posted July 5, 2005

Dufferin Park Resdidents Association now has its own website (including material on the Dovercourt Square Development) at www.thedgra.org

---

There's such a lot of material on this issue, we've created a special area for it. The material is posted in date order, bottom to top.

• Report on the Dufferin Grove Resident's Association AGM
• Dufferin Grove Resident's Association AGM, March 30, 2005
• Community Council Meeting about Dovercourt, Tuesday February 8
• Meeting, December 6
• A philosophical perspective, November 29
• Report of November 23 Public meeting, November 29
• Dover Square thoughts, November 28
• From the Neighbours, November 23
• Message digest, November 23
• Public Meeting about Dover Square re-development, November 23
• Dufferin Grove Resident's Association Meeting, Oct 21, 6:30pm
• Dover Square Re-Development goes to OMB (September, 2004)

Report on the Dufferin Grove Resident's Association AGM

March 30, 2005, 7:00pm, Dewson Street Jr. P.S., about the Dovercourt Square redevelopment

DOVER SQUARE DEVELOPMENT

On Wednesday March 30, the Dufferin Grove Residents’ Association held its first Annual General Meeting at Dewson Public School, following incorporation. The big issue at the meeting was, of course, the planned addition of another building containing 285 rental units - set to rent for considerably more money than the current apartments - at Dover Square, 730 Dovercourt. There was a big range of opinions at the well-attended meeting. One contingent felt that there should be picketers and a media campaign to stop the development altogether. Another opinion held that the residents’ association would need to collect at least $10,000 to hire a lawyer to represent neighborhood interests at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearings at the beginning of May. A third opinion felt that such an amount was too much and that since the City planners and Councillor Pantalone have now come out against the development, residents could put their faith in the City to resist the developer.

Former Toronto mayor and anti-amalgamation leader John Sewell had been invited to speak, and he suggested a fourth alternative. He said, find out what the people in the neighborhood, including the present Dover Square tenants, would like the developer to do, to improve his plans. Maybe the community would like a better green space plan between the buildings, rent control on existing units that become empty over the next five years (so the rents don’t all float upwards), a cap of 200 new rental units, and the free use of a party room, available for tenant meetings as well. And maybe the community would support direct planning discussions between the developer and the community. The talks would try to arrive at a building form that both can agree on, for the new building at the north end of the project - this process to be completed within two months.

If a solid core of residents can decide on what they want, Sewell said, they can agree to withdraw their objections, and ask others to withdraw theirs, and both sides can forget about going to the OMB.

Sewell’s approach says that the OMB is a big, expensive gamble and it’s better for both the community and the developer to talk directly. As of the printing of this newsletter, residents’ association founder Andrew Munger told us that the association’s approach had not been decided. For more information, go to the park web site at www.dufferinpark.ca and click on neighbourhood. You can also e-mail the Dufferin Grove Residents’ Association at thedgra@canoemail.com.

Dufferin Grove Resident's Association AGM

March 30, 2005, 7:00pm, Dewson Street Jr. P.S., about the Dovercourt Square redevelopment

Read the Flyer >>

Community Council Meeting about Dovercourt, Tuesday February 8, 2005

...to consider, among other things, Rezoning and Official Plan Amendment Application 730 Dovercourt Road, 323 and 357 Rusholme Road.

Ed: The following information was forwarded to us by Andrew Munger. For the planning report that will be considered, see dovercourt planning report. Some related links to the city website: Community Councils | Toronto and East York Community Council | Agenda of the Toronto and East York Community Council Meeting, February 8, 9:30 am, City Hall (Hit the blue text on the agenda document to hyperlink to related documents).

From: "Ryan Merkley" <rmerkley@toronto.ca>
Date: January 31, 2005 10:54:32 AM EST
Subject: Community Council Report - 730 Dovercourt (Doversquare)

Good morning,

The attached planning report on the development at 730 Dovercourt will be before Toronto and East York Community Council on February 8, 2005 for consideration. The report will be available online on the city website as of tomorrow. As promised, I am distributing it in advance by e-mail. I encourage you to distribute it widely to your neighbours.

If you would like to make a deputation, you can call 416.392.7033, or e-mail teycc@toronto.ca.

Best,
Ryan

---

Meeting, December 6

The Dufferin Grove Residents Association will hold a meeting on Monday, December 6, 630 - 8 PM in the basement at Gladstone Library to update residents on the fight against the Dover Square development. Residents concerned about this development and other issues in our community are encouraged to attend and join the DGRA. Please email me directly if you would like more information.

Andrew Munger
63 Hepbourne St.
amunger@sympatico.ca

A philosophical perspective, November 29

Hi Jutta, asking me about how to get people housed is a bit like asking you how to make parks good community spaces...I'm so steeped in the theory and practice that my answers will either be too simple or way too long!!!

I think the short answer is, we need a total transformation of the way housing is conceived of in our society. I advocate viewing it as a social entitlement like education or health care. In Scandinavian countries and some European countries it is seen that way and there is much less homelessness. I think this is both a policy issue and a culture issue. In Europe there is a tradition of the commons and a history of social uprisings over attempts to enclose them. Canada is founded on a model of stealing and commodifying people's traditional lands for profit, so this problem has been with us from the beginning. Here's the policy answer: According to David Hulchanski, Canada's leading housing scholar, Canada has the most market-driven housing system of all industrialized countries, even the U.S. in which homeownership is substantially subsidized. Housing here is almost totally commodified; only 1% of Canadians live in social/subsidized housing, compared with an average of about 20% in European countries. As you know, both the federal and provincial levels of government stopped funding new subsidized housing development in the mid-90s and the escalation of homelessness since then is obvious.

It is a simple truth of construction that housing CANNOT be both profitable and affordable. Canada needs at least 30 000 new units of subsidized housing each year in order to meet demand of people whose incomes can't cover market rents (that's about the level it was at in the mid-80's). Otherwise you get the situation like in Toronto where there are over 70 000 households on the waiting list for subsidized housing (this list includes subsidized units in mixed-rental coops as well as "Ontario housing" and any developments built by the non-profit sector). Most housing advocates agree that we need a mixture of rent supplements (that is, government money for housing that goes with people, instead of apartments), plus apartments whose rent is geared to tenants' incomes, plus housing with specific support services available, plus portable support services people can take with them as they change housing. All of this could be ours for a tiny increase of 1% in the portion of federal and provincial budgets allocated to housing.

An increase in welfare rates and minimum wage and widening EI eligibility criteria would help too, but if housing is completely market-driven then landlords will quickly raise prices to meet people's new ability to pay and the basic shortage of housing that is outside the profit system won't be addressed. Housing prices are a bit like the weather if they're entirely market-driven. I think the very best model for combining non-profit, subsidized housing with autonomy and ownership has been the coop model, which by the way is a Canadian invention. What's cool is that many existing non-profit housing projects that didn't start out as coops have incorporated coop-like aspects like tenant meetings, committees, shared duties, etc. People I know who live in coops complain about in-fighting, power struggles, and exclusion among the residents so I know they aren't perfect but they beat the hell out of Sterling Karamar's empire. But coop funding is part of the same money the feds and province pulled in the mid-90s and have not yet put back (in spite of the supposed new Federal-Provincial Affordable Housing Program, not one new unit of affordable housing has been built in Ontario).

But this brings us back to the culture problem. In countries like the Netherlands and England there have been very successful squatters' movements, in part because there are old laws on the books giving title to a place's inhabitants. Here in Canada squatting is seen as a very radical fringe activity, and squatters have no laws on their side. So the ideal method for getting housing without waiting around for the government to give it to us--taking over empty buildings, fixing them up together and living in them with ownership--almost never succeeds here. And subsidizing the rental market doesn't remedy the basic inequity between homeowners who get to derive wealth and equity from the money they spend on housing, and renters whose rent just goes. (Hulchanski has some amazing statistics about this, there is such a deep divide in wealth and income between owners and renters that he calls this divide "two Canadas"). Plus I've worked with enough homeless people who obviously were never going to be able to stay in a place that ANYBODY else made the rules about, even a non-profit landlord, and what would have worked best for them would have been ownership. Having a temperament like this works fine for the people who can afford to own, but if you're poor and insubordinate, watch out!! So we have a very basic problem of housing being a privilege, and a soceity built on class distinctions and exclusion and commodification, not to mention the whole construct of property to begin with.

But in this context, and on a community-neighbourhood level, I think there are things we can do. For example, with Dover Square, I haven't given up hope that a community mobilization could force the city and the OMB to require the landlord to improve conditions for the existing tenants and hold rents to "affordable" levels in the old and new buildings. (I know this hope is still at odds with many people's basic objections to any new building there at all). Maybe we could even make this development an example of a new way of building housing, if we can get some leverage and identify what types of secret incentives the city is offering Sterling Karamar and find out what extra money is kicking around for housing and shame them into spending it here. (And there is always extra money, like that $800 000 the city spent on empty motel rooms in St. Catharine's).

We could also position ourselves as a "YIMBY" neighbourhood, where homeowners and tenants and merchants all want to bring affordable housing IN instead of keeping it out. Many not-for-profit groups build small housing projects for specific populations, and the biggest problem they run into is local residents trying (often successfully) to keep them out. We can also oppose the ways in which public spaces are being closed off to homeless people (no tenting or sleeping or campfires in parks, arms being put in the middle of park benches, etc.). I would love to see the community spirit and expertise in this neighbourhood put towards the end of making housing happen.

Emily Paradis

Report of November 23 Public meeting, November 29

---

Over 250 residents turned out last Tuesday night at the Japanese Centennial Church to hear Toronto City Planners and Sterling Karamar (formerly Sterling Silver) Development present their plan for a 285 unit high rise building and a new road in our community. The overwhelming sentiment of the meeting was opposition to this destructive intrusion on our community. While two or three people mentioned the importance of building rental housing, no one spoke in support of the development. Several Dover Square residents spoke in frustration of their dealings with the building owner over a number of issues including large rent increases, maintenance, and respect for the tenants.

Our own Jutta Mason spoke quite eloquently about the dangers of building a road through a highly used recreation space. Jutta mentioned a study on childhood injuries, and the evidence indicates that cars are responsible for a majority of them. Introducing a road to a recreation area can only increase the danger to children.

Many many people have asked how they can stay informed and help fight this development. The best way is for people to join and become active in the Dufferin Grove Resident's Association. We need a community organization that can respond to developments like this and the others that are on the horizon. The DGRA is not a "homeowners" or "ratepayers" group. It's a neighbourhood association comprised of tenants, homeowners, anyone with an interest in protecting our community, including members of the Dover Square community.

We're askiing members to make a small contribution (suggested $10 or PWYC - no one will be refused membership for lack of funds). Please mail or drop off your donation to:

Rachel Taylor
324 Rusholme Rd, Toronto
M6H 2Z5

Thank you
Andrew Munger
Dufferin Grove Residents' Association

---

I went to the meeting on Tuesday night. Inspiring to see so many of the people we see in the parks, neighbourhood stores and on the streets, I was glad to be there. The turn out was overwhelming. There was a shortage of seats and people shuffled around as others continued to stream in.

I was surprised and disappointed to see that no local politicians were there. A lady brought a letter from mario silva who lives on rusholme stating that he thinks that changing the density allowances for the developer to build another tower would not be good for the neighbourhood.

I like what ted wrote this morning. It would be wonderful if the developer wanted to make it a low rental property, and invite disabled and elderly people to live there. It would be great if they built a community hall and activity centres that were planned to be the centre of the neighbourhood. This developer does not seem to want this. We all have or idealistic wishes for the space, but the reality is the developer wants to put as many apartments on the space, charge the highest rent and give the tenants the minimum they can get away with. The road cutting through will not have a positive effect on the community, no matter what spin is created.

I was shocked by how smug were the developers and their consultants. My feeling (and those that were sitting near me) is that this is a done deal. That the plan will go forward in some form. Maybe it won't be a 13 story building, maybe it will be 11 stories. That is how the city staff and the developers seemed to be acting.

Andrew munger has gone to great lengths to get information about this project. Here is the man who spent a year following the mayor around city hall to produce the fantastic documentary about him. If he was having difficulty uncovering information, that is an unfortunate statement.

I was impressed by the people who live in the actual dover square apartment buildings. They were organized, well spoken and well represented.

When the architect called the green space underutilized, people laughed. Has he ever been there? A resident asked if the developer could think of another nearby spot where there was such density. He pointed landsdown and bloor as an example. We laughed again. He suggested st jamestown and people noisily grumbled.

I am all for low cost rental accommodations, but these buildings have very little interest in that . They wouldn't have as many vacancies if that were true.

I would rather get my laughs elsewhere.

Erella

Dover Square thoughts, November 28

---

I think that building proposed for Dover square should be built and be made into a building for disabled persons in Toronto. It is close to good transportation, it is close to parks and the Y , there is a caring neighbourhood. It also could be a centre for neighbourhood activities, a community center, so that the disabled can be part of the community. We should make this new building the heart of the neighbourhood and it could be a model for a caring community surrounding a disabled residents space.

I think the street going through the property is ridiculous. I think the design is boring and a function of maximum number of units the architect could cram in. The design needs to be changed.

If you think of the space as disabled/resident retirement space, we could free up housing in the area for more families, because there are a lot of lonely sometimes disabled single people living in difficult circumstances in the area. We all may be there sometime soon! Canada has an ageing population and a strong need for communal care situations in neighbourhoods. if neighbourhoods are to survive. We should offer housing on a priority basis to people living in the neighborhood and in the tenanted buildings at Dover square. The new building could even be a coop.

I also have a view a different view of the currently tenanted buildings. I would like to see the tenants being given the right to buy their own units at highly subsidized rates, I think owned units provide pride and motivation and the creation of an asset base that should not be limited to those who are fortunate to have high salaries or inheritances to get them started, but this is a pet project of mine that maybe should not be allowed to confuse the issue around the Dover square development.

I also think that the owners of the buildings have done an excellent job of improving the property in the past ten years, yes the tenants have paid for it by rent increases but those buildings were an eyesore, an incredible urban blight 15 years ago when I did the Hepbourne Hall project at 110 Hepbourne. Dover Square then looked like a slum tenement building in a Russian industrial town. Today and in the future with the growth of those trees it will get better and better. The tenants in those buildings are fabulous. It is not a rowdy building and people are very respectful of noise in the hood, so the excuse that a new building will bring in more noise is not an excuse for not allowing the development.

I think development and intensification is going to happen. I think the developer should be given the right to build in the space, but I also think that what is built should be a positive development to enhance the hood. I would like to see some form of assisted housing going in there. Those buildings and the Park the schools and the Y are the heart and lungs of the hood, how they are developed will affect us all. I think we should be less concerned with intensification and focus on how the intensification happens and what communities it helps. More people living on the subway line is logical and community stores will develop to serve a disabled clientele. We could use some of the section 37 money to make disabled lanes to the park and the Y and disabled friendly spaces in the park. There is a park space in Montreal for wheelchair athletes to train. One more job for Jutta.

The element that the owners have missed is that they are only thinking of money, not of the community, and that is why there was so much opposition to the development. I think the community should decide what it wants there and consider various development options. I think the idea that Giambrone excuses himself because his parents live in the hood is ridiculous, we all live in the hood and we all have a stake and we all have to respond with our own views. These are my thoughts.

Cheers Ted

Edward (Ted) England

---

Bravo. This is something substantial to chew on, to get excited about. I want to post all the comments' ideas at the rink/park clubhouse (the current architect's drawing is already up). Any sketches, articles, photos, that I could stick up there too?

Jutta

---

Just to put my 2 cents in: (please don't use my name.)

The spirit of the park and the neighbourhood is not one of exclusivity. Complaints that the park is too full or the subway is crammed are valid. Of course, there is a point when a subway station needs a second or third entrance and a park needs more maintenance money. But, the principle we should be fighting for is to share the park and our neighbourhood, we should sully our community's voice with some people's concerns over property values.

The reason that there is a community here is because we do not shut people up or shut people out. Housing in the city is grossly expensive and our neighbourhood is now safe, clean, friendly, quite wonderful. Those who live here are lucky and the more the merrier I say.

If the landlords at Dovercourt Square are no good, lets use our community's power to get them to step-up and shell-out cash to maintain their buildings, but we don't need to stop the growth of the community. More people in the neighbourhood? well, I look forward to meeting them.

again please don't show my name. thanks

From the Neighbours, November 23

---

We wanted to share this with you so you would all understand our thoughts. Gentrification and loss of available rental stock is a significant issue, but so are the problems that the current tenants have with the new building. [And just being a "NIMBY" never feels good!]

- David Switzer

Here's a letter that we've decided to use to share our view of the issues:

The owners and residents of Hepbourne Hall, MTCC #1022, wish to express our objection to the approval of any municipal amendments requested for the development plans at DOVERSQUARE, at Bloor and Dovercourt, as recently proposed.

It's important to begin our objection by stating that we have enjoyed our long association with our neighbours at Doversquare, both the residents and the on-site staff. Sharing our backyard with such a warm, diverse and helpful group makes this one of the great Toronto neighbourhoods. We all purchased our homes well aware that there were apartments behind us and we' re all happy with the mix of this neighbourhood. We also all understand the need for available rental housing in Toronto. We just object to intensifying an already very intense area.

• The available open, green, landscaped space is already inadequate for the population of Doversquare, especially for children. We strongly object to the loss of any more open space.
• We believe that this specific block is already at higher-than-acceptable levels of population density given this neighbourhood's infrastructure, without adding several hundred new residential units.
• Traffic density and on-street parking hassles are already significant within this block or two, again before adding several hundred new residential units.
• Previous construction at Doversquare [both the balcony replacements and parking garage repairs] was very disruptive both for Doversquare residents AND for those of us in Hepbourne Hall. We were unable to open our windows or enjoy our balconies and the outdoor areas nearby for three consecutive summers. We believe that major new construction will create a serious disturbance to our property values and to our quality of life for several years.

• The “new road” proposed across the property seems to be an irresponsible request.
• The current high rises are already significantly out-of-scale and inappropriate to the scale and style of this area in general.
• The current mix of homeowners and tenants in this area seems to be “just about right” and disrupting this balance may hurt the entire Dufferin Grove community.
• We have had two years of private, planner-to-developer negotiation on the project with limited political input and non-existent community consultation; this is not the level of “participatory democracy” that we expect from our currently elected officials.

Our major objections are:

Yes, we think that the proposed development will damage the property values of our twenty-one different homes, and more than 35 taxpayers, located here inside Hepbourne Hall. But mostly we believe that this entire neighbourhood is significantly threatened by the proposal currently being considered. There are reasonable limits to how many units can be packed into any given neighbourhood. Our immediate neighborhood is already more densely populated than the surrounding area. Adding a fourth high-rise will tip the balance, perhaps initiating a decline in quality of life for everyone. What the developers have proposed will seriously alter the character of our neighbourhood. The city needs to understand that its desire to increase the density of residential units in the urban core must not be pursued at the cost of destroying the very thing that makes downtown Toronto a desirable place to live. We therefore ask that any and all planning amendments that allow higher residential densities on this square be refused.

HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE OF OUR POSITION OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE OTHER GROUPS OBJECTING TO THE BUILDING, AND YOUR FEEDBACK IS WELCOME!

---

An excellent letter, and one with which I heartily concur. I would add a couple of other points. We live on Rusholme, directly across from Dover Square. In our opinion, the traffic on Rusholme is already too dense and moves too quickly. It is quite common for cars to peel down Rusholme at speeds much higher than the posted limit, and we live in constant fear that a child (or adult, for that matter) will be hit one of these days. We have already witnessed family pets fall victim to speeding cars on Rusholme on more than one occasion.

In addition, it is already quite common for cars to park illegally on the sidewalk on Rusholme and block traffic, while the driver or passenger runs into or out of one of the apartment buildings. An increase in population density at Dover Square, and in particular construction of a new road between Rusholme and Dovercourt, will only exacerbate the traffic congestion and speeding. Rather than increasing the traffic on Rusholme, we shou

ld be seeking the addition of speed bumps or other traffic calming devices.

One final point: at least weekly, and often more frequently, the fire department is called to one of the apartment buildings at Dover Square. Obviously, it is highly desirable that the fire department respond promptly to alarms, but in the vast majority of cases, the department is responding to a false alarm. Nevertheless, they are forced to respond with several large trucks that pull up outside the buildings, sirens blaring and lights flashing, and are obliged to block Rusholme for at least ten to fifteen minutes at a time while the alarm is investigated. Apart from the disruption to residents caused by the lights and sirens, the blockage just adds to the local traffic congestion. Any increase in population densit

y is likely to result in a corresponding increase in such false alarms.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight as I am at home caring for a six-week old baby, however, I am very interested in this issue. I would be very grateful if someone could perhaps post a summary of the meeting on the Dufferin Grove website or perhaps on this listserve.

- Catherine Roberts

---

I just want to add something, that is according to the city's own regulations, Dover Square is already over the allowed density. If another building is built on the site it will be almost twice as dense as what is allowed. Why are officials turning a blind eye to this?

I'm a resident on Concord Ave. and have been coming to the meetings initially out of curiousity. I have to say though, that what I heard and saw there is something that is relevant to all of us in the area. Perhaps you don't personally have a problem now with another tower being built at Dover Square but there are several more proposals out there concerning the area and one of those proposals may significantly impact you or your immediate neighbours. Please come out to the meeting at the very least to understand how this process works.

Sheila Pin

---

In the planning for the new high rise, I haven't seen anything about any promises to keep the rents low.they will continue to do what they have always done, to get the highest possible rents, offering the least they can get away with. That is business. I understand that.

I think the area has enough density and do not see anything that would lead me to believe this new proposal would be good for the community.

I have never seen the owners of dover square being present and accountable for any fundraising efforts or any community gatherings. They seem to exist to take rent money from their tenants and that is all.

They cannot be faulted for that I suppose.

Whatever happens here is made better by our interested discussions.

The area has become a community through a lot of hard work by people that care. This forum, opening the gates for us to discuss the neighbourhood is a very good by-product of the proposal for the high rise.

erella

Message digest, November 23

---

Affordable rental/ co-op/ mixed income/ etc. housing is what will keep this neighbourhood endurable. That's the beginning, though, not the end, of the argument. I have heard nothing, yet, about the rents that will be charged for the new units at Dover Square. I am not aware that the rents will be based on anything except, what the market will allow. And if, indeed, the folks who live there will have a public road driven right through the collective green space that's meant to be their commons, so that parents have to make the same rule they do in so many other crowded apartment-warehouses -- kids stay inside for their safety -- yikes. Not good.

So the devil is in the details. Although I am very much a distant observer (I can see the buildings from all our front windows, and enjoy wondering about those windows whose lights go on early in the morning), I am SO grateful to Andrew Munger for putting this issue out in the neighborhood. I'm really looking forward to finding out more at the meeting tonight, and I hope that those folks who have been speaking up on the Dovercourt list-serve on behalf of affordable housing in this stupidly overpriced neighbourhood/city will come out too.

Maybe there are ways this project will end up adding affordable, good-sense housing to our neighbourhood, but not without the thoughtful collaboration of many people, I think, including all of us.

Jutta Mason

---

Thanks for your kind words.

You make some excellent points about the issue of affordable rental housing in an increasingly expensive Toronto rental market. What the building owners are proposing is a massive, private rental high rise with rents at market rate. As you may already know the tenants at Dover Square have fought major rent increases over the past few years and now a 1 bedroom rents for $900-1000. I'm speculating that new apartments will fetch a higher rent.

If someone was proposing a modest, mixed income rental project for Dover Square I think the community would have responded differently. Dover Square tenants will face substantially reduced quality of life with this new building and road. The property is already developed beyond what the zoning allows. The tenants will lose a major part of the green space where dozens of children play, and adults congregate. T This is why 300 of them signed a petition opposing the development. Dover Square is a vibrant and healthy community, and we'd all like it to remain so.

Andrew Munger

---

I have not followed the details of the plans, but would like to voice my support for affordable housing. While it is truely delightful to see many houses in our area get spruced up and upgraded, I do worry that it will be increasingly difficult for those with low incomes including young couples and young familes to find a place to live in downtown Toronto and they are important parts of making it a vibrant community where people want to live.

(etc.)

Marion Endicott

---

Regarding the proposal for a new building at the apartment complex off Dovercourt I have these observations to make: as a homeowner in the area for the past twenty years and a frequent passer-by of that complex, I have never had a problem with residents; for the most part they are quiet and go about their business of making a living just like the rest of us. Very few of them have cars, unlike us homeowners, so their "footprint" on the environment is negligible. Most use public transit to get to work or school. Rents in the building are very reasonable compared to other downtown neighbourhoods. Many of the residents are recent immigrants to the country and/or are people living on low wages.

The apartment complex thus is beneficial to the city as a whole; it provides clean comfortable accommodations to people who are trying to get a start up the economic ladder. (I have visited the apartments with a blind friend who was looking for a place to live and the property managers gave us a tour.) Affordable housing for low income earners is in short supply in this city. That is why there are so many people living on the streets. The owners of the existing buildings have shown themselves to be good corporate citizens - they keep the structures and gardens maintained well - and their business also provides a valuable benefit to society. I am all in favour of their plans to put up another building. They are part of the solution to an embarrassing and disgraceful social problem.

Curtis McNeill
Salem Ave.

---

I agree with you Curt. Thank you for voicing your support for the new apartment building at Bloor and Dovercourt.

When our MPP awhile back tried to get support for turning it away I was quite upset. Almost all new buildings in the city are condos and there is definitely a shortage of apartment space.

I didn't know much about how it was run until your message but I like the new green space and playground and the fact that they upgraded the outside of all of the buildings.

Thanks again for your message. I too would like to welcome more newcomers and young families to our vibrant neighbourhood (especially as you point out ones who don't drive!!)

Lynn Cepin

Public Meeting about Dover Square re-development

Tuesday 23 November 2004 7 PM Toronto Japanese Centennial United Church, 701 Dovercourt Road

From Andrew Munger, president of the Dufferin Grove Residents' Association:

Many Dufferin Grove community members are concerned about a major high rise re-development planned for our neighbourhood. Toronto City Planning will hold a Community Information Meeting on the Dover Square re-development (Dovercourt & Hepbourne) on the evening of November 23. Location to be announced. More information will be available on the park web site www.dufferinpark.ca and on the "dufferingrovefriends" list serve.

Read the brochure >>

---

It is very important that we attend this meeting. If the developers don't feel there are neighbours who are willing to fight this, it will go through. Personally I don't want the density in this area to soar to unmanageable levels. I think this new tower will be dreadful.

We all have busy lives and other things to do that night, but this is very important. Typically we find out about these things when they are in the past tense and there is little we can do to stop something bad from happening.

Please come to the meeting with your friends and neighbours. Here is more info from Andrew Munger.

Erella Ganon

---

Dear Neighbours;

The Dufferin Grove Residents Association has seen the blueprints for the new Dover Square high rise re-development and our worst fears were confirmed. The site plan is truly horrifying. The developer is proposing a massive 13 story, L shaped building with 285 units, which would be much larger than any of the existing buildings. A new public road would slice through the existing green space, connecting Rusholme to Dovercourt. Between the new road and the new building, Dover Square residents will lose almost half the green space where their children currently play.

Toronto's official plan states new developments should bring benefits and increase the quality of life of residents. This new high rise is a destructive intrusion on our neighbourhood, and brings no benefit to the residents or community. The official plan also states that in , "significant growth is not intended in Apartment Neighborhoods (like Dover Square). This high rise will increase density at Dover Square by 44%.

Dover Square is just the thin edge of the wedge. If we don't stop this terrible development, we can expect to face more of it in the near future. There is pressure for a massive re-development at Bloor and Dufferin (The Duke of Kent and Bloor Collegiate site), Sylvan & Havelock is slated for redevelopment and the Japanese Centennial Church (site of this meeting) is for sale. Who knows what they'll try to build there.

Please circulate this email as widely as possible.

If you want to have a voice in shaping your community, please come to the public meeting, 7PM, Tuesday, November 23, the Japanese Centennial Church, 701 Dovercourt Rd.

Andrew Munger

It would be great to have a good turnout from the folks on Dewson, Concord & Delaware. Please circulate this to your friends and neighbours.

Dufferin Grove Resident's Association Meeting

Oct 21, 6:30pm, Gladstone Library

A meeting will be held on Thursday, Oct. 21, 630PM at Gladstone library to attempt to reactivate the Dufferin Grove Resident's Association. Membership in the organization is open to any residents who consider themselves part of the Dufferin Grove community.

We are taking this action because of the proposed Dover Square re-development project. Resident's who wish to be actively involved in the resident's association are encouraged to attend. An update on the status of the development will be provided but this is not an information meeting.

Anyone who wishes to be involved but cannot attend should contact me by email only.

Thank you,

Andrew Munger: amunger@sympatico.ca

Dover Square Re-Development goes to OMB

Update

posted September 19, 2004

From: Andrew Munger
To: Friends of Dufferin Grove
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:24 AM
Subject: [dufferingrovefriends] Dover Square Re-Development goes to OMB

Update on Dover Square Development

As many of you know, there is a proposal for a 17 story high rise building for our community. The building, along with nineteen townhomes would be added to the three existing high rise towers at the Dover Square complex (south of Bloor between Dovercourt and Rusholme), eliminating most of the gardens and green space currently enjoyed by the Dover Square tenants.

Sterling Silver Development, the owners of Dover Square have appealed their application for rezoning to the Ontario Municpal Board, a provincial agency on the grounds that the city's planning department failed to hold a community consultation meeting within 45 days. For the record, the developer filed its application with the city of Toronto November 7, 2002. The OMB will likely hold a hearing on the developer's application in December or January.

Our community cannot be represented at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing except by a registered ratepayer group. Individuals and non-registered groups are rarely allowed to speak. I had hoped, and am still hoping that the Friends of Dufferin Grove, could develop into a useful vehicle to represent our community on this issue and others, rather than simply an internet message board. “Friends” will soon be incorporated and as such would be eligible to represent the community at the OMB hearing.

Our city councillor Adam Giambrone is unable to represent us in this matter as he has declared a personal conflict of interest. Councillor Joe Pantalone has agreed to deal with this file in Adam's place.

The Dufferin Grove and Bloor Court neighbourhoods have been denied any opportunity to comment on an issue which potentially will have a huge impact on our community. If we don't make our voices heard, rest assured, this massive project will certainly be built.

I urge members of the community to begin discussing and organizing around this issue, and especially to call

• Mathew Blevins – Ontario Municipal Board - 326-5354
• Catherine Goulet – Councillor Joe Pantalone's Office - 392-4108
• So Mel Quan – City of Toronto Planner - (quote file #: 102037,TC CMB20020017) - 392-1812
• Tony Ruprecht – Member of Provincial Parliament (The OMB is a provincial agency) - 535-3158

If you would like to be involved in this issue please contact me (directly) at amunger@sympatico.ca

Andrew Munger
Ultramagnetic Productions Ltd.
63 Hepbourne St.
Toronto, M6H 1K4
Canada

T: 416. 953. 6570
F: 416. 538. 4621

Time to revive the Dufferin Grove Neighbourhood Residents' Association?

posted September 19, 2004

From: Jutta Mason
To: dufferingrovefriends@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [dufferingrovefriends] Dover Square Re-Development goes to OMB

A suggestion -- since Friends of Dufferin Grove Park is
1. mainly about the park, as its name suggests and
2. is not yet incorporated

-- would it make sense to revive the Dufferin Grove Neighbourhood Residents' Association instead? Perhaps it even IS registered (I don't actually know what that means -- maybe that's not as formal or expensive as incorporation). Certainly it was active for many years. The people who were most active in it were Ted England, Vivienne Smetana, and Cathy Meckes, all of whom still live here -- two of them at least are members of the list serve, I think. Andrew, maybe you could contact them and see what they think. It sounds like it might be time for there to be a residents' association in this area again.

Jutta

---

posted September 19, 2004

From: vivienne scott - michael smietana
To: dufferingrovefriends@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [dufferingrovefriends] Dover Square Re-Development goes to OMB

Hi everyone:

I was involved in the initial start up of the Dufferin Grove Residents' Association many, many years ago. We weren't officially registered if I recall, although someone on this list might have more information on that. However we had quite a few meetings including ones where we invited speakers to talk about issues of local concern, including city reps and the police who recognized us as the local Association. I remember one meeting when we were invited to look at videos of the sewers to prove there weren't rats there! A smaller group evolved from it who were very interested in the Mall and concerns about potential expansion and I think they were pretty active for a while. However, the focus subsequently moved over to the park.

I think a Residents' Association is a valuable tool to use to deal with issues such as the proposed new buildings at Bloor and Dovercourt. Perhaps the current group working on that concern could set the groundwork for a new Residents' Association. I gather this kind of major issue has been the catalyst for many a Residents' Association in the past. The groups' main concern is this complex at the moment but I am sure this is not going to be the only main issue that is going to impact on our area in the future. The community will then be in a position to respond quickly as issues arise.

Special interest groups will still remain focused on their area of interest while the main Residents' Association could be the umbrella group through which these groups could communicate to the community as well as an avenue in which to raise other issues.

Vivienne Smietana

---

From: ted england tedengland@sympatico.ca
To: dufferingrovefriends@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:23 AM
Subject: [dufferingrovefriends] Re: Dufferin grove residents association

Hi everyone.

I agree wholeheartedly with Vivian' s comments and Andrew' s and I have heard many other adjacent neighbours express concern regarding Dover square development issues. I think a residents association has to be involved and quickly. The name and the principles of the association are good. An active residents association is a vital force for our well-being. I think we should incorporate the Dufferin Grove residents association to get representation at the OMB on neighbourhood issues and to deal formally with other issues.

We do need a slate of officers. Every time it came to selecting officers we all pointed fingers at each other and agreed to keep going, without a formal structure. Vivian did most of the letter, Catherine Meckes was the voice of conscience, and I printed it and delivered it. We operated quite successfully for a number of years without officers and we held meetings a couple of times a year. We were totally non partisan politically, and I think a residents association should stay that way. When an emergency arose somebody took action, but the proof is that we fell dormant, and now it seems appropriate to revive it with a formal structure.

We have to redefine boundaries. The boundaries of the Dufferin Grove Residents Association were at one time Dufferin to Ossington to College to Bloor. We papered all buildings and mailboxes in that area. When we held meetings in the church at Dovercourt and Bloor there was much more interest from the Eastern contingent ( East of Dovercourt), but when the meetings were transferred to Saint Mary's School at the north end of the park we seemed to lost much of the Eastern contingent. At some points we also integrated elements north of Bloor. We used to paper the neighbourhood with leaflets with topics of interest and deliver even to houses that had signs saying no junk mail because it was a hood issue. We had traffic meetings and many of the traffic calming measures, islanding and better school relations came from those meetings.

If you want to get an initial meeting going to get the structure re-established that would seem appropriate. I am happy to get costs and details of incorporation and I am sure we can easily fund incorporation from neighbours donations. Maybe we can get a local lawyer to do the incorporation for us (of course we pay). I would suggest that Vivian be the interim president, she is an extremely well organized person who cares deeply about hood issues.

Edward (Ted) England

---

From: ErellaGanon mailto:ell@erella.com
To: dufferin grove friends
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:56 AM
Subject: [dufferingrovefriends] Dufferin grove residents association

I think the dover square development planned new building could be catastrophic for the area. I would love to be involved in the Dufferin Grove Residents Association but I live at Gladstone and college, Just a bit south of college. Does this mean I cannot be a member of this group? Many of my neighbours are very involved in the park too.

Erella