219-223 Bank St + 178 Nepean St | 32m | 9f | Proposed

[phil235]

Since this is an already-approved project, would love to see the City or a non-profit pick it up and move forward.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In a housing crisis, we allowed a landlord to evict its tenants from deeply affordable housing for a project that will never see the light of day. Rest assured, the City is looking to buy a golf course to prevent new upper middle class housing near older upper middle class housing after spending (likely) millions on a court case they were never going to win.

The City does not approve evictions, despite the implication in the Citizen article. I found it strange that the LTB is mentioned only toward the end of the piece, and then in terms of an application from the owner, not the tenants.

[Urbanarchit]

Also worth bringing up the site beside it, Joyce House, was cancelled and has sat abandoned for a number of years.

A lot of people derided the evicted tenants saying they were standing in the way or more housing being built, but in the end they were right and good screwed over by the developer. I wonder what recompense can be given for this happening and how it can be avoided in the future.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

A lot of people derided the evicted tenants saying they were standing in the way or more housing being built, but in the end they were right and good screwed over by the developer. I wonder what recompense can be given for this happening and how it can be avoided in the future.

I don't really have any inside knowledge of the details, but it isn't clear to me how this follows. Are you saying that the developers never had the intention to build? Is it possible that the long delays caused by the eviction fight contributed to the failure of the projects?

I kind of doubt that this is a situation where there could be damages going to the former tenants unless there was evidence of bad faith on the part of the developers. They got quite a bit of money to leave as I recall. That said, I think that an issue that could be addressed is if the property owners leave the housing vacant for an extended period of time. That would be easier to take on through legislation or tax policy, to make it uneconomical for landlords to sit on vacant units.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't really have any inside knowledge of the details, but it isn't clear to me how this follows. Are you saying that the developers never had the intention to build? Is it possible that the long delays caused by the eviction fight contributed to the failure of the projects?

No, I am not saying anything of the sort. I assumed they did intend to build and something happened in the meantime. That said, it is very common in that developers propose a building in order to upzone a property in order to sell it at a profit (I even worked on some projects that resulted in that). Why not make the property more attractive to other developers - who may like to build highrises like the adjacent proposal - by getting the existing tenants out?

That said, I am doubtful that the delays caused by fighting the eviction is what caused this project to be unfeasible, but if the developer wanted to share proof that a handful of low-income tenants fighting against the eviction impacted them so severely that even after evicting them they are no longer able to go forward with this building.

What I would like to see changed is that if evictions of residents for a project development were to go through, that they only be evicted when construction is actually imminent. Evicting them many months or years before construction makes it more likely that tenants move out and then the project gets cancelled afterwards, leaving us with fewer affordable units (during a housing affordability crisis) and buildings/ holes in the ground that sit empty for years.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

No, I am not saying anything of the sort. I assumed they did intend to build and something happened in the meantime. That said, it is very common in that developers propose a building in order to upzone a property in order to sell it at a profit (I even worked on some projects that resulted in that). Why not make the property more attractive to other developers - who may like to build highrises like the adjacent proposal - by getting the existing tenants out?

That said, I am doubtful that the delays caused by fighting the eviction is what caused this project to be unfeasible, but if the developer wanted to share proof that a handful of low-income tenants fighting against the eviction impacted them so severely that even after evicting them they are no longer able to go forward with this building.

What I would like to see changed is that if evictions of residents for a project development were to go through, that they only be evicted when construction is actually imminent. Evicting them many months or years before construction makes it more likely that tenants move out and then the project gets cancelled afterwards, leaving us with fewer affordable units (during a housing affordability crisis) and buildings/ holes in the ground that sit empty for years.

My impression wasn't that the delays caused the project to fail, but maybe that they gave the time for an already sketchy financial proposition to get worse.

I think the idea of making developers evict tenants closer to the project construction is noble, but I do wonder how that could be enforced in practice. Hard to say when construction delays are deliberate or excessive or within the developer's control That's why I was thinking that financial penalties for sitting on vacant properties would be more effective. Though neither of those approaches really helps the tenants.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The City does not approve evictions, despite the implication in the Citizen article. I found it strange that the LTB is mentioned only toward the end of the piece, and then in terms of an application from the owner, not the tenants.

The City is currently working on a renoviction policy. Unsure if this is just renovation of existing buildings or redevelopment.

The City could have worked with the developer to maintain the deeply affordable housing for longer, or offered to buy the buildings, which generally I'd say wasn't realistic until we look at the golf course saga.

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Also worth bringing up the site beside it, Joyce House, was cancelled and has sat abandoned for a number of years.

A lot of people derided the evicted tenants saying they were standing in the way or more housing being built, but in the end they were right and good screwed over by the developer. I wonder what recompense can be given for this happening and how it can be avoided in the future.

Were there apartments at the Joyce House site? Looks like it was a single story retail building.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bank+S..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDYyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

What I would like to see changed is that if evictions of residents for a project development were to go through, that they only be evicted when construction is actually imminent. Evicting them many months or years before construction makes it more likely that tenants move out and then the project gets cancelled afterwards, leaving us with fewer affordable units (during a housing affordability crisis) and buildings/ holes in the ground that sit empty for years.

I agree. These projects that remove deeply affordable housing during a housing crisis should come with a guarantee that the new development will be built imminently. Way too many buildings get vacated just to sit empty for decades.