9000 Bathurst St "Thornhill" (2 X 17s)...Not ready for Projects and Construction!

[Canadian Chocho]

Furthermore, the very fact that you did bring up the notion of Jewish persecution from directly Muslim communitites just highlights my point. The main problem here is not that it's too dense, it's that they're Muslims. Which is totally not okay. In fact I think there's some sort of papar that expresses that.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

Lol Jason Kenney? Isn't that the guy that likes his Soda with a dash of UN Condemnation.

Anyways, the further we go down this road the more it becomes clear this isn't about managing density.

 

[Alistriwen]

You sound like you have an agenda ...

I'm sure the proposal is experiencing opposition on both fronts. I'm merely pointing out why opposition on the basis of its character, not as a Muslim community but as one which has been known to disseminate anti-semitic literature is justified.

If someone proposed putting a large building in your neighborhood which would house 377 units of people who espouse anti-Canadian Chocho philosophies I think you'd be up in arms too.

As I don't know much about planning and zoning I am choosing not to comment on that particular aspect, because unlike some people I don't argue about things I'm not well informed about (hint hint). I do know that that particular stretch of road has absolutely no high rises on it for miles and that, yes, it would be a departure from the entirely low density development currently in the area but to what extent that is important, I don't know. As someone with two degrees in political science however, I can say that your understanding of the Charter must be lacking to cite it in this debate.

Also, as I am not a resident of the area and not involved in the process, taking my opinions as evidence of anything is entirely un-academic and dishonest.

 

[jaycola]

Jaycola:"There is nothing over three stories within a mile of the site."

That really doesn't mean much. Richmond Hill and Thornhill are very spaced out so a mile or two don't really matter. In fact if we look at the situation just beyond this 1-mile cutoff we see multi-tower intensification happening to the south around Bathurst and Centre (Promenade Mall),

I disagree. In the context of Thornhill/Richmond Hill a mile is a long way. Yes Well south of the 407, there is the largest concentration of high rise buildings surrounding Promenade, the same location as the regional transit hub and the future VIVA BRT connection. This site is North of the 407/Hwy 7 Hydro corridor in a totally different location. On Bathurst north of Hwy 7 there are exactly 0 highrise developments. There one midrise senior buildings north of 16th Ave but no high rises. The only road crossing this large swath of land between Yonge and Dufferin is Bathurst Street.

But then you bring up this:

"Jaycola":Then there are the social questions. Is this the kind of development we want to encourage? Are we prepared to allow or accept development of what will essentially be a religious compound?

I cannot help but wonder why you would bring this up without mentioning the fact that this is essentially an existing phenomenon in Thornhill, just with a different religious/cultural/ethnic group.

I believe it is wrong to compare the "Schwartz-Reisman Centre" to a religious compound with a residential component.

I do not believe any religious group should be permitted to set up a similar "religious compounds" in this area or anywhere in the GTA.
There are no residential "Jewish compounds" in Thornhill that I am aware of. The Jewish Community Centre operates on Bathurst as does the Jaffari Islamic Community Centre and I have never heard any complaints of either project or the events going on there. Both Islamic and Jewish community centres are operating in keeping with their existing zoning and there has been no discussion about restricting the Jaffari Islamic Community Centre from continuing as they have for the last 20 years.

If you feel like becoming a member of the JCC, you are free to do so.
From the JCC website.

WE HAVE A MEMBERSHIP FOR EVERYONE. ALL ARE WELCOME!
We welcome people of all ages, religions, ethnicities, and backgrounds!
Teens, Adults, Seniors, Couples, and Family Membership options are available.

I think maybe the Google Street View may be helpful for the purposes of this conversation. http://goo.gl/maps/Flkln

 

[waterloowarrior]

Like ShonTron said there are similar places like the Holland Christian Homes complex and LTC homes like Yee Hong, Mon Sheong and Hellenic House homes that cater to different ethnic and/or religious groups. It's not like you can't live there if you aren't Dutch, Chinese or whatever, they just target their programming and services toward that community. Anyways, I don't see how this is that much different than any of the other thousands of scattered suburban high rises on arterials across the GTA... it just happens to be more recently developed than all the neighbourhoods with towers from 70s and 80s.

 

[jaycola]

Like ShonTron said there are similar places like the Holland Christian Homes complex and LTC homes like Yee Hong, Mon Sheong and Hellenic House homes that cater to different ethnic and/or religious groups. It's not like you can't live there if you aren't Dutch, Chinese or whatever, they just target their programming and services toward that community.

Again, we are comparing "Senior Residences" with a residential complex with a senior's component. They are not the same and the same social issues do not arise.
Are there any residential condo developments that cater specifically to a single religious group?

If permitted will the community operate within the same rules as all other condos? Will the property management impose by way of Condo Rules personal restrictions inconsistent with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Source
A quote from a supporter.

Mr. Sagarwala said he is a strong advocate for other faiths using the Muslim Centre and facilities as well as living at the proposed development but said, “there are some issues when it comes to alcohol, pets, conduct of people, as Muslims we’re not supposed to reveal ourselves as a male or a female. If we have a swimming pool, for example, we would have to have separate sessions for males and females, a lot of people would appreciate that.”

Could the restrictions imposed by the condo conflict with the "rights" of others if they choose to take up residence there? If this, or any religiously affiliated residential development is permitted can the religious authority set rules which restrict the use and enjoyment by all?

Would a Jewish individual be permitted to drink wine to bring in the Sabbath in such a building?
Could a Catholic group set up a project where no homosexuals are allowed to reside or where unmarried couples are denied?
Could an orthodox Jewish community restrict mixed race relationships from taking up residence?

I do not believe this is an area we are fully prepared to deal with. There must be a clear set of guidelines consistent with Canadian values by which any religiously affiliated residential complex must abide. If the guidelines are inconsistent with the community beliefs, they must either accept what is prescribed by law or the project denied.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Canada's history is full of religious groups living in close proximity and communities built around churches. Not sure about a condo building though.

The Charter applies to governments, not private corporations. The Ontario Human Rights Code is the relevant legislation that would apply to the condo. I don't know if there have been religious discrimination cases for condo buildings in Ontario, but there was a case for "adult lifestyle" condos where pool hours that discriminated against families were struck down and they had to remove the adult lifestyle building signage (Dellostritto v. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 688)

-I suppose the condo declaration could say that people can't have alcohol (like some have no-pet rules), but there would be a duty to accommodate those who used alcohol for a religious purpose.
-No they couldn't; for non-shared housing, the only grounds you can discriminate on is if it is an all-female or all-male building.
-No they couldn't, it would violate the human rights code.

 

[King of Kensington]

Being of Jewish background myself, I'm frankly appalled by the kid glove treatment of the JDL by many in Thornhill and that Gila Martow looks like she's going to win (I hope I'm wrong!), even with the treatment of Shurman and the fact he no longer supports the Tory party. I wonder why Bernie Farber didn't run rather than Sandra Yeung-Racco who strikes me as a very weak candidate.

 

[Alistriwen]

As I said earlier, whether they explicitly say Muslims only or deny applications of non-Muslims is irrelevant because, in effect, the same situation will arise. No one will want to move into a building where they know they are going to have to fight to get basic rights they would have by default in any other community. Examples such as the pool, alcohol etc. are perfect. Even if such rules could/would eventually be brought down by relevant laws, who in their right mind would want to move somewhere they know they are going to have such a fight on their hands? What other special arrangements will make this development a Muslim community which might infringe on the enjoyment of the residence by non-Muslims? You don't have to actually exclude others to ensure they will not move in. The same sort of thing has already happened in a severe way in the U.K. and the government there has been powerless to mitigate the disaster. I also suspect that the area residents rightly assume this development will lower property values both because of its density which will affect traffic etc. and because of its character (right or wrong). To finish, I append an opinion piece from earlier today which I think is relevant to the topic:
http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...rant-who-shares-our-wealth-but-not-our-values

 

[Palma]

You clearly don't understand the persecution Jewish people have faced throughout all of history and specifically the persecution and hatred directed at them from Muslim communities around the world. While, it is not an universal sentiment, my opinion of things changed drastically when I was on campus at UWO years back and heard a group of Muslim students talking about how they'd like to "take knives and stab as many Jews [as they could.]" That and things like the shootings at Jewish day schools, firebombings of Jewish temples and in the specific case of Thornhill swastikas painted on homes and desecration of cemeteries makes me believe there is a justified fear. Jews tend to congregate to avoid facing this sort of persecution so I can, again, understand their fear. Furthermore, gearing it towards Muslims and excluding others is essentially the same thing. Do you think anyone besides Muslims will want to live there if the doors are painted with the crescent moon and there are calls to prayer blasted over the loudspeakers at all times of day? They may not explicitly say no one else can live here, but in effect it would be the same thing.

Here we go, playing the victim role once again. And I have seen posts online of Jews saying the same thing about non Jews

 

[Alistriwen]

here we go, playing the victim role once again. And i have seen posts online of jews saying the same thing about non jews

Disgusting! It's so sad to see the oldest tradition in the world is still alive in you Palma.

 

[Palma]

Disgusting! It's so sad to see the oldest tradition in the world is still alive in you Palma.

Give me a break. I think I will stick to the transportation forum I usually frequent

 

[Palma]

As I said earlier, whether they explicitly say Muslims only or deny applications of non-Muslims is irrelevant because, in effect, the same situation will arise. No one will want to move into a building where they know they are going to have to fight to get basic rights they would have by default in any other community. Examples such as the pool, alcohol etc. are perfect. Even if such rules could/would eventually be brought down by relevant laws, who in their right mind would want to move somewhere they know they are going to have such a fight on their hands? What other special arrangements will make this development a Muslim community which might infringe on the enjoyment of the residence by non-Muslims? You don't have to actually exclude others to ensure they will not move in. The same sort of thing has already happened in a severe way in the U.K. and the government there has been powerless to mitigate the disaster. I also suspect that the area residents rightly assume this development will lower property values both because of its density which will affect traffic etc. and because of its character (right or wrong). To finish, I append an opinion piece from earlier today which I think is relevant to the topic:
http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...rant-who-shares-our-wealth-but-not-our-values

The Muslims that came here thinks the way they do and those that wear whatever they wear, but their kids that are born here or came over at a young age, and for sure their kids, I doubt very much they will continue to think the way their grandparents thought or even dress in such fashion. There are many modern Muslims that come here that dress in Western attire, it shows you do need to wear the burka to pledge allegiance and show you are a Muslim. Thats why I feel by the third generation, things will change and they will be integrated into Canadian society and live amongst other cultures.

And now that I read up on Lebovic Campus which includes the schwartz-reisman, I feel differently and that what the Muslims are proposing should go ahead. Their mistake was in saying it was for Muslims only. Just by the nature, like the Jewish centre which will be frequented with jews, the units in the Muslim proposal would be bought by Muslims. Simple solution - just delete that part of the language that is getting people (or should I say the Jewish people) up in arms.

 

[jaycola]

And now that I read up on Lebovic Campus which includes the schwartz-reisman, I feel differently and that what the Muslims are proposing should go ahead. Their mistake was in saying it was for Muslims only. Just by the nature, like the Jewish centre which will be frequented with jews, the units in the Muslim proposal would be bought by Muslims. Simple solution - just delete that part of the language that is getting people (or should I say the Jewish people) up in arms.

Palma: What did you read about the Lebovic Campus, a community centre in it's entirety, makes you support a Muslim Islamic residential development with twin 17 story towers in an exclusively low rise area?

For reference, the Schwartz Reisman Centre:

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I live in the area and, my my it's a touchy thing to wade into...But a few points:

-I think the main issue is typical NIMBYism about towers and the Muslim aspect is a crucial subtext. I think they'd be griping about any towers of that height (which, right on the main street, don't seem crazy to me) but the fact that it's the mosque is just amplifying everything.

-Thornhill itself (at least much of the development along Bathurst) was designed to appeal to the Jewish community so unless they were illegally banning non-Muslims, it seems a bit hypocritical to me to say "we don't want some monocultural group developing our area!" If they're somehow spinning it as "Muslims-only," that's different but I didn't really get that impression. As for the legal ramifications, interestingly, they are allowed to restrict ownership if they are affordable units. That might be an issue in the seniors facility, but I don't think they could do it for the condos.
http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1469434-human-rights-commission-backs-region-s-decision/


-The mosque (and a nearby jewish school) have been there a long time and co-existed just fine. Yes, Muslims and Jews don't always get along and yes, there was that incident (cited above) where the mosque was found to have some, ahem, not-Jew-friendly textbooks but I think blowing this up into an actual potential threat is absurd.

-The JDL are not my cup of tea and their involvement is likely to make things worse but "radical terrorist organization" is a bit much. If that's how you describe a few guys stirring up crap at a Vaughan council meeting I'm curious what language you use for Al Qaeda and the PLO and, you know, I hate to mention it but I guess they're Muslims, FWIW. I know that's the terminology that website uses but Kahane has been dead a while and they're not active in that regard.

It's unfortunate that the religious aspect is getting people fired up (it's also why the media are covering it, of course) but I think it's mostly generic NIMBYism at work. Heck, in one of those news clips there was a guy from "The Association to Preserve Thornhill Woods." To preserve their subdivision which is so new that if you look at Google Maps, it's not even fully built out in the satellite shot. So, it's a fairly absurd discussion at this point. Hopefully that will change as it moves through the process.