There is no right to sunlight in one's back yard, and for the city to use this excuse to deny housing to people in need is... unethical? classist? anti-newcomer? reactionary? all of the above?
This building is not a Housing Now site or otherwise 'affordable housing'........so let's just be clear that this is not a trade of housing the homeless vs not doing on on this particular site.
****
As to the rest there are simply three issues as I see it:
1) Irrespective of the merits of any given policy, every policy or action has stakeholders who have some degree of influence and sway. One must be cognizant of that. This is not a discussion in a vacuum, it's in the real world.
You might wish that people of inordinate wealth had no inordinate influence, but that does not make it so. Should we try to execute reforms to processes and policies where practical?, Of course. I was very active in getting parking minimums nixed. But one has to consider in each case the liklihood of success, and the opportunity cost of myopically focusing on one change that probably won't happen, and won't make a big difference if it does, vs many other changes that are easier to achieve and have greater potential to ameliorate social ills.
2) While it is certainly true that there is no inherent right or constitutional right to sunshine; in that same way there is in fact no legal right to private property, nor to housing, nor to healthcare.
If there were, everyone would be housed, there would be universal pharmacare, dentalcare, physiotherapy and medical device coverage. (for the record, I would favour that)
All 'rights' are conferred by statute, or through by-law, regulation or policy. All are repealable or amendable in theory.
But in reality it's about what one can persuade politicians, bureaucrats and your neighbours to support. Which is invariably something less than 'utopia'.
3) Sunlight, makes plants grow, which provide oxygen you require to breathe; it also helps fight climate change, the impacts of which may kill tens of millions of people around the world and displace hundreds of millions more.
That is not opposition to height or density, my track record here speaks to that; rather it's a call for a more nuanced understanding of the issues; and more pragmatism too!
PS, I'm not rigid on the angular plane or any other rule, I simply understand why they exist, the purpose they intend to serve, the stakeholders who value said rule and the politics of changing it.
Where there is merit, the City is perfectly capable of bending the rules, and it does from time to time; perhaps not as often as one might hope; but that's really an entirely different thread.
