News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.9K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 776     0 

Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

Homeless shelters needed... but not in my backyard?

Proposed 100-bed homeless shelter at former Goodwill site faces opposition.
Thu, Jun 9: Residents in the Rockcliffe-Smythe neighbourhood say there aren’t enough resources in the area to support a large homeless shelter.

See video at this link.
This is in my neighbourhood (I'm on Runnymede S of Dundas) and just outside my ward. I have no issue with this - it's across from a Walmart and next to a bunch of autoshops. Fairly close to The Stop and the Sharing Place (foodbanks and programs for people in need) and on at least two bus routes that are 5 mins to Runnymede Station. I don't if these people pay any attention to their neighbourhood otherwise because there are plenty of street-involved people around who could use the services offered. The park down Ryding that people are worrying about is regularly used by the homeless - who might not be in the park if there were a nearby shelter.
 
The report I saw on this had a woman saying that she hadn't slept since she found out about it because of worry for her teenage daughter (with no data to support why she was worried). Then another woman saying she supported the shelter and wants her children to learn empathy.
 
NIMBYism towards homeless shelters seems to transcend income class. I still feel it was rather sensational when media would report on the recent 'homeless shelter prank' in Leaside but seemed to focus on the fact that most residents in Leaside were of higher income and, for that reason, were opposing the shelter. Is there anywhere in the city where homeless shelters would be welcome with open arms by current residents?
 
One "excuse" giving not to have the homeless shelter at the old Goodwill store at Runnymede & St. Clair, is that the public transportation is not that good! ???

Sounds to me that it is a good reason to extend the 512 St. Clair streetcar west to Runnymede, and continue it onto Jane Street and/or Scarlett Road!!
 


The treehouse owner is an idiot.

According to the article, “[t]his committee showed no compassion and no consideration,” he said after the decision was handed down. “This is about the kids,” he added.

It's not about compassion, consideration or kids. The CofA is bound by a strict four-part test in the Planning Act. "The kids" is not one of the tests. Not surprising this does not meet those tests.

This guy has tried to game the system the whole time. At best, he has done nothing to educate himself as to the rules or what needs to be done to keep the treehouse. And when he inevitably fails, he blames others for lack of compassion and consideration.
 
The treehouse owner is an idiot.

According to the article, “[t]his committee showed no compassion and no consideration,” he said after the decision was handed down. “This is about the kids,” he added.

It's not about compassion, consideration or kids. The CofA is bound by a strict four-part test in the Planning Act. "The kids" is not one of the tests. Not surprising this does not meet those tests.

This guy has tried to game the system the whole time. At best, he has done nothing to educate himself as to the rules or what needs to be done to keep the treehouse. And when he inevitably fails, he blames others for lack of compassion and consideration.

The CoA probably did consider the kids - by teaching/showing them what happens if you don't follow rules that everyone else have to. You know, the whole good parenting teaches consequences to one's action thing.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Theses parents use the "no sidewalks" in their neighbourhood, so they need school buses excuse. Wonder if they'll still oppose the putting in of sidewalks in their neighbourhood?

See link on
Catholic school board’s bus cuts leave families scrambling

Toronto Catholic District School Board cuts bus service for some families, leaving many with few options in the fall


For the past few years, Suzanne Beldycki has relied on a school bus to take her three young children to class each morning at precisely 7:57 a.m. and bring them home at 3:30 p.m.

But as the school year turned to summer vacation, she had no idea her kids would be without a lift come September.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board has eliminated bus service in the coming school year for students who live within 1.5 kilometres of their school, leaving parents such as Beldycki high and dry.

“It is an essential service to a lot of parents, especially working parents,” said the Etobicoke mom, whose children will range from kindergarten to Grade 4 in the fall.

The cuts affect more than 7,000 elementary students who do not qualify for school bus service.

On Monday, the TCDSB will hold a special board meeting at 7 p.m. at the Catholic Education Centre to review the changes and hear concerns.

“Now working parents are left in a situation where they have to scramble to understand what they’re going to be doing for the 2016-17 school year,” Beldycki said. “Someone like me, it’s not like I can tell my employer ‘listen I’ve got to drop my kids off at school so I’m going to be in at 9:30 every day.’ I’ll be fired.”

The move comes as a result of the school board’s $9.1 million transportation budget shortfall, according to TCDSB spokesperson John Yan.

As required by law, the school board approved a balanced budget at its June 2 meeting. This included savings of $2.45 million in reduced busing service for the upcoming school year, among other cuts. Of this figure, the TCDSB is saving about $1 million by cutting bus services for those closer than 1.5 kilometres to their school.

Yan said the school board’s busing policy already required students to live at least 1.5 kilometres from the school prior to this budget, however buses with spare seats picked up those who lived on the way to the school as well.

“So all we’re doing is we’re actually adhering to a policy,” he said, adding that parents had a chance to weigh in on the potential change during budget consultations earlier this year.

But many parents say the decision came as a shock, and that they only found out about it through a letter sent home with their kids just before school let out for the summer.

“My son came home and told me ‘Mommy, no more bus,’” said Patricia Giovanni, whose seven and 10-year-old sons attend St. Norbert Catholic School in North York.

The school board clarified in its letter to parents that Ontario’s Education Act does not mandate it to provide students transportation.

Giovanni said she feels her area is too dangerous for her children to walk alone, as the route to school includes crossing a major intersection at Wilson Avenue and Ancaster Road.

“There’s no sidewalk on my street. There’s a construction zone,” she said. “The fact that they have to go through a parking lot to get to Wilson is dangerous. Cars are ramming up that ramp to park. They go around the kids, they don’t care. It’s not a long walk, it’s a challenging walk.”


At some schools, the TCDSB offers “walking school buses,” according to Yan, which would help some students who live in the same areas get home safely in groups, guided by an adult.

Nicole Simunac, who has one child just finishing kindergarten and another entering, said a walk is still inconvenient for many people’s children, even if safety issues are limited.

“For someone like me with two little kids, to ask them to walk over a kilometre to school and home after a full day of school, it doesn’t make sense,” she said. “I can understand maybe a 13-year-old being able to walk, but to ask a six-year-old and a four-year-old, I think is ridiculous.”

A Facebook group created by Giovanni to unite parents opposing the change, as well as a similar online petition may convince trustees to reverse their decision.

Toronto councillor Maria Augimeri, a former school trustee, plans to speak at the meeting in support of parents upset by the busing cuts.

“Once you take a sober second thought and a second look at this, you’ll see that people are hurting,” said Augimeri, who said she plans to argue in favour of a partial reversal of the decision in situations that “present that greatest hazard.”

In order to reopen the budget, it would require the support of two-thirds of trustees.

Those such as Giovanni say they may be out of options if the school board doesn’t change its mind.

“It’s going to be drastic for me, I don’t know what I’m going to do,” she said. “I guess I’d have to quit my job. They’re my kids.”
 
Good article in NYT and the damaging effects of NIMBYism, with focus primarily on Boulder, Colorado.


How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality
The New York Times, Conor Dougherty - July 3, 2016

BOULDER, Colo. — The small city of Boulder, home to the University of Colorado’s flagship campus, has a booming local economy and a pleasantly compact downtown with mountain views. Not surprisingly, a lot of people want to move here.

Something else is also not surprising: Many of the people who already live in Boulder would prefer that the newcomers settle somewhere else. [...]
 
The cost of NIMBYism.

Screen shot 2016-07-13 at 1.25.42 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2016-07-13 at 1.25.42 PM.png
    Screen shot 2016-07-13 at 1.25.42 PM.png
    22.6 KB · Views: 433
Interesting since I was told at one of the community meetings that it would cost about the same to study DRL-long as what they're studying now (DRL-short).

And $520,000 to study one relatively minor alteration sounds like hyperbole.

Now if we paid them minimum wage... who qualified with the right skills would show up?
 

Back
Top