THE HOME FRONT
How to fight rampant development? It takes good neighbours.
“Resident versus developer” is a familiar fight in Toronto, and it’s one that a group of neighbours on Springmount Ave. find themselves in — repeatedly.
Under the banner Springmount Collective, residents are taking on a developer’s plan to demolish their rental homes and build luxury row houses on this block in the St. Clair Ave. W. and Oakwood Ave. area.
They won their first fight at the Committee of Adjustment last fall, and then earlier this year came out on top in a second round in front of the Toronto Local Appeal Body.
Now they’re facing their third battle: another appeal by the developer who has challenged the initial ruling based on legal technicalities. A new hearing is slated for next month. “It’s important that people understand anybody can fight these things,” said resident Andrew Tay.
“You use the tools you have available, and if you need help, then you find those people that can help you.”
“Just watching all of (this) unfold, you get the sense of how important pluralism is because you’ve got all of these different views and experiences,” added Ali Garrison, who spoke to the Star along with other collective members Andrew Manson and Edwige Jean-Pierre about their ongoing battle.
How did the collective get rolling?
Ali Garrison: That first year we looked into starting a co-op. We talked to our MPP, our city councillor, even to our MP about some different options to create a co-op. What ended up happening was we didn’t feel that any of us could afford the initial downpayment for the shares to create that. Once we couldn’t ... figure out how to create a co-op, then we went into defence mode.
What did that entail?
Andrew Manson: Because we’d already had some meetings together, we talked and got a sense of where we all were, it was then easy to organize again with a slightly different focus.
How does the collective work?
AG: It’s flexible, and I really appreciate that. That’s one of the things I think must frustrate a lot of citizen groups. Like how can we keep up this fight for this many years with no reinforcements and the same people always leading.
AM: And we’re totally unpaid, doing hundreds of hours of research, detailed strategizing.
What was the first Committee of Adjustment meeting like?
AM: It was stressful. It was a big deal. AG: And none of us knew what the hell we were doing.
AM: It was like trial by fire. We had two weeks to canvass and get everybody to write letters and sign petitions ... 25 of us showed up. That really sent a message to the developers.
You won. Then what happened?
AM: We suspected they were going to appeal (to the Toronto Local Appeal Body, which replaced the Ontario Municipal Board) ... When I got the notice about the appeal (last Dec. 1) I was like, oh, crap. Committee of Adjustment is a more informal process whereas TLAB is so much more formal; it’s semi legalistic. People who don’t have lawyers, they usually lose, right?
Andrew Tay: The process is still quite daunting. TLAB actually states they’re committed to a faster timeline (compared to the OMB), which maybe for smaller projects makes sense. For a situation like this, I don’t think (a shorter lead time to a hearing is) really fair to citizens and residents. A lot of other neighbourhood and residents’ associa-
tions in their fights have complained about this problem because there’s not enough time — especially when you consider the developers already have a head start.
AM: They already have all their money. They already have all their experts lined up.
How did you prepare for the hearing?
AT: The only reason why we figured this stuff out was by reading a whole lot of stuff really fast and acting really fast … over Christmas break. Dec. 27 was the second evidence submission deadline. They submit like 400 pages of evidence and we have to counteract it. So it took 10 days over Christmas break to put it together.
AM: We didn’t do much for Christmas. I was talking to him (gesturing towards Tay) on the phone Christmas Day.
Edwige Jean-Pierre: I thought it was unreasonable.
What happened at the hearing?
AM: It was a long day. EJP: They presented their side for (what seemed like) at least six hours, I’d say. We only got an hour-and-a-half at the most, for the cross-examination on our side and for the participants to speak ... I hate to say it but it’s like the rich versus poor.
Were there legal costs involved? How did you pay?
AM: We hired a paralegal to help ... but no one knows your issue as well as you. We all contributed ... out of pocket.
Did you ever feel like throwing in the towel?
AT: In individual moments. There’s always a moment where it’s just like, ugh.
AM: Considering we’re not being paid to do this. It’s not just two days off for another hearing, it’s also the massive amounts of time to prepare all this stuff, and to have to do it again.
What keeps you motivated?
AG: We kind of keep encouraging each other. Having a cohesion is really helpful because there can be that solidarity in the face of a common enemy.
EJP: Also the (rental) vacancy rate in Toronto. If we happen to move out, these places are still in good enough shape that other people can live (in them).
AG: These aren’t dilapidated, fallingapart homes. They are beautiful.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
DIY Democracy is a weekly look at citizens of Toronto who are taking a grassroots approach to improving life in the city.