Toronto’s zoning rules and Islamophobia
Muslim religious leaders took time this week from mourning the victims of the Quebec massacre to demonstrate at Toronto City Hall against the zoning rule that prevents religious organizations from buying and repurposing sites zoned as “employment land.”
Why did a zoning issue cause a protest? And why are Muslims feeling particularly targeted, even though the rule applies to all religions?
Context is everything. In the 1990s, when Muslim immigration sharply increased and more mosques were needed, municipal zoning rules created situations where neighbours who simply didn’t like Muslims could attend official public meetings and agitate to deny planning permission to mosques and other Muslim organizations. Times have changed somewhat: in recent years, city councils and councillors all over the GTA have generally supported their Muslim constituents in zoning disputes.
But Muslim leaders have not forgotten the not-sodistant past. Mississauga’s denial in the late 1990s of permission for a multi-purpose Islamic centre to expand to include a school and a travel agency specializing in Mecca trips was the best-known of these conflicts. In that case, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), not known for progressive political views, used its decision (which overturned Mississauga’s denial) to educate city council and then-mayor Hazel McCallion on the fundamentals of multiculturalism. In that case and many others, questionable fears and dislikes were often couched in the polite language of “not enough parking spots.”
In the current case about the Scarborough Islamic organization, a compromise solution may well be found. But how about taking a good look at the rules themselves and how they are implemented?
The zoning rules in place now throughout Ontario were certainly not designed against Muslims. But, like many apparently neutral legal rules, they have had and still have differential effects. For example: If a Muslim community wishes to build a mosque that is facing Mecca, that project will not be “as of right,” since all buildings are supposed to be built exactly parallel to the street or road. The community that wants a mosque with a religiously appropriate ori- entation will thus have to go cap in hand to the Committee of Adjustment.
There, neighbours are free to appear and say whatever they want about the proposal — since the official body that initially grants zoning exceptions allows, and indeed solicits input from neighbours. The city thus unwittingly provides an arena for potential populist prejudice.
Right now, the Muslim organization facing zoning issues may well get one-off support. But why should mosques have to fight for space one battle at a time, especially when they do not necessarily have the resources to hire lawyers to appeal all the way to the OMB?
What I have seen from years of research on zoning disputes is that when unpopular or controversial uses (such as homeless shelters) try to get variances, our “community consultation” process means that people who happen to live nearby get heard — while the current users and potential users of the facility, who might well reside elsewhere in the city or indeed outside of city boundaries, get no say. That is not real democracy.
Religious uses are highly restricted. But some religions have more money and more political capital than others — which is what is often needed to get exceptions and variances. And the traditional Christian religions have plenty of prime real estate anyway. If restrictions on religious uses are not loosened, Toronto’s non-Christian religious organizations, who have very little real estate and who, due to immigration, need to expand their mosques and temples, will be forced out into less restrictive municipalities.
That would be the worst possible message to send to Toronto’s diverse citizens — especially Muslims, and especially now. Using zoning laws to covertly or even unwittingly exclude groups from our city is in complete contravention of the city’s motto, “Diversity our strength.”