►
Description
Planning and Housing Committee, meeting 6, May 28, 2019 - Part 1 of 2
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15386
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-rsddZTmOs
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Good
morning,
everybody
and
now
that
nothing
we
have
quorum
I
can
welcome
everybody
to
the
meeting
six
of
the
planning
and
Housing
Committee.
Welcome
to
the
members
of
committee.
Welcome
two
other
guests
and
welcome
to
everybody
for
those
in
the
room
with
us.
The
screen
at
the
back
of
the
room
provides
real-time
updates
concerned
where
we
are
in
the
agenda
and
what's
coming
up
next,
you
can
also
follow
the
agenda
and
debate
on
your
computer
tablet
or
smartphone
at
WRC
a-slash
council,
and
we
acknowledge
the
land
we
are
meeting
on.
A
This
is
that
is
a
traditional
territory
of
many
nations,
including
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credit
Dahon
ashabi,
the
ship
away
de
una,
Shani
and
de
wen
dot
people
and
is
now
home
to
many
diverse
First
Nations
in
we
ma
T
peoples.
We
also
acknowledge
that
Toronto
is
covered
by
treaty.
Thirteen
with
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credit.
Are
there
any
conflicts
of
interest
under
them
under
the
municipal
conflict
of
interest
Act,
seeing
none
can
I
have
a
motion
to
confirm
the
minutes
of
the
April
30th
2019
meeting
councillor
Bradford,
all
those
in
favor
that
carries
okay.
A
So,
let's
run
through
the
agenda
item
6.1
official
planned
amendment
policies
to
address
the
loss
of
dwelling
rooms,
final
recommendation
report.
We
have
deputations
on
that
item,
6.2
inclusionary
zoning
official
plan
policy
directions.
We
have
deputations
on
that
item,
6.3
expanding
the
housing
allowance
program,
I'd
like
to
inform
that
we're
actually
deferring
this
and
I'll
put
the
motion
for
deferred
this
to
a
month.
We
have
a
report
coming
on
housing
allowances
in
July.
I
wouldn't
like
to
have
the
discussion
as
a
whole.
A
So
if
I
can
have
the
support
to
have
this
item
deferred
all
those
in
favor
that
carries
thank
you.
So
that
will
be
the
third
for
the
members
that
we're
here
to
make
some
deputations.
We
would
like
to
have
one
full
report
on
the
discussions
of
the
housing
allowances
and
that
will
and
at
the
meeting
on
July
3rd
items,
six
point:
four:
providing
new,
affordable
rental
housing
at
685,
Queen,
Street,
East
I
have
that
petitions
on
that.
No
we
don't
have
deputations
on
that.
B
A
You
item
6.5
home
ownership,
funding
allocations
to
support
127
new
profit,
new
nonprofit,
affordable
ownership
homes,
I
do
have
two
people
registered
to
the
pewte
I
do
understand
that.
Did
they
don't
wish
to
the
pewte
anymore?
And
if
that's
the
case,
if
they
can
just
nod
okay,
so
we
can
actually
get
the
item
moved
councillor
Fletcher
moves
the
motion,
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
item
6.6
strategy
to
minimize
the
negative
impacts
of
residential
infill
construction,
an
update.
C
A
Okay,
so
we
need
to.
We
have
to
hold
it
until
10:30
and
area-specific
amendment
to
the
sign:
bylaw
1589,
the
Queensway
same
thing:
item
410,
36.9
area,
specific
amendment
to
the
sign
bylaw
49
for
Richmond
Street
East,
also
timed
for
9:30
for
10:30,
sorry,
6.10
area,
specific
amendment
to
the
sign,
bylaw,
2075,
Lawrence,
Avenue,
East,
another
item
for
10:30
and
6.11
area,
specific
amendment
to
the
sign,
bylaw,
2378,
2410,
Eglinton,
Avenue
least
also
an
item.
A
It's
timed
for
10:30
and
6.12
area-specific
amendment
to
the
sign:
bylaw
2904,
Sheppard,
Avenue,
East
timed
for
10:30,
so
I
would
need
a
motion
to
add
to
do
new
business.
The
letter
that
was
circulated
by
councillor
Fletcher
councillor
Fletcher
and
councillor
Bradford,
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
and
I
think
we
can
start
with
the
agenda.
Okay,
so.
D
A
E
Hi
there
thank
you
all
for
allowing
me
to
speak
today
to
the
planning
and
Housing
Committee
on
the
important
issue
of
dwelling
units
or,
as
we
in
the
community
ate
so
often
referred
to
them.
Shared
accommodations,
regardless
of
you
refer
to
them
as
rooming
houses,
dwelling
units
or
shared
accommodations.
The
fact
remains:
preserving
these
units
should
undisputably
be
a
major
policy
priority
in
supporting
Toronto's
most
vulnerable
residents
during
this
city's
housing
crisis
I
and
many
in
the
community
commend
the
City
Council
for
addressing
the
issue
of
disappearing
dwelling
units.
E
I
would
describe
the
findings
of
this
report
and
recommendation
issued
as
a
strong
first
step
in
developing
a
foundation
to
build
a
robust
policy
framework
which
will
preserve
the
continued
development
of
these
units.
These
recommendations,
however,
should
only
be
considered
a
first
step
and
when
they
established
a
strong
foundation
for
future
policy
is
important.
We
do
not
stop
in
a
crisis
as
all-consuming
as
a
Toronto
housing
crisis
that
must
remain
clear.
E
That
efforts
Spurs
our
dwelling
units,
as
only
a
small
I'll,
be
a
critical
step
and
the
effort
to
support
Toronto's
most
vulnerable
residents
as
they
attempt
to
navigate
Toronto's,
affordable
housing
market.
Currently,
according
to
city
bylaws,
rooming
houses
are
permitted
within
the
boundaries
of
the
former
city
of
Toronto
and
Etobicoke.
Within
these
permitted
zones,
rooming
houses
must
meet
strict
regulation
guidelines
to
receive
a
license.
The
reality
is
unlicensed.
E
Rooming
houses
exists
throughout
the
entirety
of
the
City
of
Toronto,
regardless
of
bylaws
and
city
guidelines
resident
truthfully,
these
unlicensed
rooming
houses
of
the
most
reliably
affordable
options
to
residents
in
Toronto
with
low
incomes
and
far
too
many
instances.
These
are
the
only
options
as
a
result,
residents
who
choose
to
live
in
these
unlicensed
accommodations
are
more
susceptible
to
being
taken
advantage
of
by
landlords
and
other
tenants.
E
Would
you
choose
to
report
a
housing
issue
if
you
knew
it
likely
meant
the
closure
of
your
home
tenant
to
call
these
rooming
houses
home
must
make
the
impossible
choice
between
living
in
substandard
accommodations,
due
to
unresolved
safety
violations
and
financial
abuse
by
their
landlords
or
living
on
the
streets.
This
is
an
unfair
choice.
E
As
a
result,
not
addressing
this
issue
reinforces
the
vicious
cycle
of
homelessness.
Many
rooming
houses
tenants
are
trapped
in
as
they
are
easily
shut
down
due
to
code
violations
and
transient
nation
of
operators
of
such
units.
If
the
city
truly
believes
in
a
housing
first
model,
then
we
must
ensure
everyone
has
access
to
housing,
regardless
of
socioeconomic
status.
We
must
ensure
that
every
resource
and
tool
is
available
to
increase
their
stock
of
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
Let's
do
that
if
I
take
you
the
next
step.
Thank
you.
A
F
On
behalf
of
the
Parkdale
neighborhood,
land
trust
and
the
dwelling
room
preservation
policy
working
group
I
wanted
to
thank
everyone
here
today
for
all
of
your
work
on
this
Official
Plan
amendment
our
affordable
housing
crisis
is
a
complex
issue
and
it
really
requires
an
all-hands-on-deck
approach
and
I
wanted
to
thank
everyone
here
and
all
of
the
people
in
the
room
today
who
have
been
working
on
this
policy
and
we've
been
working
very
incredibly
hard.
Sorry
to
address
this
issue.
F
We
also
recognize
that
the
sooner
it's
approved
and
implemented
the
better
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
needs
to
be
done
to
get
the
comprehensive
framework
of
policies
and
programs,
that's
necessary
to
effectively
prevent
dwelling
room
loss
and
ensure
attendance.
A
risk
of
displacement
are
adequately
supported
and
we
look
forward
to
moving
into
the
next
phase
of
that
process.
We've
seen
some
significant
improvements
made
to
this
policy,
and
since
it
was
first
proposed
last
year,
and
in
particular,
we
wanted
to
endorse
the
threshold
of
six
Welling
rooms,
which
will
ensure
most
welding
rooms
are
protected.
F
The
requirement
that
the
law
spelling
rooms
be
replaced
with
the
same
gross
floor
area
maintained
as
either
dwelling
rooms
or
boxer
units
and
the
proposed
rent
levels
for
replacement
units
where
there
are
no
returning
tenants.
We
think
that
together,
these
two
provisions
will
result
in
one
to
one
replacement
of
dwelling
rooms
and
will
therefore
help
to
preserve
the
existing
supply
of
low
end
of
market
housing
and
will
also
ensure
displaced
tenants
have
the
opportunity
to
return
to
units
in
the
new
building
if
they
choose,
whoever
there's
still
significant
issues
with
this
policy.
F
First,
we
do
not
support
a
15-year
affordability
period
for
replacement
units.
Opa
406,
which
is
the
downtown.
The
teal
core
downtown
official
plan
includes
a
very
similar
dwelling
room
replacement
policy
to
what's
being
proposed
here
for
a
period
of
at
least
20
years.
The
rents
for
replacement
housing
will
be
similar
to
those
in
effect,
at
the
time
the
development
application
is
made.
F
It's
unclear
why
this
policy
should
have
a
shorter
affordability
period
than
OPA
406
was
it
which
is
approved
and
implemented,
allowing
landlords
to
raise
rents
to
whatever
they
like
after
15
years,
means
that
the
mostess
policy
will
ever
achieve
as
a
15-year
delay
and
the
permanent
loss
of
deeply
affordable
housing,
allowing
landlords
to
raise
rents
to
whatever
they
like
after
15
years
once
attendance
is
vacated.
The
replacement
unit,
incentivizes
landlords,
to
find
ways
with
Vic
tenants
after
the
15
years
is
up.
F
We
think
the
changing
the
affordability
affordability
period
so
that
it's
consistent
with
tÃo
core
is
something
that
can
and
should
be
done
today
in
this
meeting.
Second,
we
don't
support
the
exemption
of
buildings
where
the
rent
for
all
dwelling
rooms
in
the
building
or
above
dwelling,
room
tier,
two
mid-range
rents.
Today,
the
top
end
of
dwelling
room
tier
two
mid-range
rents
is
one
thousand
three
hundred
and
six
dollars
a
month
which
is
high,
but
not
that
much
higher
than
the
current
asking
rents
of
dwelling
rooms
and
hot
rental
markets
like
Parkdale.
F
This
means
that
it
wouldn't
be
terribly
difficult
for
a
landlord
and
Parkdale
to
avoid
being
subject
to
the
new
requirements
of
the
OPA.
By
pushing
current
tenants
out
fixing
the
place
up
a
bit
and
finding
new
tenants
will
pay
more
than
that.
One
thousand
three
hundred
six
dollars
a
month,
which
is
the
kind
of
thing
that's
already
happening
across
the
city
service
providers,
are
seeing
an
onslaught
of
first-time
users
of
the
shelter
system.
F
People
have
already
always
been
housed
and
are
only
homeless
today,
because
the
city
is
now
no
longer
has
any
rental
housing
that
they
can
afford
and
predatory
evictions
in
a
declining
supply
of
low
end
of
market
housing
are
to
blame
for
this.
We
think
this
exemption
will
create
conditions
that
will
make
the
situation
worse
at
Alec's
potat
the
loss
of
affordable
rental
housing
through
upscaling
increase
the
harassment
and
manipulation
of
already
vulnerable
tenants
and
cods
vulnerable
tendons
to
be
forced
out
of
their
homes
and
into
homelessness.
F
We
also
think
this
will
result,
and
not
just
high-end
and
specialized
swelling
rooms
being
exempted,
but
will
effectively
exempt
a
much
larger
segment
of
dwelling
rooms,
especially
those
in
heart,
rental
markets
like
Parkdale,
where
risk
of
up
scaling
to
above
dwelling
room
to
your
to
mid-range
rent
levels
is
already
high.
All
that
being
said,
we
don't
think
the
changing.
The
exemption
is
a
simple
change
that
can
be
made
in
this
meeting
and
we
don't
want
the
OPA
sent
back
to
staff,
so
this
is
what
we
want.
F
Instead,
we
want
the
impacts
of
this
policy
to
be
tracked,
and
the
policy
to
be
regularly
reviewed,
evaluated
and
reported
on,
along
with
the
existing
rental
replacement
policy
for
rental
units,
and
we
would
like
staff
to
investigate
how
to
collaborate
across
divisions
to
enable
better
data,
collection
and
monitoring.
So,
for
example,
a
regular
audit
of
reaming
houses
is
needed
to
monitor
the
supply
of
low
end
of
market
housing
and
evaluate
the
impact
of
the
policy
on
it.
F
We
need
to
revisit
rooming
house
licensing
requirements
and
start
requiring
landlords
to
provide
rent
rules
and
tenant
information
annually
so
that
we
can
track
unusual,
rent
increases
and
high
rates
of
tenant,
turnover
and
evictions
prevent
landlords
from
attempting
to
skirt
Opa
requirements,
and
it
would
also
enable
city
staff
to
implement
this
policy
effectively.
We
need
to
track
how
many
units
are
being
replaced
in
what
format,
rents
and
what
affordability
period
we
need
to
track
what
happens
with
tenants,
displaced
from
lost
units?
Are
they
returning
to
new
units
in
the
building?
How
many
are
returning?
F
And
last
but
not
least,
we
need
a
better
proactive
tenant
support
system
to
protect
tenants
and
prevent
prevent
predatory
eviction,
and
we
need
planning
staff
to
be
connected
to
and
working
with
that
system
to
ensure
that
affected
tenants
are
provided
legal
support
and
education
and
tenants
and
units
with
expiring
for
debility
periods,
don't
fall
victim
to
predatory
landlords.
Thank
you.
G
You
Melissa,
so
the
the
main
piece
I
heard
in
your
asks
is
that
we
make
sure
we
establish
some
kind
of
overall
system
for
watching
how
the
rental
replacement
works,
not
just
for
dwelling
rooms
but
for
for
all
of
them
did
I
get
that
right.
Yes,.
B
I'm
not
sure
that
you
have
seen
this,
but
this
morning
we
established
a
protection
of
affordable,
renting
rental
housing
committee
here
at
this
committee
with
the
subcommittee
to
deal
with
many
of
these
things,
particularly
rent
evictions,
protecting
tenants
or
meant
well
vests
and
13s
and
casual
evictions
in
order
to
maintain
the
housing
supply.
So
I'm
assuming
you'll,
be
in
full
support
of
that
yeah.
G
A
G
Distinguished
members
of
the
Planning
and
Housing
Committee
committee,
my
name
is
Jeffrey
Milne
and
I'm.
The
owner
of
935
Queen
Street
West
in
Toronto,
Park,
View,
Arms
Hotel.
Also,
a
licensed
rooming
house
in
good
standing
I
sit
before
you
today
to
briefly
object
to
the
proposed
citywide
Official
Plan
amendment
number
453,
and
to
express
our
objection.
G
Excuse
me:
I
have
a
little
bit
of
a
cold.
We
have
owned
this
property
for
over
five
decades,
going
on
to
almost
five
and
a
half
50
55
years.
Very
close.
We
understand
fully
that
the
policies
proposed
under
OPA
453
would
impose
significant
new
obligations
and
restrictions
on
us
as
owners
and
operators
of
the
Parkview
Arms
Hotel.
G
G
For
these
reasons,
we
object
to
OPA
453
as
I've
spoken.
That's
all
I
I
do
have
to
say.
I
would
just
enclosed
like
to
say
we
as
the
Parkview
Arms
Hotel
when
it
was
originally
purchased.
It
was
a
hotel
and
then
it
did
change
to
a
rooming
house
about
30
years
ago,
but
we
operate
as
a
hotel
and
we
feel
we
do
not
fall
under
this
stigmatism
I.
G
Guess
that
rooming,
when
people
here
rooming
houses
and
right
away,
they
they
think
they
think
of
the
incapacitated
and
the
needy
and
the
social
assistance
and
the
ODSP,
etc,
etc.
That
is
not
our
operation.
That
has
not
been
our
operation
for
the
last
minimum
25
years.
Our
residents
are
all
working
and
they
they
are
no
do
not
need
any
special
care
whatsoever
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
forward
to
the
planning
and
city
housing.
G
A
A
A
H
K
A
Through
the
chair,
when
the
policies
come
into
effect,
just
to
elaborate
on
that,
there
would
be
an
appeal
period
to
the
amendment
and
following
if
there's
no
appeal,
it'll
come
into
effect
shortly
after
adoption.
If
there's
an
appeal,
it
goes
off
to
the
l-pad
I'm,
not
in
a
position
to
guess
when
that
will.
Okay.
K
And
then,
and
then
just
lastly,
with
these
changes
that
were
bringing
forward,
my
colleagues
here,
I
think
we're
often
working
with
community
groups
where
there's
not
necessarily
a
lot
of
information
or
the
information
is
not
disseminated
so
that
tenants
understand
the
rights
associated
with
this.
Do
we
have
a
plan,
or
will
there
be
resources
available
for
tenants
affected
by
these
changes
to
make
sure
that
they
understand
their
rights
and
access
to
supports
through.
A
G
G
G
G
Okay,
second,
the
we
we've
heard
deputation
about
extending
the
permission,
the
length
of
time
when
the
length
of
time
for
their
rental
replacement
runs
out
and
there's
a
current
tenant.
There
is
their
rent
still
protected
as
rents
for
all.
Tenants
are
protected
as
long
as
their
tenure
is
contained
continued
under
the
landlord
tribunal
rules.
Yes,.
H
G
G
So
I
think
this
is
a
great
step
forward
and
I
really
want
to
commend
the
work
of
both
those
community
activists
who
have
been
joining
me
in
getting
this
through
for
years
now,
and
also
city
staff,
who
found
an
elegant
way
of
saying
the
Torontonians.
It
really
doesn't
matter
whether
there's
both
a
bathroom
and
a
kitchen
in
your
unit
or
not.
You
have
the
legal
protections
that
the
City
of
Toronto
affords.
You
I
wanted
to
speak
for
a
moment
about
the
language
in
councillor.
G
Philly
and
the
motion
that
I'm
moving
on
behalf
of
councillor
Fillion
here
it
we
as
one
of
the
deputies
mentioned,
we
have
two
kinds
of
areas
in
Toronto.
We
have
areas
where
rooming
houses
are
legal
in
areas
where
rooming
houses
are
not
legal
and
what
councillor
Phil
Ian's
motion
does
is
say
in
areas
where
rooming
houses
are
legal.
The
policy
applies
in
areas
where
rooming
houses
are
not
legal.
The
policy
applies.
So
it's
it's
just
correcting
some
language
to
make
sure
that
that
that
will
be
the
case
we
still
have
and
I'm.
G
Speaking
to
all
the
activists
in
the
room.
We
still
have
a
task
to
make
sure
that
rooming
houses
become
legal
citywide,
we're
not
able
to
fix
that
here
on
this
policy,
but
in
November
we're
gonna,
get
a
new
housing
plan
and
in
that
new
housing
plan,
if
we
do
our
job
well
as
a
community,
including
rooming
houses
as
a
permitted
use
throughout
the
city,
must
be
part
of
that
policy.
You
all
wrote
down
that
you're
gonna
be
busy
on
that
between
now
and
November
mr.
G
Gavin
staring
at
me
because
he
knows
he's
gonna
get
a
lot
of
emails
and
phone
calls
in
the
next.
While
we
have
a
long
path
to
go
before
we
get
to
a
sensible
housing
system
in
the
City
of
Toronto
that
serves
the
needs
of
the
people
who
live
here,
not
just
the
people
who
invest
in
real
estate
here.
But
today
we
take
an
important
step
forward
and
I
I
want
to
congratulate
again.
Everyone
in
the
community
who's
worked
so
hard
so
that
the
most
vulnerable
of
us
have
the
same
kind
of
housing.
B
Out
of
the
way,
I
don't
have
a
lot
to
say,
I
just
wanted
to
acknowledge
the
work
of
councillor
perks.
He
did
say
he
started
this
when
he
was
first
elected
a
couple
of
terms
ago
and
he's
not
given
up
he's
been
relentless
in
moving
this
forward
and
I.
Don't
think
that
everything
that
we
do
here
with
our
partners
requires
a
champion
at
City,
Hall
and
Gord.
You
are
that
champion.
So
thank
you
very
much.
K
Bert
just
be
very
brief,
I'd
like
to
echo
that
sentiment
and
and
pass
along
thanks
and
gratitude,
and
congratulations
to
councillor
perks
for
bringing
this
forward.
It's
been
a
lot
of
work
and
to
the
staff
team
behind
it.
Who've
really
accelerated
this,
so
we
can
get
to
where
we
are
today
and,
of
course,
all
of
the
activist
community
and
and
residents
and
people
who
participated
in
the
consultation
process.
K
I
think
we've
got
a
much
better
outcome
because
of
those
were
robust
consultations
and
the
feedback
and
the
input
that
you've
provided
us
with
and
I
want
to
underscore
how
how
important
it
is
that
we
look
at
every
tool
available
to
to
address
the
housing
crisis
and
challenges
here
in
the
City
of
Toronto
on
our
planning
and
housing
agenda
today
alone.
We're
looking
at
multiple
tools
to
do
that.
K
It's
all
really
important
stuff
and
all
of
them
need
to
come
together
to
really
provide
more
affordable
housing
options
across
a
continuum
here
in
Toronto,
so
I'm
really
looking
forward
to
seeing
this
implemented
and
being
able
to
tell
residents
back
in
Ward,
19
and
across
the
city
that
there
are
supports
available
for
them.
We
have
put
the
protections
in
place
and
you
know
that,
no
matter
where
you're
living
you
can
count
on
those
protections
to
maintain
the
affordability
where
you
are
and
that's
hugely
important.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
You
councillor
Bradford
I'm,
just
gonna,
say
a
few
words
also
thank
councillor
perks,
as
everybody
mentioned
here.
He
has
been
working
on
this
for
a
long
time,
and
so
we
all
appreciate
the
efforts
I
want
to
thank
the
the
community,
because
I
know
that
councillor
perks
has
been
working
closely
with
many
of
you,
but
I
also
want
to
echo
what
councillor
said
about
making
sure
that
we
actually
are
able
to
have
rooming
houses
across
the
city,
rooming
houses
across
the
city
and
actually
having
a
licence
system
that
that
works
properly.
A
So
not
only
do
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
have
it
across
the
city,
but
we
actually
work
with
a
system
that
catches
these
rooming
houses.
So
we
can
do
the
job
that
we
need
to
do
which
actually
protect
the
tenants
and
protect
the
stuff.
So
thank
you
to
everybody
involved
and
looking
forward
to
continue
this
work.
Okay,.
E
A
A
We
voted
on
yep
yep,
absolutely
the
item
as
amended
all
those
in
favor
councillor,
bradford,
councillor,
perks,
councillor
Fletcher
councillor
by
Lao,
and
he
opposed
that
motion
carries
unanimously.
Okay
and
now
on
to
6.2
inclusionary
zoning
official
plan
policy
directions
Alejandra,
who
is
Vargas
first
speaker
good
morning,
Alejandro.
O
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
and,
as
you
know,
I
don't
know
you
know,
but
acre
I
see.
Inclusionary.
Zoning
is
really
dear
to
our
heart.
We
have
been
working
since
2005
and
I
want
to
mention
that
we
have
here
Peter
Milton,
that
it
was
a
mini
steel
housing
that
at
the
time
that
helped
us
to
really
pass
all
what
we
want
in
them
and
in
Ontario
our
inclusionary
zoning.
So
it's
very
nice
to
see
people
that
really
what
he
says
take
Kevin
he's
here.
Thank
you.
O
So
much
so
acre
is
the
largest
tenant
union
in
Toronto.
40,000
members
across
the
city
may
up
a
low-income
already
in
contact
and
we
fight
for
social
change,
as
we
know
we're
in
the
middle
of
the
housing
crisis.
There
are
people
who
don't
like
these
turns,
but
we
are.
We
are
in
a
housing
crisis
and
then
we
have
been
before
a
while
40
percent
of
renters
pay
more
than
30%
of
their
income
on
housing
on
the
city
and
only
2%
of
the
amount
of
housing
bill
or
a
proof
in
the
last
five
years
was
affordable.
O
O
But
on
Tuesdays,
when
the
city
report,
the
city's
report
came
out,
we
were
very
in
supported.
It
looks
like
the
developers
had
managed
to
convince
the
city
to
basically
require
no
affordable
housing
in
this
policy
developers
are
claiming
no
one
will
bill
in
Toronto
if
they
are
required
to
provide
affordable
housing
for
low
and
moderate
income
people.
Well
really.
This
is
ridiculous,
because
what
is
the
difference
between
the
people
on
New,
York,
Los
Angeles
compared
with
us
same
scene,
and
they
have
been
very
successful
and
they
all
are
seen.
O
We
cannot
lie
to
ourselves
because
Toronto
is
the
hottest
housing
market
in
the
country.
So
we
are
the
golden
egg
they
know
going
to.
The
developers
are
not
going
to
suffer
in,
they
give
him
a
song
set
aside
or
junus
to
blow
in
Conan
or
the
income.
The
city
proposed
there
for
the
old
units
will
get
front.
I
see
that
we
fought
so
hard
for
it
and
only
get
affordable
for
25
years.
I,
don't
think
so.
O
O
Well
to
five-pump
5%
is
like
like
even
bring
a
child
to
a
candy
store
and
only
allow
them
to
to
take.
One
can
be
really
is
we
should
know,
even
in
speaking,
how
hard
right
now
to
5%
a
son?
No,
no,
so
even
worse,
the
I
see
policies
will
no
apply
through
most
of
the
city.
Scarborough
a
toe
occurred
west
on
North
York.
Are
you
trying
to
tell
us
the
law
in
Connemara
the
ink
on
the
wheel?
Second
city,
citizens,
second-class
citizens,
because
these
are
the
message
that
we
were
receiving?
O
So
we
think
that
the
city
needs
to
do
more
inclusionary
zone.
Sony
must
be
a
stronger
Akon
is
releasing
a
report.
Today,
looking
at
the
race,
inclusionary
zoning
practices
across
of
North
America,
we
look
at
many
cities.
Most
cities
require
require
units
units
get
affordable
for
ever
in
most
cities
require
20%
on
all
the
new
Lopez
developments
basi
as
a
for
the
world,
and
most
cities
are
knowing
the
level
of
crisis
that
Torontonians
are
feeling.
O
Inclusionary
zoning
policies
apply
to
all
areas
of
the
city
not
only
to,
and
this
is
why
we
think
that
is
very
important.
The
City
of
Toronto
Torontonians
has
been
feeling
lately
without
no
hope
and
the
strong
inclusionary
zoning
will
give
hope
and
we'll
stop
the
gentrification.
That
is
really
eating
alike.
O
This
city
so
I
know
it
is
a
beginning
of
a
conversation,
and
this
is
not
really
said,
writing
and
stone,
but
we
need
to
set
a
bar
high
higher
that
we
are
saying
right
now
so
because,
really
and
truly
we
are
no
we're
very
difficult
to
live
with
this
rain
so
high
and
without
no
hope
and
in
the
way.
So
we
want
all
stop
fighting
until
this
program
is
an
example
for
all
North
America
and
what
Toronto
is
capable
and
what
it
says.
It's
in
heart.
Thank
you
so
much.
J
My
name
is
ebony
Menzies
Weston,
a
coin.
Remember
single
mother
and
leader:
acorn
is
the
largest
grassroots
membership
organization
of
low
and
moderate
income,
people
in
the
city,
the
province
and
the
country
of
Canada.
We
are
here
to
speak
about
inclusionary
zoning.
Something
acorn
has
been
fighting
for
and
pushing
for
since
2008
today
sets
the
tone
for
the
conversation
the
city
will
have
about
inclusionary
zoning
through
public
consultations,
neighborhood
meetings,
news
stories
and
votes
at
City
Hall.
The
city
report
starts
this
conversation
off
on
the
wrong
foot.
J
We
feel
with
the
bar
set
way
too
low
and
expectations
of
what
we
can
achieve
being
almost
nothing.
We
worry
that
developers
and
lobbyists
have
made
this
report
far
too
cautious.
The
housing
crisis,
the
housing
emergency
we
should
say,
will
not
be
solved
through
caution,
so
we
must
be
bold.
Here's
why
we
are
worried.
The
city
report
sets
an
affordability
period
of
only
25
years
in
25
years,
we're
going
to
end
up
right
back
where
we
started
or
in
an
even
worse
situation.
J
The
city
report
only
applies
inclusionary
zoning
to
additional
density,
and
it's
only
for
developments
with
a
hundred
units
or
more.
The
city
report
excludes
large
parts
of
the
city
from
inclusionary
zoning
places
where
low
income
people
live
like
Scarborough
Weston,
where
my
chapter
is
based
at
Oba,
Co
and
North
York.
With
all
these
constraints
and
limits,
the
city
report
suggests
a
set-aside
rate
of
affordable
units
of
2.5%
up
to
20%.
Can
anyone
guess
which
number
the
developers
will
lobby
for
we've
already
released
a
report
today?
We
shared
it
with
you
just
now.
J
It
looks
at
the
best
practices
across
North
America.
An
acorn
is
calling
for
inclusionary
zoning
to
be
a
right.
We
need
the
whole
development
to
have
a
percentage
set
aside
as
affordable
units
for
low
and
moderate
income
people,
and
it
should
apply
to
developments
with
lower
than
a
hundred
units.
Acorn
is
calling
for
the
afore
ability
period
to
be
in
perpetuity
or
in
layman's
terms
forever.
J
For
my
children,
my
grandchildren
for
I
won't
be
here
in
25
years
to
make
sure
that
these
things
are
implemented
and
because
the
housing
crisis
is
so
big,
there
is
a
need
for
20
to
30
percent
of
units
to
be
set
aside
as
affordable.
Things
are
bad
out
there.
Currently
I
cannot
afford
rent
anymore,
and
my
mother-in-law
has
to
help
me
pay
half
of
my
rent
just
to
keep
a
roof
over
my
children's
heads.
We
need
to
start
this
conversation
off
on
the
right
foot.
J
We
need
low
and
moderate
income
people
to
feel
like
it's
worth,
participating
in
the
conversation.
Acorn
members
heard
the
numbers
being
proposed
and
our
hearts
broke
we're
here
today
to
tell
you
what
we
need
in
order
to
join
in
this
conversation
and
in
order
to
make
inclusionary
zoning
worthy
of
the
ten-year
battle
we
fought
to
get
to
this
point.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
E
No
I'm
very
happy
being
a
civilian
now.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'm,
pleased
to
be
here
to
speak
in
response
to
the
staff
report
dated
May
13th
I
want
to
applaud
staff
for
a
very
thoughtful
and
purposeful
approach
to
the
work
that
they've
done.
The
assessment
report
is
the
critical
starting
point
for
the
discussion
about
an
inclusionary
zoning
policy
in
the
city.
It
allows
council
to
make
evidence-based
policy
decisions.
E
The
inclusionary
zoning
can
be
an
extraordinarily
effective
tool
to
develop
and
create
more
affordable
housing
in
the
city,
but
it
is
dependent
upon
creating
more
housing,
merely
carving
up
the
existing
housing
pie
and
reallocating.
It
is
not
going
to
create
more
affordable
housing.
This
is
predicated
on
density
bonusing.
You
actually
have
to
increase
the
supply
of
housing.
In
that
way,
you
can
set
aside
a
portion
of
the
housing
to
be
affordable
and
city
council
has
to
embrace
in
all
of
its
communities
the
notion
that
there
will
have
to
be
more
density
to
achieve
these
goals.
E
E
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
bill
108,
if
it's
adopted,
is
going
to
limit
where
a
conclusionary
zoning
could
be
done
and
I'm
not
here
to
debate
the
merits,
or
certainly
the
demerits
of
bill
108.
But
at
least
we
you
can
tell
that
the
assessment
report
and
the
data
city
staff
have
now
would
actually
be
fairly
consistent
with
what
appears
to
be
the
direction
the
government
is
going
in
in
bill
108.
E
Residual
land
value
is
something
that
you
know
the
price
of
land
lowers
as
inclusionary
zoning
requirements.
I
get
put
into
place
that
there
is
empirical
evidence
that
that
will
be
the
case,
but
it
doesn't
happen
overnight.
So
how
you
transition
into
the
inclusionary
zoning
regime
is
something
the
council
will
have
to
be
mindful
of
the
set-aside
rates.
E
I
know,
there's
a
great
deal
of
disappointment
about
what
they
are,
but
they're,
based
on
the
evidence
and
they're
consistent
with
what
I
was
aware,
would
likely
be
viable
in
the
city
in
an
initial
launch
of
an
inclusionary
zoning
regime
over
time
those
set-aside
numbers
as
the
market
changes
as
residual
land
values
adapt.
Those
set-aside
numbers
can
increase.
E
I
share
some
of
the
deputies
concerns
about
the
affordability
levels
in
the
duration
and
what
your
assessment
report
demonstrates
is
what
kind
of
affordability,
the
level
and
duration
you
can
get
when
there
is
no
subsidy
or
public
support
for
inclusionary
zoning
I'll.
Get
to
that
in
a
moment.
So
measures
and
incentives
I
do
believe.
The
Izod
should
be
applied
to
density
bonuses,
that's
problematic
with
in
our
planning
regime,
because
you
never
know
what
base
zoning
is
in
the
City
of
Toronto
or
in
the
province
of
Ontario,
unlike
in
many
US
jurisdictions.
E
E
It
might
be
true
that
the
municipalities
don't
give
direct
subsidies,
but
what
the
staff
report
glosses
over
is
in
the
US
federal
state.
Governments
provide
significant
incentives,
tax
incentives,
grants
and
subsidies
to
make
affordable
housing,
work
and
inclusionary
zoning
work
and,
in
fact
many
municipalities
provide
indirect
grants
and
subsidies
to
make
eyes
at
work.
And
if
you
have
questions
about
that,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
it
in
summary,
I
just
want
to
say
I
think
you're
on
the
right
track.
E
G
G
E
Advice
and
staff
would
certainly
be
in
a
position
to
assess
this
and
give
you
their
best
advice
is
that
those
various
charges
should
not
apply
to
the
unit's
created
through
inclusionary
zoning
I'm,
not
suggesting
waiving
DC's
on
whole
developments,
but
just
to
create
some
additional
affordability
of
these
new
units.
Bill
108
is
going
to
up
and
how
the
city
collects.
Development
charges
and
parkland
monies
how
it
is
able
to
utilize
section
37.
The
legislation
isn't
clear
on
how
that's
going
to
work.
E
I,
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
be
done
through
regulation,
whether
there's
going
to
be
amendments
tabled
to
bill
108
that'll
clarify
that,
but
it
is
going
to
constrain
the
City
of
Toronto
and
every
municipality
in
Ontario
and
in
collecting
fees.
My
advice,
though,
is
for
the
I'side
units
themselves.
Do
your
very
best
to
eliminate
as
much
added
municipal
cost
to
those
units.
In
doing
so,
you
might
be
able
to
extend
the
duration
and
the
affordability
of
those
particular
units.
E
G
A
P
You
so
much
for
allowing
me
this
opportunity
to
talk
to
you.
I
actually
had
a
written
submission
that
I
sent
in
past
5:00
p.m.
you
will
get
it,
but
it's
not
in
your
package
and
I'm,
also
going
to
so
I'm
gonna.
Allow
that
to
enter
into
the
package
of
things.
I'm
gonna
refer
to
it
briefly,
but
I
realize
that
I
have
two
hats:
that
I
want
to
speak
from.
P
So
that's
the
context
of
me
as
somebody
who
works
in
Parkdale
and
then
there's
the
context
of
me.
So
that's
word
for
now
and
I
also
live
in
Ward
12
and
so
at
st.
Clair
and
Bathurst
I've
watched
two
developments
go
up,
one
on
the
north
west
corner
one
on
the
southeast
corner
and
another
proposed
for
the
northeast
corner.
P
P
Imagine
that
there
are
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
units
that
are
going
to
be
developed
in
that
and
I'm
still
wondering
when
we're
gonna
have
some
benefit
for
the
people
who
are
being
pushed
out
from
the
market
pressures
that
are
existing
and
that
inclusionary
zoning
I
think
is
actually
one
of
the
better
tools
to
to
help
us
along
a
spectrum
of
responses.
That
I
hope
that
this
committee
will
be
looking
at
over
its
tenure.
P
So
I
think
there
are
three
areas
that
we
need
to
look
at
that
are
very
important
and
they've
been
raised
already
and
I
think
that
some
of
the
subsequent
speakers
will
also
be
raising
them.
The
first
one
is-
and
the
previous
speaker
talked
about
what
we
talked
about-
is
medium
and
high-value
zones,
and
I
certainly
understand
that
bill
108,
depending
on
how
it
ends
up,
will
have
some
impact
on
on
where
inclusionary
zoning
may
be
possible
to
apply.
I.
Do
think
it's
important
for
the
City
of
Toronto
to
actually
understand
that.
P
The
second
part
and
I
know
that
there
are
subsequent
speakers
and
in
the
packages
there
are
some
very
good
arguments
about
how
those
numbers
will
work,
so
I
encourage
you
to
look
at
them.
The
second
issue,
of
course,
is
the
idea
of
affordability
and
you've
heard
it
I'm
glad
that
previous
speakers
have
already
talked
about
this.
But
I
really
want
to
sort
of
focus
on
the
idea
that,
if
you're
going
to
create
a
benefit
and
that
benefit
is
supposed
to
remain,
then
you
really
need
to
make
that
benefit
remain.
P
Considering
in
your
in
your
deliberation
on
this
on
this
issue,
the
I
think
the
final
piece
is
about
density
and
I.
Think
density
is
a
very
important
topic.
It's
a
tough
one,
but
if
we're,
if
density
and
we've
watched,
the
OMB
create
density
increases,
I
think
that
we
have
to
understand
that
if
we're
going
to
provide
density,
it's
a
benefit
and
that
benefit
must
come
to
Torontonians
and
it
must
come
to
the
Torontonians
who
are
currently
unable
to
afford
rents
and
to
live
in
the
city.
P
A
L
So
I
come
to
you
today,
because
housing
affordability
is
indeed
a
crisis.
An
inclusionary
zoning,
however,
is
a
tool
that
we
can
use
to
actively
address
the
lack
of
affordable
housing
on
an
ongoing
basis.
It's
been
used
successfully
in
a
number
of
American
and
international
jurisdictions,
and
it
certainly
shows
promise
right
here
at
home,
but
this
policy
does
not
do
it.
L
Justice
right
now,
the
the
policy,
the
proposed
policy
talks
about
inclusionary
zoning
on
developments
over
a
hundred
units
in
strong
market
areas
such
as
Downtown
and
developments
over
140
units
everywhere
else
and
in
the
map
that
you
have
strong
market
areas
essentially
refers
to
the
center
of
the
city.
This
is
misguided.
We
need
affordable
housing
across
the
city
and
not
just
in
in
the
center
of
the
city
prioritizing
this
area
does
not.
It
basically
ignores
the
need
of
many
of
the
city's
neighborhood
improvement
areas
and
other
communities
that
are
in
desperate
need
of
affordable
housing.
L
It
does
not
make
a
lot
of
sense
in
the
context
of
the
poverty
reduction
strategy
and
it's
not
what
we
need
right
now.
I
can
cannot
advocate
in
good
faith
for
the
residents
of
my
community
by
supporting
affordable
housing
from
a
downtown
first
perspective.
The
other
troubling
part
of
this
policy
is
that
it
only
asks
for
2.5
to
5%
of
rental
housing
to
be
affordable
and
for
10
percent
of
condos
for
sale
to
be
affordable.
This
is
not
nearly
enough.
L
Toronto
deserves
better
than
a
half-measure
the
people
in
this
city
who
are
on
the
streets
who
have
no
fixed
address,
who
are
living
in
shelters
who
are
even
raising
their
children
in
shelters.
All
of
these
people
deserve
better
than
what
this
policy
will
give
them
and
I
understand
that
we
are
in
a
tricky
situation
with
the
province
right
now
and
and
the
province
is
perhaps
looking
to
restrict
inclusionary
zoning,
but
we
can't
go
about
this
as
though
we've
already
lost.
L
Certainly,
yesterday's
announcement
of
the
restoration
of
provincial
funding
to
the
city
gives
us
that
you
don't
go
into
a
into
a
negotiation
with
a
compromise.
This
is
not
progressive,
it
is
not
innovative,
it
is
a
compromise
and
it
is
a
compromise
that
will
quite
literally
cost
lives.
Housing
in
this
city
is
an
emergency
that
cannot
be
overstated,
and
this
policy
may
have
been
able
to
address
the
problem
before
before.
I
was
born
perhaps,
but
it
wouldn't
even
have
been
able
to
address
the
problem
five
years
ago
and
certainly
in
2019.
B
Noticed
in
the
report
that
it
indicates
there's
what
we're
just
calling
it
area
of
moderate
growth
that
could
sustain
inclusionary
zoning
in
the
lakeshore
area.
But
are
you
saying
that
you
believe
there's
that
much
development
in
a
typical
lakeshore
that
we
should
be
approaching
that
a
little
bit
differently,
so
I.
L
But
I'm
sure
you
can
see
just
in
that
in
that
area
there
is
so
much
like
there
are.
There
have
been
condos
going
up
non-stop
for
the
last
several
years
and
it
isn't
stopping.
We
are
continuing
to
see
this
development
everywhere
and
it's
spreading
to
our
other
neighborhoods
along
the
lakeshore
to
Long
Branch.
It's
going
north,
it's
not
being
built
in
areas
that
can
handle
the
densification
and
it
is
pushing
people
out.
It
is
raising
the
property
values
everywhere
else.
It
is
causing
landlords
to
evict
their
tenants.
B
L
L
A
Q
Q
Evidence
based
decision
making
I
think
is
a
critical
part
of
the
work
that
we're
doing
right
now.
Good
policy
is
based
on
that
evidence.
There
are
in
a
discussion
like
this,
especially
a
lot
of
voices
on
all
sides
that
are
allowed
and
forceful
and
passionate,
and
it's
part
of
the
public
policy
process
and
your
part
is
to
find
in
all
of
that,
what
works
in
the
real
world.
A
part
of
that
is
a
recognition
of
the
importance
of
the
industry.
If
growth
is
going
to
pay
for
growth,
we
recognize
I.
Q
Q
So
we
can
learn
from
those
examples
and
from
those
parallels,
but
examples
and
parallels
aren't
everything
and
local
economics
matter
a
lot.
We
aren't
New,
York
or
Boulder,
and
what
actually
works
in
Toronto
is
very
much
an
empirical
question
about
the
details.
That's
why
Steve
Pomeroy
at
Carleton
University
developed
the
research
with
the
support
of
the
matrix
that
I'm
sharing
with
you
today.
Q
If
we
look
at
the
details
than
is
currently
proposed
in
the
policy
direction,
what
we
see
as
the
NBL
see
research
shows
is
that
the
city
certainly
can
hit
10
and
20%
set-aside
rates
at
a
hundred
percent
of
average
market
rent.
But
if
we
look
more
granularly,
we
know
that
we
can
do
better
in
several
ways.
First,
we
know
from
the
research
that
Steve
Palmer
I
did
that
perpetual
affordability
is
absolutely
achievable.
Q
Levels
of
a
hundred
percent
of
Amr
are
achievable,
but
if
we
look
closer
we
can
see
we
could
also
hit
80
and
even
60%
of
AMR
if
we're
prepared
to
adjust
set-aside
rates
to
provide
for
that
deeper
affordability
and
according
to
this
more
recent
study,
inclusionary
zoning
is
also
achievable.
I'll,
be
at
a
fairly
low
set-aside
rates
in
even
the
low
cost
markets
in
Toronto
and
achievable
on
as
of
right
development
again
at
lower
set-aside
rates,
all
across
Toronto
we
can
have
achieve
achieve
illan,
clusion
arizona
in
every
part
of
the
city.
Q
The
city's
proposed
policy,
as
it
goes
out
to
consultation,
really
should
reflect
that
best
evidence
and
that
evidence
supports
a
more
robust
inclusionary
zoning
strategy
that
generates
more
affordable
housing
for
longer
periods
of
time
for
people
living
on
low
incomes
in
just
a
very
last
minute.
By
I've
got
though
I
do
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
say
the
city
has
done
something
terrific
here
for
all
of
the
critiques
that
people
are
bringing
forward
about,
trying
to
make
sure
we
have
the
best
inclusionary
zoning
policy.
Q
C
Q
So
it
is
not
only
a
short-sighted
policy
that
serves
low-income,
renters
poorly,
but
it's
also
a
very
poor
policy
for
taxpayers
because
they
end
up
paying
a
lot
in
the
end,
I
believe
New
York,
especially
north
of
a
billion
dollars,
regaining
all
the
units
that
timed
out
on
them
in
their
earlier
policies
that
were
time
limited.
The
Boston
tenants
associations
campaigned
for
years
to
try
and
recover
those
units
because
their
their
residents
were
being
turfed
and.
C
Q
C
When
you're,
when
you're,
trying
to
renegotiate
once
the
term
expires,
are
you
negotiating
in
current
dollars
or
is
it
retro
look
retro
actively
going
back
to
when
when
those
units
were
valued,
for
example,
25
years
ago?
So,
therefore,
if
we,
if
we
do
something,
today,
has
a
25
year
term
expiration
when
we
want
to
recapture
and
bring
it
back
on
to
the
mobile
market,
are
we
now
paying
the
prices
in
2040
those
valuations,
you're.
Q
Gonna
pay
the
prices
in
2040
and
you're
gonna
pay
it
for
current
dollars.
Future
dollars
are
always
cheaper
than
current
dollars.
So
if
you
look
at
the
actual
economic
impact
of
say,
standing
from
50
to
80
or
80
to
100
or
99
years
of
affordability,
it's
nearly
zero
unless
you
wait
for
those
50
years
and
then
try
and
buy
them
50
years
later,
and
then
it's
full
value.
So
you
absolutely
don't
want
to
be
in
that
position.
You
want
to
be
negotiating
right
now.
The.
C
Proposed
policy
direction
that
staff
have
put
free
for
us
is
to
is
to
try
to
define
the
price
of
affordable
market
rates,
and
right
now,
we've
been
using
80%
of
AMR
and
and
yet
I
think.
The
lived
experience
for
many
individuals
who
are
low
income
or
even
working
class
or
middle
class
is
that
that
toronto's
housing
market
has
just
gone
in
such
a
direction.
That
80
percent
of
average
market
rents
is
actually
really
too
expensive
as
I
York's.
Your
experience
as
well
absolutely.
Q
C
Then
just
my
final
question:
with
respect
to
the
eligible
household
incomes,
that's
that
stated
in
the
in
the
policy
as
proposed
today.
There's
the
the
statement
is
that
anywhere
from
thirty
five
percent,
thirty
five
thousand
is
67
thousand
for
for
renters
is
the
30th
to
sixty
percent.
Our
income
does
that
does
that?
Does
that
annual
income
meet
the
the
market
challenges
of
housing
right
now?
So.
Q
Q
The
the
dwelling
room
is,
is
the
price
range
that
they
can
hit
and
that's
again
down
around
40
percent
of
Amr
well
below
that
range
that
you're
describing
the
range
that
you're
describing
really
is
sort
of
a
middle
working
level,
and
that's
that's
important
for
some
folks
but
doesn't
solve
all
of
the
different
housing
problems.
We've
got.
A
You
seems
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions,
so
you
talked
about
evidence-based,
and
so
there
was
a
study
that
the
legislation
actually
required
us
to
produce
an
economic
study,
and
you
looked
at
that
data.
Did
you
have
the
opportunity
to
actually
sit
down
with
our
staff
and
the
people
that
did
the
study?
Would
you
welcome
the
opportunity
to
go
through
the
numbers
and
to
present
your
analysis
together,
so
that
we
can
actually
bring
these
numbers
together?
Absolutely.
Q
And
how
these
things
play
out
in
the
real
world
is
very
granular
and
very
varied.
We
did
have
a
chance
to
sit
down
on
the
the
city
staff
who
worked
on
this
policy
have
been
incredibly
collaborative
and
open
with
with
the
advocacy
community
on
this
work,
as
I
know
they
have
with
the
industry.
We've
had
a
chance
to
talk
to
the
folks
at
NB
LLC
as
well,
and
compare
notes
and
and
make
sure
that
we're
all
along
roughly
the
same
page.
Q
A
Q
N
Some
of
you
might
know,
I'm
a
for
browsing
consultant
I've
been
involved
in
Colusa
rezoning
in
terms
and
and
researching
it
writing
about
it
and
advocating
for
virtually
twenty
years
now.
The
city's
current
policy
projection,
in
my
mind,
is
a
very,
very
good
start.
I
think
the
staff
should
be
commended
for
the
approach
they've
taken
in
the
work
they've
done
to
date,
and
especially
movie
Ted,
so
quickly
on.
What
we
all
know
is
a
very
complicated
subject.
N
Inclusionary
zoning
has
great
potential
for
the
city;
it
could
produce
something
like
twenty
five
hundred
units
per
year
of
new,
affordable
housing
without
needing
financial
subsidies
or
regulatory
concessions.
That
number
would
dwarf
any
other
output
from
any
other
program.
The
city
has
ever
tried
to
date
and
dwarfing
considerable
numbers,
but
why
that
number
is
large,
it's
actually
quite
small
compared
to
the
housing
need
and
therefore
it's
I
think
it's
very
important.
We
try
to
use
this
tool
to
the
absolute
fullest
that
we
can
can
can
do.
N
My
concern
is
that
we're
not
doing
that
with
the
current
policy
so
far
they
fall
short
in
a
number
of
places
and
actually
maximizing
the
amount
of
housing
we
can
get
from
the
program
they
do
this
in
about
four.
They
fall
short
and
perhaps
four
different
ways.
First
of
all,
they
limit
inclusion
areas
only
to
certain
areas
where
best
practice
in
the
u.s.
clearly
show
that
you
can
apply
inclusionary
across
the
whole
city,
not
to
limited
areas.
They're
applying
city
of
set-asides
of
less
than
20%
20%
is
a
very
good
set-aside.
N
It's
because,
with
best
practices
but
again
in
the
u.s.,
it's
applied
universally,
not
in
specific
areas
and
not
did
you
use
lower,
set
asides
in
other
areas.
It
also
falls
short
by
exempting
certain
developments.
Large
developments
of
one
hundred
units
are
less
or
one
hundred
forty
or
less
in
the
u.s..
N
The
best
practice
the
clarity
is
to
to
have
projects
down
to
ten
units
or
more
has
been
making
them
subject
to
affordable
housing,
and
it's
also
falling
short
by
possibly
limiting
the
application
of
inclusionary
zoning
to
the
uptake
to
the
uplift
caused
by
rezoning
and
not
also
just
to
the
base
density
of
base
approved
density.
That's
also
in
the
united
states.
Both
are
applied
for
the
huge
Arizonians
applied
to
both
of
the
categories
of
development.
N
If
all
the
all
of
these
different
limits
begin
to
chip
away
at
the
potential
for
corrosion
ares
owning
it's
hard
to
estimate
what
that
might
be,
but
I
could
ask
I
could
guess
that
by
applying
all
these
conditions,
we
are
actually
reducing,
they
have
reduced
it
in
half
the
affordable
housing
and
we're
going
to
produce
by
conclusionary
zoning,
and
that's
a
considerable
cutback
in
a
you
know.
In
housing
we
all
desperately
need
I
understand.
N
Moving
onto
affordability,
controls
this
aspect,
hadn't
been
I've,
been
considered
a
number
of
times
already
today,
again
we're
falling
short
in
my
mind.
The
best
practice
in
the
United
States
have
clearly
moved
to
a
permanent
affordability.
What
that
means
in
various
programs
varies
from
least
50
years.
Sometimes
it
means
for
the
life
of
the
building.
Sometimes
it
actually
means
perpetuity
to
we
are
using
and
the
policy
directions
are
using.
225
years
of
this
has
been
the
norm
for
many
years,
but
frankly,
it
falls.
It's
just
not
good
enough.
N
The
only
way
you
can
justify
using
a
twenty
five
year
limit
is,
if
you
actually
believe
that,
in
25
years
the
phorbol
housing
crisis
is
going
to
disappear.
I
think
if
you
believe
that
you're
a
minority
of
one,
the
great
problem,
is
once
you
apply
a
limited
limits
to
the
duration
of
the
four
ability
at
some
time
in
the
future,
to
start
losing
these
units
and
what's
happened
in
the
United
States
and
many
jurisdictions,
they
have
found
they've
actually
starting
to
lose
the
more
affordable
units
and
they
are
creating
anytime
dude.
N
N
They
were
setback
the
timing
for
getting
a
rezoning
for
at
least
two
to
three
years,
if
not
more,
and
when
we
did
get,
it
would
be
a
very
fragmented
and
piecemeal
approach.
On
top
of
that,
would
exit
early
limit
that
the
places
where
affordable
housing
would
be
applied
and
reduce
even
further
the
more
affordable
housing
we
could
achieve.
N
A
N
C
C
If
the
development
industry
pushes
back
and
and
of
course
they
will-
and
they
do
all
the
time
in
this
kimi
room
and
in
the
hallways
and
that
and
the
boardrooms
of
city
hall-
and
they
say
the
numbers
just
don't
work
cannot
be
done,
but
yet
the
profits
that
they
walk.
They
get
to
hold
that
and
own.
That
forever.
Is
that
not
true?
Yes,.
N
C
N
C
N
C
Art
is
our
development
industry
under
such
hardship
that
it
cannot
work
here
where
they
can
make
it
work
in
New,
York
City,
for
example,
where
they
try
anyways.
What's
what's
so
special
about
our
development
sector
that
that
everything
that
we
try
to
put
forward
to
to
say
be
a
better
better
city
building
partner
with
us?
They
say
they
can't
do
it
what's
doing
business
in
Toronto.
C
N
I
think
our
development
of
the
industry
and
our
approach
to
development
is
very
similar
to
that
United.
States
I,
don't
see
any
clear
distinction
that
would
merit
special
considerations
here
or
we're
limiting
how
we
can
deal
with
affordability.
I
think
we
have
a
very
similar
approaches
to
development.
Would.
N
Sorry,
I,
don't
quite
understand
your
question,
but
again
in
the
States.
New
programs
are
now
going
to
permanent
affordability
and
existing
programs
are
have
been
consistently
increasing,
they've
to
the
term
to
to
permanent
affordability.
Earlier
programs
did
not,
but
we've
learned
the
hard
lesson
that
indeed
there
is
no
reason
why
they
can't
go
to
the
longer
terms.
Thank.
N
B
Morning
and
thanks
for
this
opportunity,
one
month
ago,
UN
Special,
Rapporteur,
Leilani,
Farha,
sat
in
this
chair
and
inspired
us
with
a
call
to
uphold
housing
rights.
Today
you
have
the
chance
to
put
a
human
rights
lens
into
practice.
The
object
of
inclusionary
zoning
is
inclusion,
a
worthy
human
rights
goal.
Let's
examine
the
policy
before
you
to
see
who
is
included
and
who
is
excluded
in
your
package.
B
I
sent
you
two
examples
of
the
proposed
policy
direction
in
action:
one
a
new
condo
in
the
hottest
market
in
town,
one,
a
rental
building
in
a
moderate
market,
because
I
have
only
a
few
minutes:
I'm,
not
I'm,
only
going
to
just
recap
the
findings:
here's
what
I
saw
a
condo
where
the
developer
gets
triple
the
density
allowed
under
the
original
zoning.
What
do
we
get
in
return
under
the
proposed
policy
direction?
B
13%
of
the
building
would
be
affordable
for
30%
of
Toronto
renters
that
the
lottery
begin,
the
buildings
remaining
87%
affordable
to
fewer
than
10%
of
renters
that
make
more
than
a
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
year
example
number
two:
a
rental
building.
The
developer
gets
a
nice
50%
bump
over
the
as
of
right
density,
and
yet
less
than
1%
of
that
building
is
affordable.
The
remaining
99%
of
the
building
you
need
an
income
of
80,000
or
more
that's
only
27%
of
Toronto
wrestler,
renter
households.
B
Everyone
else
shut
out
so
here's
my
question:
why
would
the
city
hand
out
huge
benefits
to
developers
every
time
it
up
zones
and
ask
so
little
in
return?
What
are
we
afraid
of
in
this
proposal?
Everyone
gets
paid
out
and
fall.
The
homebuilders
should
be
happy
they're,
getting
the
same
profit
as
they
do
now.
Construction
and
soft
cost
same
as
now.
B
The
affordable
components
is
that
land
speculators,
people
who
hold
onto
land
with
the
object
of
making
a
profit,
will
just
sit
on
their
land
and
wait
for
the
market
to
get
even
crazier
or
for
this
policy
to
just
go
away
or
they
will
sell
their
property
for
something
other
than
housing.
But
how
big
a
risk
is
that
really
remember?
Speculators
won't
lose
money.
B
They
just
might
not
get
as
much
money
as
they
feel
they
deserve
and
if
they
do
sit
on
their
land,
a
condo
without
inclusionary
zoning
excludes
over
90%
of
toronto's
renters
if
it
doesn't
get
built.
Is
that
really
such
a
loss?
And
finally,
this
I'm
using
a
human
event
rights
lens
to
analyze,
who
is
included
and
who
is
left
out?
But
the
other
human
rights
issue?
Is
this
when
we
neighs
weigh
the
necessity,
the
right
to
have
a
secure
home
and
the
wish
the
gamble
really
of
making
a
profit
on
the
land
you
own?
B
They
do
not
weigh
equally
in
the
balance.
I
know,
you
know
all
this
I
also
know
that
in
this
province,
land,
speculators
and
developers
are
a
powerful
lobby.
But
here
it
is
people
don't
like
seeing
tower
after
tower
going
up,
knowing
that
neither
they
nor
their
kids
can
afford
to
live
there.
Your
leadership
on
this
issue,
strengthening
the
prop
of
the
proposed
proposal.
Have
you
heard
people
like
Sean,
Maher,
Richard,
dirty
lists,
speak
to
and
then
navigating
through
the
province
taking
her
and
persistence.
B
R
One
of
the
things
that
people
forget
about
is
not
just
the
vulnerable
people,
but
people
who
are
first-generation
Torontonians
people
who
do
not
have
the
advantage
of
potentially
inheriting
homes
from
their
parents
or
a
family
member
or
older
family
members
whose
homes
have
grown
in
value
by
more
than
a
hundred
two
hundred
percent.
Since
their
purchase,
people
who
do
not
have
those
advantages,
this
plan
that
you're
bringing
forward
does
help
those
people.
R
The
problem
is
that
it
does
not
go
far
enough
and
there
are
many,
even
in
the
most
respectable
stereotypically
respectable
elements
of
the
middle-class
that
do
not
that
this
policy
does
not
help.
In
other
words,
it
is
not
adequate
to
people
the
people
I
want
to
talk
about
today,
who
are
facing
sudden
severe
housing
insecurity.
Other
folks
have
talked
about
people
who
face
perpetual
housing
insecurity.
R
They
who
have
some
months
where
they
make
maybe
two
to
three
thousand
dollars
and
some
months
where
they
make
far
less
than
that
and
have
to
coast
what
they
can
save
from
that
and
it
makes
saving
difficult
for
them.
The
policies,
the
proposals
that
are
up
in
front
of
you
have
they
don't
go
far
enough
to
help
those
people.
It
doesn't
go
far
enough
to
help
people
who
suffer
from
Rena
fiction.
R
It
doesn't
go
far
enough
to
help
people
who
suffer
sudden
job
loss
right,
not
even
through
fault
of
their
own,
which
are
stigmatized
enough,
but
there's
no
reason
why,
if
you
were
fired,
you
should
lose
your
home.
Morally
speaking,
it
does
not
help
people
who
find
themselves.
Instable
has
an
unstable
due
to
things
like
family
collapse,
relationship
breakups.
R
I
want
to
mention
as
well,
very
briefly
that
there
is
another
group
of
people
who
suffer
extra
instability
among
the
more
respectable
lower
to
middle
classes,
and
those
are
pet
owners.
People
who
were
in
many
rental
properties
forbid
pet
ownership.
I
myself
know
someone
who
was
homeless
for
three
months
because
after
despite
his
an
income
that
fits
in
the
lower
middle
class
of
about
thirty
to
forty
thousand
dollars
a
year,
it
took
him
three
months
to
find
a
rental
property
in
the
city
that
he
could
afford,
and
that
would
accept
also
his
dog.
R
M
Hi
there
thanks
very,
very
much
for
having
me
here
today
and
I
also
want
to
say
it's
such
an
honor
to
speak
in
a
room
full
of
people
and
and
particularly
I'm,
very
heartened
to
hear
the
deputations
of
acorn
members.
Today
at
and
in
previous
DEP,
you
tend
to
remind
us
of
the
importance
of
his
piece
of
policy
for
working
people
and
low
and
moderate
income
people
in
Toronto.
M
First,
in
terms
of
boldness,
the
policy
options
before
you
timidly,
restrict
the
proposed
market
areas.
Building
sizes
set
asides
and
depth
of
affordability
for
I
said
in
Toronto.
The
rationale
for
these
restrictions
is
the
fear
that
I
said
will
suppress
housing,
development
or
result
in
higher
housing
prices.
But
us
evidence
shows
that
this
fear
need
not
limit
Toronto's
approach
to
eyes
ahead.
A
comprehensive
review
of
500
US
jurisdiction
clearly
demonstrates
that
I
said:
does
not
suppress
housing
development
or
significantly
increase
housing
costs
in
active
markets
like
Toronto's,
we
can
safely
be
bolder
in
our
proposals.
M
Secondly,
the
affordability
period.
The
proposed
policy
directions
for
consultation,
restrict
the
affordability
period
to
25
years
and,
as
previous
deput
ents
have
already
pointed
out,
this
flies
in
the
face
of
us
evidence
or
similar
jurisdictions
to
Toronto
such
as
Chicago
have
significantly
increased
their
affordability
periods
in
order
to
stem
the
loss
of
affordable
stock
that
they
begin
to
experience
after
25
years.
30
percent
of
u.s.
M
How
do
we
achieve
the
maximum
affordable
housing
possible
in
each
new
development
that
freight
work
would
put
people
first,
and
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
rights
based
approach
to
housing
recently
embraced
by
counsel
at
the
motion
of
this
committee
and
bring
our
city
a
step
closer
to
reality.
I'm
gonna
make
Adam
credit
house
for
Torontonians.
C
Thank
you
very
much
Emily
for
your
deputation
with
respect
to
the
submission
that
was
just
put
before
us
by
Sean
mehar,
and
this
is
of
course,
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
options
based
on
detailed
market
analysis.
You've
just
referenced
it
and
specifically
that
their
report
builds
on
the
data
that
was
utilized
by
the
end,
Barry
Lyon
consulting
firm,
but
they
actually
took
it
and
into
a
couple
other
directions
that
that
NB
LC
did
not.
C
If
there
were
two
or
three
takeaways
from
from
this
succinct
report,
what
do
you
want
staff
to
know
about
it,
because,
obviously
the
staff
decided
to
sculpt
it,
and
it
was
much
more
narrow.
This
other
group
said
we're
gonna
go
much
wider.
What
is
the
major
takeaway
from
from
this
from
the
from
the
Pomeroy
and
mehar
report?
I?
Would.
M
Say
the
key
top
line
is
we
need
a
bold
policy
approach
that
aims
to
achieve
the
maximum
affordability
for
the
maximum
duration
and
the
maximum
number
of
units
in
each
new
development.
We
recognize
that
there
are
sub
market
conditions
in
Toronto.
We
recognize
also
know
that
those
are
going
to
change
over
time.
We
need
an
adaptable
framework
that
enables
us
to
use
all
of
those
different
factors
to
achieve
maximum
affordability
and.
C
So
is
your
conclusion
here
that
by
not
by
not
looking
at
the
data,
more
more
broadly
with
multiple
scenarios
before
us
is
that
the
City
of
Toronto
could
be
walking
into
the
consultations
with
some
preset
conditions
that
you're
not
going
to
get
the
the
the
the
biggest
options
coming
out
of
it.
Exactly.
M
I
think
that
you
know
I
said
it's
so
complex.
It's
really
difficult
to
host
a
public
consultation
about
something
like
I
said,
and
you
know
my
my
admiration
goes
to
staff
who
will
be
planning
those
if
we
unnecessarily
restrict
the
options
that
are
presented
to
the
public.
There
won't
be
a
fulsome
understanding
of
what
can
really
be
achieved
through
I
said
and,
as
as
other
deputies
have
said,
it's
not
a
great
way
to
start
a
negotiation.
I
think
everyone
in
this
room
recognizes
the
potential
impacts
of
the
108.
M
We
appreciate
and
support
the
city's
determination
to
keep
moving
forward
with
I
said
and
to
continue
to
deliver
affordable
housing,
and
we
know
that
the
public
is
is
there
in
support
of
this.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
when
we're
consulting
we're
offering
people
kind
of
the
full
breadth
of
information
about
the
possibilities
of
this
policy
tool.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
D
D
There
is
a
boy,
two
girls
and
one
of
the
things
that
that
happened
in
our
home.
When
the
girls
are
changing
their
clothes,
he
has
to
leave
their
own
and
it's
he's
six
years
old.
So
it's
a
little
bit
difficult
for
me
to
explain
to
him
that
he
has
to
leave
the
room
and
it
not
just
in
my
apartment,
but
in
other
people
apart
and
other
apartments
in
my
building
there
are
people
who
are
on
the
house
also,
and
there
are
teenagers
right
now,
there's
a
two
teenagers
who
be
sharing
the
same
bedroom.
To
me.
D
That's
unacceptable.
I
know
we
could
do
better
I'm
saying
let
your
conscience
be
your
guide
and
how
could
the
housing
crisis
that
we
experience
in
in
the
city
even
I
know
this
woman
who
live
in
kanafeh
over
25
years?
She
has
never
been
in
trouble
with
the
law
and
guess
what
she
got
evicted.
She
has
nowhere
to
go
and
Alana
took
out
the
court.
She's
helped
feeling
helpless.
I
could
tell
you
what
our
children
and
her
nephews
who
are
all
at
us,
living
in
the
apartment.
D
The
problem
that
many
people
have
his'n
in
the
city
is
that
they
can't
are
it's
difficult,
it's
next
to
impossible,
to
afford
the
rent
to
pay,
rent
and
I'm
saying
we
need
deeply
affordable
social
housing
where
people
can
live
in
dignity,
they
could
live
with
joy
and
happiness.
You
need
to
help
people
with
their
well-being
without
that
it's
impossible
and
extent
possible
for
people
to
reach
their
full
human
potential.
Let's
help
them.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
S
As
you
just
mentioned,
my
name
is
David
Langley
I'm
a
park
dale
resident
as
well
as
an
ambassador
I've,
also
lived
in
the
West
End
East
End,
London
Sarnia
and
Buffalo
Toronto
I've
found
been
your
over
35
years.
Now
has
been
one
of
the
worst
places.
I've
been
to
live
and
we
were
one
of
the
best
places
we've
followed
them
back
with
our
housing
situations
with
our
people.
Now
I
applaud
what
the
city
has
done.
A
council
with
your
proposals,
but
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions:
your
inclusionary
zoning.
S
Okay,
if
you
look
at
your
targets
and
everything
else
and
your
numbers
and
that
it's
way
too
low.
If
you
look
at
the
homeless,
the
shelter's
people
are
couchsurfing
moving
in
with
families,
because
they
have
no
jobs,
no
ability
to
support
housing,
all
those
factors
it's
way
too
low.
We
have
so
many
more
people
that,
if
you
give
them
a
drop
in
a
bucket,
there's
more
it's
going
to
replace
it.
We're
never
gonna
come
to
terms
are
ending
it.
S
S
What
do
you
want
to
call
it
quantity
we
are
having
more
and
more
people
come
to
trial.
The
prime
minister
was
talking
about
getting
their
200,000
immigrants
coming
here.
Where
are
they
coming
other
place?
Weren't
taking
Toronto
we're,
not
saying
no
we're
just
saying
we
need
help.
Okay!
The
other
thing
is
the
time
limit
you
have
for
affordability.
Why
should
it
be
a
time
limit?
Okay,
it
takes
you
forever
to
get
housing
to
start
with.
S
If
you
are
lucky
to
get
a
portable
housing
that
you're
gonna
for
you
get
25
years
so
26
years,
it's
up
there,
you
can't
afford
it.
It's
back
to
square
one
on
the
streets
homeless,
whatever
there
should
never
be
a
time
limit
or
pressure
on
somebody
that
you
have
to
with.
In
so
many
years.
You
guys
Search
Search,
Search
Search.
S
There
is
opportunities
when
you
talk
with
builders
than
that
I
worked
in
real
estate.
I
was
top
3%
work
with
developers
in
presale
and
resale.
They
make
hand-over-fist
money
they
bark
and
squawk,
because
their
bottom
line
is
profit,
profit,
profit
and
when
they
made
make
them
profit
for
many
many
years.
Why
are
they
then?
Even
back
down
and
say?
Oh
I'm
gonna
lose
money
because
you
want
this
business.
S
So
builders
actually
are
using
everything
against
the
city's
in
that
as
threats,
because
it
won't
building
that
it's
a
bluff
because
they
have
the
resources
money
and
that
they
want
more
money.
They
want
their
name
out
there.
That's
one
thing
and
I
actually,
as
I
said,
was
top
3%
rather
stay
big
manager
than
everything
else.
I
got
critically
ill
in
2004
nearly
died
a
few
times.
I
got
no
cognitive
issues,
I,
don't
health
issues
when
it
was
in
the
hospital.
My
condo
was
sold
up
for
money
from
my
friend.
That
was
my
power
of
attorney.
S
Online
finance
is
not
for
taken
I
end
up
homeless.
On
the
streets
I
end
up
in
boarding
home
and
when
people
think
housing
housing
isn't
what
we
consider.
What
may
you
consider
roof
over
your
head?
Isn't
that
as
a
place
where
people
have
feces
on
this
thing
on
the
floor
so
urine
everywhere,
you
treated
like
a
prisoner
treat
like
dirt
violent
threats.
Everything
else,
there's
a
housing.
A
home
is
a
proper
place
with
proper
running
plumbing
proper
maintenance
proper.
S
A
S
So
I'm,
not
an
emergency
housing
lay
still
from
me.
The
crap
beat
out
of
me
in
a
shelter
as
four
years
ago:
emergency
housing,
okay,
where
am
I
I'm
still
in
the
list
I'm
in
place
now,
I'm,
still
the
person
sighs
blow
it
up,
burning
down
and
kill
people
for
over
12
years.
That
is
not
adequate
housing.
S
So
when
you're
talking
about
amount
of
units
coming
available,
but
you
before
the
ability
in
the
long
term
look
at,
is
it
a
home
or
just
a
roof
over
the
head
that
you
said
we
did
a
job
I
just
asked
room.
Please
look
at
it.
You
know
the
bigger
lens
go
out
there
talk
to
people
and
see
why
they're
out
there
thank.
S
T
Hi
everyone,
my
name,
is
Jeremy
Withers
I'm,
a
PhD
student
at
U
of
T
and
I
study,
affordable
housing
policy
I'm.
Also
a
member
of
a
group
of
housing
advocates,
many
of
whom
are
defeating
today,
whose
concerns
with
the
policy
direction
I
share
and
whose
recommendations
for
amending
the
direction
endorsed
by
this
committee.
I
reaffirm
and
will
add
too
so.
I
want
to
start
by
saying
how
proud
many
of
us
are
to
have
counselors
and
planners.
Taking
the
lead
on
this
initiative
as
the
first
municipality
in
Ontario
to
go
ahead
with
inclusionary
zoning.
T
We've
got
over
a
third
of
the
population
of
Canada.
Looking
to
us
in
this
room
for
inspiration
on
how
to
get
this
right.
So
there's
a
lot
at
stake.
The
policy
direction
before
us
mentions
that
only
2%
of
housing
units
built
in
the
past
decade
in
Toronto
have
been
rented
at
or
below
what
we
currently
call
affordable.
That's
80%
of
Amr
so
since
before
I
was
born,
Toronto's
housing
market
has
completely
failed
low
and
middle
income.
T
Renters
and
I'm
excited
to
begin
consultations
as
to
how
we
can
change
that,
but,
like
many
who've
come
out
to
depute
this
morning,
I'm
worried
that
the
current
policy
direction
will
not
set
us
up
to
do
so
so
as
currently
written,
the
direction
implies
that
I
said
should
only
be
used
to
provide
upper
middle
income,
folk
people
between
the
45th
and
65th
percentile,
with
affordable
rental
units
and
with
discounts
on
condos.
This
neglect
of
the
poorer
half
of
renter's
in
Toronto
has
long
to
find
affordable
housing
policy
in
this
city.
T
So
my
first
recommendation
for
how
we
can
do
so
is
that
you
indorse,
is
the
basis
for
consultation
and
amendment
to
this
problem
by
deleting
the
policy
directions.
Recommendation
that
upwards
of
90%
of
set-asides
created
for
rentals
should
be
priced
at
100%
Amr
in
its
place
iein.
I
recommend
you
endorse
the
proposition
that
the
mix
and
type
the
mix
of
type
and
affordability
of
units
set
aside
from
each
development
be
set
in
response
to
the
mix
of
households.
Who's
right
out
of
good
housing
has
been
violated.
T
The
vast
majority
of
Torontonians
in
core
housing
need
our
renters
at
the
bottom
third
of
the
income
structured
spectrum
making
less
than
40,000
a
year.
The
vacancy
rate
for
units
remotely
affordable
to
these
groups
is
practically
zero,
they're,
the
ones
that
most
desperately
need
new
supplier
and
this
policy
should
be
aiming
to
provide
it.
My
second
recommendation
is
that,
as
the
basis
for
consultation,
the
committee
endorses
area
median
income
as
the
measure
through
which
different
tiers
of
affordable
housing
be
defined.
T
In
doing
so,
the
committee
would
align
the
definition
for
affordable
rental
with
the
definition
for
affordable
ownership
that
is
being
proposed
by
planning
staff
in
this
direction.
It's
worth
asking
staff.
Why
update
the
definition
of
affordable
of
affordable
ownership,
but
not
rental
in
updating
the
definition
afford
of
rental
I
believe
the
committee
would
also
be
taking
an
important
step
towards
endorsing
and
towards
ensuring
human
rights
based
analyses
are
being
made
whenever
potential
housing
policies
are
being
compared.
T
Now
it
seems
completely
arbitrary
to
reduce
the
number
of
units
set
aside
by
half
just
because
the
unit
is
being
set
aside
for
a
social
housing
provider.
The
type
of
ownership
owner
should
not
determine
the
proportion
of
set
asides.
The
relative
reduction
in
the
cost
of
ownership
should
so
over
the
coming
months,
as
we
determine
the
appropriate
mix
and
depth
of
affordability
of
each
unit.
T
Let's
do
so
with
reference
both
to
what
the
market
can
bear
and
to
what
the
greatest
need
is
on
the
ground,
the
type
of
person
or
organization
that
will
come
to
own.
That
affordable
unit
should
have
no
bearing
on
these
considerations
with
inclusionary
zoning.
We
have
the
power
to
significantly
amend
how
and
for
whom
development
in
this
province.
Development
takes
place
in
this
province.
I
hope
the
coming
months
of
consultations
will
also
provide
an
opportunity
to
rethink
how
and
for
whom
all
of
our
affordable
housing
policies
are
working.
A
B
Fletcher,
thank
you.
That's
very
exciting
that
you're
studying
that
there
are
there's
inclusionary
zoning
where
that's
a
developer,
that
owns
that
land
and
is
proposing
a
development.
So
we
are
trying
to
add
units
there.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
about
if
that
development
can?
Only?
Basically,
if
that
development
requires
a
piece
of
city
land
in
order
to
proceed,
perhaps
from
parking
authority
or
another
base
base,
another
agency
of
which
the
base
owner
is
the
City
of
Toronto.
Have
you
given
any
thought
to
that
and
what
our
policy
should
be
there
so.
B
Are
11
sites
that
are
already
determined,
but,
yes,
there
are
other
agencies
and
there
are
other
boards
agencies
that
own
land
that
are
liquidating
or
making
deals
with
developers
or
particularly
the
parking
authority.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts,
or
have
you
looked
at
all
about
what
that
obligation
should
be
at
that
moment
to
include
affordable
housing?
Yes,.
T
So
you
have
the
opportunity
to
work
with
developers
or
these
third-party
organizations
have
the
opportunity
to
work
with
private
developers
to
create
a
mix
of
perhaps
private
and
some
affordable
units
that
could
be
owned
by
social
housing
providers.
I
think
that
the
model
we're
seeing
over
the
last
four
years
in
Vancouver
is
very
impressive
as
a
way
to
deal
with
that,
because
whether
the
city
works
with
the
cooperative
housing,
Federation
who's
developed
a
development
arm
to
actually
build
these
themselves
and
they
get
a
much
deeper
and
wider
mix
of
affordability.
T
A
H
Hello:
everyone,
my
name-
is
Rosetta
Alexa
and
I'm
here
with
Sarah
center
for
equality
rights
in
accommodation.
Thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
address
the
committee
I'd
like
to
start
off
by
saying
that
Sarah
appreciates
the
leadership
of
the
city,
both
counselors
and
city
staff,
in
advocating
for
inclusionary
zoning
with
the
provincial
government.
We
know
there
will
be
a
consultation
process
and
open
channels
for
input
along
the
way,
and
we
very
much
look
forward
to
being
a
part
of
that
crowd.
System.
H
We
would
like
to
recognize
the
leadership
of
this
committee
and
command
its
bold
action
in
inviting
the
UN
Special
Rapporteur
to
its
last
meeting,
passing
unanimously,
a
motion
to
direct
city
staff
to
take
a
rights-based
approach
to
the
ten
years
housing
plan
and,
as
you
know,
the
City
Council
passed.
The
motion
anonymously.
This
simple,
yet
incredibly,
powerful
act
has
done
more
to
change
the
trajectory
of
housing
policy
in
this
city
than
any
other
action
in
recent
memory
and
I
think
it
support
it's
important
to
recognize.
H
The
importance
of
that
move
before
us
today
is
an
opportunity
to
walk
the
walk
of
a
rights-based
approach
to
housing.
Syria
is
here
today
to
respectfully
submit
to
this
current
path
upon
which
inclusionary
zoning
is
tracking
does
not
reflect
a
rights-based
approach
nor
the,
nor
does
it
leverage
inclusionary
zoning
in
a
way
that
maximizes
the
opportunity
it
provides.
H
Syria
is
therefore
requesting
that
the
committee
expand
the
parameters
of
the
inclusionary
zoning
consultation
in
order
to
embed
human
rights
approach
in
inclusionary
zoning
that
will
result
in
the
creation
of
as
much
affordable
housing
as
possible
for
the
people
who
need
it.
We
have
three
main
channels
to
propose
to
be
reflected
in
the
planning
consultations.
First,
inclusionary
zoning
should
be
applied
to
every
new
development.
It
should
be
applied
in
all
market
areas
of
the
city
and
at
higher
set-aside
rates
than
what
is
proposed
in
the
report.
H
H
H
H
This
is
where
a
rights-based
approach
can
be
very,
very
helpful.
The
city
has
already
heard
and
will
no
doubt
continue
to
hear
from
stakeholders
opposed
to
inclusionary
zoning
for
reasons
ranging
from
the
impact.
That
is
that
it
has
on
the
expected
profits
of
developers
to
homeowners
concerned
about
their
property
values.
However,
a
rights-based
approach
helps
us
to
understand.
C
H
See
the
report
in
in
in
a
way
that
represents
human
rights
based
approach,
the
the
ones
I
see
in
the
report
is
how
to
make
development
viable
and
how
to
protect
and
residual
value,
and
things
like
that
and
I
think
that
the
opposite
from
human
rights
based
approach
will
where
we
start
developing
a
policy
from
a
perspective.
What's
the
needs
of
people
and
what
their
basic
needs
to
be
safely
adequately
housed.
So.
C
If
we
were
to
do
a
pivot
at
this
committee,
where
we
have
to
take
everyone's
housing
needs
into
consideration,
and
that
means
those
who
are
on
fixed
income
as
seniors
as
that,
as
well
as
those
who
are
living
on
Social,
work's
and
limited
ability
to
pay,
as
well
as
those
who
are
working-class
and
middle-class
we
need
to.
We
need
to
change
what
is
what
is
before
us
in
order
for
us
to
put
that
right.
Space
analysis
over
this
report
is
that
correct?
Yes,.
H
S
E
C
E
O
A
H
H
They
invited
me
for
dinner,
even
though
they
depends
on
food
bank
and
the
social
support.
So
in
first
of
first
couple
of
years,
I
survived
like
that.
There
are
many
organizations
in
which
support
community
people
impacted
L
as
well.
I
attended
language
classes
in
the
basement
of
the
library
and
cultural
link.
I
I
could
receive
medical
services
at
the
park.
The
community
community
health
center
I
may
not
be
able
to
access
these
services.
If
these
organizations
aren't
in
my
community,
these
organizations
and
the
neighbors
essential
lifeline
for
people.
H
H
People
could
manage
their
lives
in
Parkdale
before
the
gentrification
now,
so
many
people
are
forced
to
move
out.
There
are
no
places
to
go,
but
on
the
street,
I
sometimes
feel
that
wild
animals
and
plants
have
much
more
care
and
protection
than
us
I
believe
that
rent
should
be
affordable
to
these
existing
community
members.
H
H
A
A
D
Everyone,
my
name
is
Lolita
I
came
from
far
away,
so
I
can
be
Canada
in
2014
when
I
came
like
my
carrier
like
here
like
it
was
like
so
scary
right
when
I
came
from
my
back
home
like
to
here,
I
thought
like
Canada
is
the
rich
country,
so
I
can't
see
like
any
homeless.
People
like
in
my
back
home,
like
that,
but
faster
in
my
life,
I
didn't
really
still
like.
Remember
when
I
came
like
out
one
of
the
guide
like
he
just
like
jumped
on
me.
He
just
like
asked
for
this
stuff.
D
Many
people
like
at
a
time
like
to
talk
like
in
front
of
this,
like
stage
kind
of
thing,
so
is
it
possible
for
us,
for
you
guys,
like
anything
to
you
like
my
pant
bit
like
especially
like
these
things
happens
to
me,
but
still
like
I
was
I
want
to
stay
like
impact,
and
only
so,
if
there
is
like
anything,
we
lost
in
the
particular
area.
I
have
to
grab
the
same
thing
like
from
the
thing.
That's
like
my
opinion
and.
D
So
if
you
are
going
to
keep
on
like
giving
the
space
the
play,
the
people
who
live
like
in
that
area,
the
rents
are
going
to
be
like
hi,
we
came
in
Canada
in
2014
at
that
time,
I
just
like
pay
like
1200.
So
whenever
the
robot
there
uh-huh,
my
house
got,
robbed
I
just
well.
My
kid
was
like
scared,
and
we
just
like
want
to
change
the
apartment
at
that
time.
D
I
just
like
asked
like
for
the
other
apartment
they
said
like
I,
have
to
pay
$1700
for
single
bedroom
house
so
which
is
going
to
be
very,
very
hard
like
for
the
family
like
who
came
back
from
the
back
from
the
back
home.
So
it
is
very
hard
like
to
offer.
The
new
I
mean
like
to
get
like
the
new
house,
like
from
the
same
apartment
itself,
so
I
assume
that
the
people
who
are
coming
like
from
the
outside,
like
outside
countries
they
came
like
here
to
get
like
the
apartment.
D
It's
not
that
much
easy
like,
especially
in
the
in
that
area,
that
before
like
it
was
cheaper
now
or
like
it's
now.
The
rent
is
getting
like
higher
and
higher.
So
in
my
apartment,
there
is
like
rent
strike,
also
happened
because
there
increase
the
ranch
like
very,
very
frequently,
I
mean
like
the
percentage
like
whatever
they
want
to
hike
it
like
it
is
going
to
be
like
higher,
so
is,
there
is
any
possible
for
the
newcomers
also
like
the
run,
has
to
be
like
they.
D
If
they
are
going
to
be
say
that
hey
like
you
are,
we
have
to
pay
like
$1,600
$1,700,
which
is
going
to
be
not
fair,
as
in
my
view,
I
think
so
as
right
now,
like
I'm,
just
like
asking
you
is,
there
is
any
possible
for
that
to
like
forgive
like
any
Catholic
for
the
rent.
Also
and
please
you
like
30%,
affordable
houses.
Like
will
people
like
who
are
like
living
in
my
area
and
20%
demand
like
we
are
asking
like
400
units
like
for
the
developments
for
minimum
of.
H
A
I
Good
morning,
my
name
is
Deanna
Chorney
and
I'm,
a
project
manager
with
our
City
Planning
Division
I'm
joined
with
Christine
Ono
who's.
Our
lead
on
our
consultation
and
engagement
plan
on
inclusionary
zoning,
as
well
as
mark
Conway
and
Matthew
Bennett
from
and
Barry
Lyons.
Consulting,
so
I
won't
repeat
some
of
what
you
already
heard
today,
but
certainly
I
just
want
to
walk
you
through
some
of
the
work
that
we've
already
completed
to
date
and
our
proposed
policy
directions
and
highlights
of
our
engagement
program.
I
The
first
important
piece
to
know
is
that
certainly
these
policy
directions
are
a
first
step
in
terms
of
a
longer
consultation
and
analysis
process.
The
call
policy
directions
will
continue
to
be
refined
as
part
of
our
consultations
with
both
the
public
and
stakeholders,
as
well
as
through
further
analysis
and
we'll
respond.
Should
there
be
any
legislative
changes
that
could
impact
our
analysis.
I
So,
as
we
know,
inclusionary
zoning
is
a
land-use
planning
tool
that
enables
municipalities
to
require
affordable
housing
and
new
developments.
This
Authority
is
provided
for
under
the
Planning
Act
and
Ontario
regulation
2/3
to
18.
We
know
that
over
800
jurisdictions
across
North
America
and
some
in
the
UK
and
Australia
use
a
form
of
inclusionary
zoning.
However,
we
also
recognize
it's
just
one
policy
tool
to
address:
affordable
housing,
affordability
in
our
city.
It's
certainly
not
a
panacea
that
can
address
all
housing
need
and
typically
relies
on.
Further
funding
and
programs
to
address
deeper
housing
need.
I
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
provincial
regulation
on
inclusionary
zoning
was
enacted
in
April
of
2018.
Since
that
time
we
have
been
hard
at
work.
Developing
our
housing
need
and
demand
analysis
and
a
financial
impact
assessment,
and
we've
also
begun
stakeholder
discussion
to
get
feedback
on
some
of
our
initial
policy
directions
and
analysis.
We
are
planning
to
begin
public
consultations
on
the
proposed
policy
directions.
This
June
and
throughout
the
summer,
in
early
fall
with
the
goal
of
coming
back
to
committee
in
q4
of
this
year.
I
On
the
results
of
the
consultations,
it's
important
to
flag
here,
we've
shown
that
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
requires
a
ministerial
approval
and
that
can
take
up
to
10
months.
During
this
time,
staff
would
be
advancing
implementation
matters
such
as
zoning,
bylaws
or
detailed
plans
for
10
access
and
coordination
with
other
city
divisions
and
we'll
also
be
ensuring
that
any
policy
is
aligned
with
our
housing
tÃo
action
plan,
which
is
targeted
in
q4
this
year.
I
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
provincial
regulation
requires
us
to
conduct
a
municipal
assessment
report
looking
at
both
housing
meeting
demand
and
financial
impact
analysis
and
as
I
mentioned,
and
that
has
been
discussed.
We
retained
and
Barry
Lyons
to
conduct
the
financial
impact
analysis
and
we
conducted
the
housing,
need
and
demand
analysis
in
house
a
few
key
items
to
keep
in
mind
we're
both
these
works
pieces
of
work.
The
first
on
the
housing
need
and
demand
is
that
we
looked
at
census,
data
from
26
2006
to
2016
and
market
prices
and
rents
from
2013
to
2018.
I
But
in
other
areas
of
the
city
that
wasn't
true
and
as
I
mentioned,
we
anticipate
that
these
documents
would
continue
to
be
refined
as
part
of
our
consultation
process
or
where
new
analysis
is
warranted
due
to
changes
in
terms
of
provincial
legislation
and
finally,
we'll
be
bringing
for
these
final
documents.
Right
now,
they
are
proposed,
as
part
of
our
consultation
process
will
be
bringing
for
these
final
as
part
of
any
final
recommended
inclusionary
zoning
policy.
I
So
I
think
most
of
these
dots
have
already
been
discussed
today
and
won't
come
as
a
surprise
to
many
of
you,
but
certainly
I
wanted
to
flag
a
few
key
indicators
related
to
housing,
affordability,
and
particularly
that
we
know.
Renter
households
in
the
city
are
disproportionately
impacted
by
many
of
these
affordability
indicators.
So
we
know
that
renter
household
incomes
are
about
half
that
of
owners
and
of
the
city's
47%
of
renters.
Almost
one-quarter
are
paying
more
than
50%
of
their
income
towards
rent.
I
We
could
be
doing
much
better
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
that
has
been
built
or
approved.
In
the
last
five
years,
only
2%
has
been
that
the
official
plan
definition
of
affordable,
which
is
at
or
below
average
market
rate,
just
to
impact
the
incomes
a
little
bit
more
right
now,
average
market
rents
in
the
city
address
about
the
45th
to
60th
percentiles,
and
it
comes
for
renter
households
specifically.
I
So
when
you
look
at
some
of
the
key
workers
in
the
city,
this
generally
would
include
administrative
assistants,
garbage
truck
drivers,
retail
managers
and
trades
people
and
layering.
On
top
of
that,
we
know
that
asking
rents
are
about
40%
higher
than
average
market
rents,
making
affordability
even
further
constrained
for
many
of
these
key
workers.
I
So
I
won't
go
through
all
of
the
different
policy
directions,
as
many
of
them
have
already
been
discussed
today,
but
I
did
want
to
just
flag
that
we've
generally
grouped
our
policy
directions
through
a
number
of
different
key
themes.
The
first
is
that
inclusionary
zoning
would
apply,
choose
both
strong
and
martyr,
moderate
market
areas
of
the
city,
and
that
was
using
a
whole
slew
of
market
data,
as
well
as
financial
viability
and
analysis
and
our
pipeline
to
assess
what
markets
this
would
apply
to.
I
We
are
a
scale
development
of
about
over
a
hundred
units
or
140
units
outside
of
the
downtown,
and
we
have
suggested
a
range
of
options
in
terms
of
the
number
of
affordable
units
we
would
be
securing
so
again,
these
are
proposed
policy
directions.
We
want
to
continue
to
discuss
them,
understand
some
of
the
needs
and
and
balance
a
number
of
these
approaches.
So
at
this
stage
we
are
will
be
consulting
broadly
on
all
these
directions.
I
In
addition,
we've
also
identified
a
25-year
affordability
period
and
that
are
affordable,
but
affordable
rents
would
be
based
on
a
100
percent
of
average
market
rent
or
our
updated,
affordable
ownership
definition.
In
addition,
10
percent
of
the
units
would
be
provided
at
80
percent
of
average
market
rent
and,
as
mentioned,
we
have
calibrated
the
policy
so
that
municipal
incentives,
particularly
around
revenue,
are
not
required
in
order
to
have
a
successful
policy.
I
I
This
last
story-
I-
wasn't
gonna,
go
to
this
just
now,
but
the
last
night
is
really
just
unpack
a
little
bit
on
bill
108.
So
right
now
as
proposed,
and
certainly
this
could
change
the
bill.
108
limits,
inclusionary
zoning
to
protected
major
transit
station
areas,
so
there's
up
to
165
major
transit
station
areas
across
the
city
or
community
planning
permit
systems
which
are
ordered
by
the
minister.
K
Thanks
very
much
for
the
presentation
and
all
the
work
that
you've
been
doing
on
this
very
complex
file.
As
we've
heard
inclusionary
zoning
is
this
fine
balancing
act?
That's
you
have
to
set
the
requirement
high
enough
to
build
the
housing
and
the
the
affordable
housing
that
we
need,
but
also
trying
to
make
sure
that
it's
not
so
high
where
projects
won't
actually
take
place
and
I
know
that's
what
you've
been
trying
to
strike
a
balance
on.
T
Hey
counselor
you
to
to
answer
your
question.
The
principle
is
really
to
find
that
balance
so
starting
the
analysis.
We
had
to
pick
pick
a
target
and
work
from
there,
and
so
you
see
in
the
report.
We
start
with
20%
on
the
uplift
and
density
and
then
working
with
staff.
We've
calibrated
a
sensitivity,
analysis
to
push
and
pull
those
numbers
to
see
where
it
were.
An
Isaiah
approach
would
be
continued
to
be
viable.
Okay,.
T
The
way
the
analysis
is
calibrated
is
we:
we
first
established
the
land
value
of
an
underutilized
site,
and
so
our
assumption
is
that
a
land
vendor,
whoever
owns
that
property
now
prior
to
redevelopment,
would
have
to
at
least
make
10
percent
more
than
the
value
of
their
site
as
it's
currently
currently
operating
it
could
be
a
retail
user
or
something
like
that,
and
so
that's
that's
really.
The
threshold
is.
How
far
could
you
push
in
economic
terms?
How
far
could
you
push
land
value
down
until
other
uses
become
competitive?
T
Economically,
that's
really
the
breaking
point
of
the
model
in
practice
pushing
land
values.
Forty
fifty
sixty
percent
negative
direction
will
have
significant
pushback,
but
from
an
economic
analysis
perspective,
that's
really
that's
really.
The
breaking
point
is
when
other
uses
become
competitive
in
the
market.
Okay,.
K
I
want
to
talk
about
some
of
the
as
of
right
zoning
piece
and
how
we
landed
on
that.
So
this
is
a
key
issue
and
whether
or
not
conclusionary
zoning
should
really
be
applied
to
the
density
increase
or
actually
include
the
as
of
right
density
as
well.
If
we're
moving
forward
to
a
City
of
Toronto
that
has
a
you
know,
updated
zoning
bylaw
across
the
city.
If
we
we
could
do
that,
that
would
be
really
important.
I
So
we
initially
tested
inclusion
area
zoning
requirement
on
the
increase
as
of
right
development
in
order
to
address
some
of
those
inconsistencies
in
terms
of
where
someone
has
previously
owned
land,
perhaps
for
a
longer
period
of
time
or
more
motor,
recently
bought
it
through
our
consultation
process,
we've
heard
that
perhaps
a
more
equitable
approach
might
be
to
apply
it
to
an
entire
project,
and
that's
one
of
the
key
pieces
that
we'll
be
consulting
on
is
both
of
those
options.
Okay,.
K
I
want
to
go
to
page
13
of
the
report.
Just
look
for
some
clarification
here.
We
have
two
options
there
on
the
proposed
policy
directions:
section:
five
and
there's
a
note
that
says
like
option:
one
is
using
percentages
based
on
the
proposed
density
increase,
so
we
just
discussed
option
two
is
using
the
entire
project.
There's
a
note
there
that
says
it's
a
percentage
that
achieves
the
same
intent
as
option
one
and
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
what
that
means.
I
So
the
through
the
chair,
the
option
to
would
apply
to
an
entire
project
and
here
we're
suggesting
that
it
would
be
the
same
number
of
affordable
units
that
could
have
been
achieved
in
option.
1
and
BLC
has
done
some
further
sensitivity.
Analysis
on
that,
we
may
need
to
do
further
work
to
truly
understand
those
impacts,
as
our
initial
testing
was
based
on
the
increase
to
the
as
of
right.
Okay,.
K
K
When
I
look
at
the
map,
I
I
see
the
western
portions
of
cross
town
I,
see
portions
of
where
the
relief
line
will
be
much
of
the
Sheppard
corridor.
They
are
not
captured
under
the
inclusionary
zoning
framework
and
I,
guess
that
we
need
to
consider
transitions
for
inclusionary
zoning
and
how
that
anticipates
growth
over
time
when
we
put
this
forward.
K
I
One
of
the
through
the
chair,
one
of
the
key
aspects
of
the
provincial
like
regulation,
is
a
requirement
to
review
any
inclusionary
zoning
policy
every
five
years
and
that
will
take
into
consideration
market
impacts
and
market
changes,
and
certainly
we
could
review
more
frequently
should
there
be
significant
public
investments
or
other
changes.
So
the
intent
here
is
that
we
looked
at
a
whole
different
array
of
market
indicators,
including
the
work
by
MB
LC,
to
understand
which
markets
in
theory
could
bear
that
inclusionary
zoning
requirement,
and
we
would
continue
to
review
that
over
time.
Think.
B
C
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
I'm
curious
to
know,
with
respect
to
the
examples
that
you
draw
from
from
other
jurisdictions.
In
particular,
the
the
length
of
term
of
affordability
generally
seems
to
be
much
longer
than
25
years.
It
starts
from
30
to
possibly
99
years
and
then
50
and
60
years
and
/
and
in
perpetuity.
What
we
don't
have
is
anything
that
sits
at
the
25
level.
Why
did
you
not
propose
that
we
go
out
to
consultation
with
a
longer
for
affordability
term
through.
I
The
chair
the,
as
has
been
mentioned
today,
the
affordability
period
for
a
number
of
other
inclusionary
zoning
programs
across
North
America,
has
typically
started
at
a
lower
length
of
time
and
has
incrementally
moved
to
a
longer
period.
We
have
proposed
for
consultation,
a
25
year,
affordability
period,
which
is
generally
consistent
with
the
city's
open
door
program
again
to
recognize
that
inclusionary
zoning
as
a
policy
tool
without
additional
financial
or
other
incentives.
It
struggles
to
kind
of
have
that
longer,
affordability
or
perpetual,
affordability,
okay
and.
C
With
respect
those
with
those
other
jurisdictions,
as
you
noted
they,
they
oftentimes
provide
additional
measures
and
incentives
to
extend
the
affordability
and
perhaps
even
make
the
definition
of
portability
much
more
robust.
Why
did
you
take
the
initiative
to
eliminate
any
municipal
initiatives
as
we
call
for
consultation?
So
there's?
Why
did
you
make
that
decision
right
here.
I
Through
the
chair
in
terms
of
development
of
our
initial
proposed
policy
direction,
we
one
of
the
key
goals
was
to
ensure
a
sustainable
policy
that
wouldn't
rely
on
city
revenue
on
an
ongoing
basis
so
that
it
could
be
implemented
sustainably
over
time.
And
that
was
one
keep
all
that
we
incorporated.
But.
C
If
we
don't
have
incentives
which
we've
learned
from
other
cities
that
are
pretty
much
needed,
incentives
and
additional
measurements
to
provide
greater
affordability
in
terms
of
term
as
well
as
sort
of
defining
the
the
broadening
the
definition
for
ability.
We've
already
learned
from
those
other
jurisdictions
that
it's
not
going
to
work
as
well
as
you'd,
like
you're
gonna,
have
to
revisit
once
again.
Why
have
we
not
picked
up
that
lesson
and
from
where
they've
left
off
and
then
take
it
further
through.
C
That's
not
my
understanding,
because
you're
you're
saying
that
you're
gonna
go
out
and
and
and
consult
on
the
the
scope
that
you've
given
yourself.
You
want
this
committee
to
endorse
your
scope
and
that
scope
does
not
include
municipal
incentives.
The
scope
does
not
include
a
Ford
ability
period.
That's
longer,
there's
25
years.
Are
you
saying
that
what's
in
the
contain
in
your
report,
is
not
quite
what
you're
going
out
to
consult
with
or
that
you'll
be
expanding
it
like
and
and
if
so,
then,
why
do
we
not
see
it
today
through.
A
The
chair,
perhaps
I,
can
elaborate.
Our
intention
was
to
see
if
we
could
have
a
policy
framework
that
was
supportable
in
the
absence
of
incentives,
part
of
our
ongoing
internal
dialogue
with
our
corporate
partners,
the
age
Oh
corporate
finance
will
be
to
look
at
incentives
that
that's
a
leap
because
there's
no
guarantee
about
those
incentives.
So
we
want
it
to
get
out
the
door
commence.
Consultation
and
part
of
the
consultation
we're
going
to
hear
about
the
need
for
incentives.
C
So
you
anticipate
that
the
the
consultation
will
already
give
you
back
some
feedback,
that
without
incentives
and
measures
it
won't
work.
The
affordability
term,
as
we've
heard
from
every
deputy
in
today
is
the
period
is
too
short
and
the
definition
of
affordable
housing,
whether
it's
rental
or
ownership,
the
the
benchmark
is
too
high.
So
you
already
anticipate
that
that
might
be
the
the
feedback
is,
are
correct.
What.
C
Understood:
okay,
thank
you
and
then,
finally,
because
the
City
of
Toronto
I
mean
kiss
City,
Council
has
adopted
using
a
rights-based
approach
to
housing,
which
means
that
we
actually
have
to
rethink
how
we
devise
policy,
how
the
framework
of
service
and
program
outcomes
must
incorporate
all
that
new
thinking.
Does
your
report,
in
your
opinion,
have
a
right
space
approach
and
if
so,
how
would
you
demonstrate
that
you've
incorporated
that
I.
C
A
G
You
III
want
to
understand
the
research
modeling
exercise,
so
if
I,
if
I've
followed
it
correctly,
who
did
some
research
work
on
land
sensitivities
so
you've
had
that
for
citywide?
Then
you
tested
a
couple
of
points,
20%,
10%
or
so
on.
To
see
what
parts
of
the
city
would
pop
up.
Is
that
fair
yeah
can
I
ask?
Could
we
do
it
the
other
way,
which
is
to
pick
certain
areas
of
the
city
where
land
value
shows
that
there's
some
room
and
then
just
run
the
numbers
until
it
stops?
G
T
T
G
It
would
be
possible
following
on
the
consultation
process.
If
we
hear
we
want
excuse
me,
we
want
to
test
for
a
certain
design,
a
long
term
of
affordability,
and
so
you
know
at
certain
points
in
the
market
pick
some
areas
maybe
say
around
major
transit
station
air
stations
and
then
just
run
the
number
to
see
what
percentage
you
could
get
with
that
framework.
That
would
be
a
possible
way
to
do
it
as
we
go
forward
in
the
consultation.
Okay,.