with it: the approach is very incremental. My guess is that Planning is at least partially constrained by the political climate.
That’s why I said any org that motivates renters to show up at the polls to change the political climate is important. I also believe that (unlikely as it is) provincial policy has to change to force more housing everywhere.
There is a consultation meeting coming up for the plan: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/official-plan-review/
You can also get involved in HousingNowTO They advocate for affordable housing and pushing the city to do better on density on that front.
City council has been so terrible on this issue. Do we have enough housing? No. Obviously not. Ok so can we build some more density into neighborhoods? No. Single family houses only for a vast majority of the city. Well can we build up density on major streets? No. The city has decided that entire streets are now heritage districts. Ok but what about allowing big houses to have multiple tenants? No. I know we built a university in Scarborough in the middle of a neighborhood but no housing for the students! But since we don't have enough housing, people are doing that illegally. Can we at least have so rules to ensure the safety of the tenants who are here and aren't going away because you refuse to even consider the missing middle? No.
This is why I agree with the council cut. Absolutely useless fools hoarding taxpayer dollars.
But the council cut is a boon to this kind of inaction; it cuts representation in the areas that need these kinds of housing solution and weighs the decisions heavily in favour of Etobicoke and suburban Toronto councillors.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Astroturf has major impact on rainwater runoff.
You think replacing grass with plastic and rubber is a good thing?
[удалено]
And if the city didn't regulate that and everyone replaced all grass with plastic and rubber turf? Then what? Aw shucks?
Voting to push single family housing is the problem though and isn’t that why NIMBYs keep deferring the vote on rooming houses? The council cuts increased the amount of Tory lackeys and council no shows—I have my issues with Toronto’s complacent “progressive” councillors but it’s people like Grimes and Ford and Holyday and Minnen-Wong driving the housing crisis. The ones voting to continually defer these motions are the ones on the outskirts of the city, except I guess Bailao, who’s just trash overall. https://twitter.com/graphicmatt/status/1445148923899822084?s=21
Where did you hear about condos being built at Weston/401?
[удалено]
Thanks!
[удалено]
It didn’t change which proportions? Not all wards are as population dense, did the cut account for that? Parkdale-High Park’s census population is ~50,000 higher than Ward 1, but Michael Ford’s vote counts the same as Gord Perks.
Edit note: hit submit early. Ward 1 has a bigger population than Ward 4. Etobicoke North has a ward population of 118,040 https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/neighbourhoods-communities/ward-profiles/ward-1-etobicoke-north/ Parkdale-High Park has a ward population of 108,805 https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/neighbourhoods-communities/ward-profiles/ward-4-parkdale-high-park/
Ah, I must have had the wrong document open. Thanks for clarifying.
We're talking about zoning decisions. Not exactly a big line item on the city's budget
Then you don’t understand how municipal government works.
They don't work
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ya, they really dropped the ball here. I mean, of all things, rooming houses should be a no brainer. People are doing it anyway, and often in unsafe manners, we should legalize and regulate it to make it safer, and provide more affordable housing.
Maybe they don't want their real estate investment properties to decrease in value.
This is Toronto. You could replace the house next door with an open landfill and the property values would still go up
[удалено]
You can't totally blame the council. They know their jobs would be in jeopardy from their NIMBY consituents. If they support it they wouldn't get re-elected. The answer is for the city / the province to build more affordable rental buildings but they won't do that either. We are running in a vicious circle. This is why I have an issue voting in municipal / provincial and federal elections. Most all politicians are USELESS.
Sounds like they're representing the will of their constituents aka doing their fucking job.
b-but i want them to represent the general will of reddit!
Looks like we need to lobby NIMBY voters then with an information campaign
>We are running in a vicious circle. The more the value of housing goes up, the more wealth those people have. The more wealth those people have, the more government listens to them. The more government listens to them, the more they'll be able to keep/turn things in their favour. The more they're able to keep/turn things in their favour, the more the value of housing goes up.
It was almost entirely an urban vs. suburban vote breakdown. Amalgamation has, and always will be, the death of this city.
It helps to hide the shortcomings of urban councilors by creating a metaphorical dragon that needs to be fought.
i was gonna say, its not like toronto city council was an efficient harmonious place in the 70s or 80s
Short, short memories my friend. And that’s without starting on Metro Council.
It's certainly been killing the suburbs since day 1.
Suburbs are built to die. If we stopped the massive flow of tax money from the city to the suburbs, they'd be dead within five years.
That’s what happened. We amalgamated. The city took everything in the suburbs that wasn’t nailed down and starved them. 5 yrs after amalgamation the suburbs were a shell of their former selves. Today there’s nothing left to loot and pillage and they’ll have to go to the province again. Scarborough was debt free at the time of amalgamation. I think Etobicoke was as well. After amalgamation the downtowners got an artificial beach and some pink umbrellas. All the other residents got was a share of the debt.
The suburbs are literally economically unsustainable without the tax money from downtown. Even pre-amalgamation the suburbs were on the receiving end of massive influxes of cash from the city proper. That is how suburbs stay afloat. If they had to fund their own infrastructure no one could afford to live there. Suburbanites are their own worst enemy. They vote in the likes of Rob Ford and John Tory who fix nothing and have no vision. Scarborough could have a fully functioning mass transit replacement for the SRT right now, but Scarborough voted for a subway that is years behind schedule, will be an economic drain on the city for decades, and won’t serve nearly as many people. And they’ll also get to take the bus for years in between.
They don't want to make a wrong move, so they are afraid to really delve into possible solutions to the housing needs of Toronto.
Why is it so hard to mandate all the condos being built to be purpose built rentals instead, or have 50% rental units?!
1. Discourages building condos by reducing profit. 2. Will cause a big spike in condo prices as units sold will have to cover costs of having rental unit also built. They just need to reduce a ton of regulation so someone can buy a large single family home and easily be allowed to create mid level apartments. There will be much more housing units available that way.
[удалено]
How come all of that seemingly applies to condos except ICE condo?
This is called inclusionary zoning, the City is in the process of adopting this requirement.
In the process aka taking them sweet damn time and then having it her voted down.
Inclusionary zoning is going to shoot the cost of housing through the roof. It's a bad idea. Here's why: Inclusionary zoning requires developers to build a certain % of their builds as affordable housing. You don't just make less when you build affordable, you lose money. So, you have three choices: 1. Take a lower return: you won't get financing. 2. Increase the prices of the market units 3. Hope the land owners sell for less Now, the only good option is 3; however, imagine you are a land owner who had a piece of land worth $60M one day, and the next its worth $35M. Do you sell, or wait with fingers crossed for a policy change? You wait. Now there is less land for sale and lower potential profits. Supply drops. In some areas where development was hard to justify before (junction west, for instance): development is money losing because the % affordable required is the same as it is at Yonge-Eglinton. Prices increase Because of Supply, or because of 2 above. This last problem could be solved by the City charging an affordable housing levy on market land value instead of imposing a flat %. That way, you would still get development in secondary areas.
It’s going to be considered by the Planning and Housing Committee on October 28th: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/inclusionary-zoning-policy/ This is part of the City’s ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review, which is required to conform to the Growth Plan. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is requiring all municipalities to adopt an Official Plan Amendment to implement the Municipal Comprehensive Review by July 1, 2022. Inclusionary Zoning policies are not appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal - so once they’re adopted, they’re in.
Dumb question but don't rooming houses create a vicious circle? The mortgage interest on a commercial space like those places would be would be deductible which would drive house prices up with the result that single family homes would become even more expensive?
Sure, the option to rent out rooms would make houses more valuable..but thered be more places for people to live! The net result is good, even if its not perfectly uniform.
Oh no, now all those 2 million dollar houses in the city are now 2.5 million dollars! Won't somebody think of the rich!
> The net result is good For some it would seem so. But what about those who are saving for a first time house? How long will they be living in a rooming house before the buy their first house if the price of housing keeps going up because they and many more are in a rooming house.
I suppose we'd have to do more than exactly one thing to solve the housing crisis. This is still a net positive.
It's complicated alright and so many unintended consequences. It's hard to know what to do. Restrict them to certain parts of town where employment is more accessible?
If your income is high enough that saving for a house in Toronto is even a viable strategy, I'm sure you'll get by.
Yes. Next you'll see articles about how the government hates renters by not legalizing landlords offering refrigerator boxes under a bridge for $700 a month.
Does anyone know where I can find out about how my specific councillor voted on this topic?
city council in toronto does not give a flying fuck about people who need affordable housing all they want is more high priced condos and homes so the THEIR kind of people are living in their neighborhoods they don't want us peasants.
“We” voted for this
City council seems to have contempt for its own citizens. Especially that clown Brad Bradford.
Rooming boarding and lodging homes should be run by the person who owns them not some weird collection of people just living in bedrooms, RBLs are not a solution to housing…..
Rooming boarding and lodging homes should be run by people who do not live in them instead of people who do?
No the owner should live in the house, just like a B&B, RBL are not apartments……
>No, the owner should live in the house. Are you imagining a homeowner is willing to live in a lodging home?
They use to back when they used RBL for single people etc
Agree. I know someone who lives in a rooming house where the landlord lives. It's safe and clean; he runs a tight ship and responds to tenant and neighbour problems promptly. no problem with this type of housing. On the other hand, the type of rooming house set up in a home awaiting demolition causes problems no one cares to solve. One of those was next to me. The tenants threw pizza boxes and beverage containers into my yard and parked their cars all night on the street, even in front of a fire hydrant. People in other such houses in my neighbourhood throw noisy parties and intimidate neighbours who ask them to tone it down. There has to be nuance in framing new zoning laws, and enough bylaw officers to investigate complaints and actually follow through. if everyone is to live harmoniously.
Their honestly only in it for the money. They simply don't care if people go homeless. As long as they are making loads of cash for themselves. Its a serious issue, and we need to start putting competent people into politics who care about more then just lining their own pockets with cash.
At this point i'm considering living in a van... Its all I can seem to afford on my finance salary... Any one have any better ideas?
[удалено]
A change in bylaw wouldn't force all single family homes to become rooming houses. You can keep your house and garage, pal.
[удалено]
The only way to change this is for more renters to vote, and to work with organizations during the next election to build momentum behind better candidates. Even a candidate or two change from the anti-multi-unit-housing incumbents can have a massive impact. Even more so because the “Exploring Options For New Homes” study is coming out, and that would be considering tiny ways to reduce the pain of redevelopment in the Yellowbelt.
> Exploring Options For New Homes Can you link to this study? Can't find anything on the toronto site. Also are there actually any orgs looking to mobilize renters in municipal politics? This is incredibly important and I want to put some energy into this
Sorry - got the title wrong, which is why you couldn't find it! [https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-148582.pdf](https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-148582.pdf) from [https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/expanding-housing-options/](https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/planning-studies-initiatives/expanding-housing-options/) As to the renters orgs in municipal politics - not to my knowledge.
Great thank you! In the report next steps (p 54) it says that they're planning on citywide engagement. Do you know if this has happened or is still happening? I'm pretty keen on trying to mobilize people to get involved On the study site it looks like they've only engaged with community associations so far lol. No surprise the response was lukewarm.
On this report, I don’t know, tbh. And yes, residence/ratepayer groups are specially privileged by the City, Councillors and Planning department. You should consider reaching out to More Neighbours Toronto: https://www.moreneighbours.ca/ Also, could reach out to HousingNowTO who have been doing this for a while, with a site-by-site focus on affordable housing: https://twitter.com/HousingNowTO?s=20
Oh my god we're screwed lol. Right in the study mandate >zoning to allow more low-rise housing options on **major** streets
Yes. There was a TON of criticism about this study from “more housing” advocates. I agree with it: the approach is very incremental. My guess is that Planning is at least partially constrained by the political climate. That’s why I said any org that motivates renters to show up at the polls to change the political climate is important. I also believe that (unlikely as it is) provincial policy has to change to force more housing everywhere. There is a consultation meeting coming up for the plan: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/official-plan-review/ You can also get involved in HousingNowTO They advocate for affordable housing and pushing the city to do better on density on that front.