Toronto The Sterling Automotive | 69.2m | 19s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com

Event Information: 1405-1409A Bloor St W & 229-231A Sterling Rd Community Consultation Meeting

​
Date and time:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 6:00 pm
Eastern Daylight Time (Toronto, GMT-04:00)
Change time zone
Duration:2 hours 30 minutes
Description:
Join us for a Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to learn more about the proposed development application, which will include presentations and a Question and Answer period providing local residents and stakeholders the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.
 
Some negative publicity for Mr. Lamb; though the problems in question clearly pre-date him. Tenants on site evicted on 24-hours notice due to lethal levels of Carbon Monoxide.

Appears the apartments were constructed without a permit, over the auto-repair shop, which I gather is impermissible. There was also only a single exit.

The City also not looking great here. While there many have been no alternative but to remove people from an unsafe situation; to expect them to re-house themselves, in this City, in normal times
in only 24 hours, never mind a pandemic is not reasonable. An alternative via a hotel should have been worked out, for at least a couple of weeks.


*** tangentially, we (Toronto/Ontario etc.) need a better system to address unpermitted work. We need to make sure less of it happens and that we catch these things before
someone dies living or working in an unsafe building.
 
Northern Light said:
Some negative publicity for Mr. Lamb; though the problems in question clearly pre-date him.
Click to expand...

Yup they really hammered Brad Lamb in that article and the online commentary is overwhelmingly anger directed at him. Doesn't help to be a recognizeable real estate developer in a situation like this.

Horrible situation, but I am going to roll my eyes when the eventual article comes out about how "instead of addressing these problems, bad landlord Brad Lamb decided to build a condo and permanently displace residents instead", as if that wasn't the intention when Brad Lamb purchased the site over a year ago.
 
WislaHD said:
Horrible situation, but I am going to roll my eyes when the eventual article comes out about how "instead of addressing these problems, bad landlord Brad Lamb decided to build a condo and permanently displace residents instead", as if that wasn't the intention when Brad Lamb purchased the site over a year ago.
Click to expand...

Nope. As the property owner and the property manager, Brad Lamb had an ethical and legal responsibility here.

I’ll choose to roll my eyes at any attempts to spin this otherwise.
 
ShonTron said:
Nope. As the property owner and the property manager, Brad Lamb had an ethical and legal responsibility here.

I’ll choose to roll my eyes at any attempts to spin this otherwise.
Click to expand...
Of course and I didn't mean to insinuate that Lamb didn't have ethical and legal responsibility here (and certainly could have handled communication and support to tenants regarding the eviction notice better). To be clear, I was directing the eye-roll towards the inevitable long-term social commentary/politicization we will probably see about this development project in the near future when more info on the development plans are publicized at the community meeting, rather than towards the unfortunate short-term disruption caused by this event or questions of liability (which is not really up for debate given the residential tenancies act, at best Lamb could sue the previous owner if certain property conditions were kept hidden at the point of purchase, I suppose).

These dwelling units were evidently sub-par in quality, had un-permitted work done, and didn't conform to code (which is a combination of factors that directly led to the present situation). They are exactly the type of housing stock we should wish to see be torn down and redeveloped into new housing development, especially in such a well-serviced and transit-accessible area of the core.

If the dwelling units are deemed unsafe for occupation, then shouldn't it be in everyone's interest to move forward with a development plan and approvals? The project will come with rental replacement units where the existing tenants have first rights to return to said units upon project occupancy.
 
WislaHD said:
Of course and I didn't mean to insinuate that Lamb didn't have ethical and legal responsibility here (and certainly could have handled communication and support to tenants regarding the eviction notice better). To be clear, I was directing the eye-roll towards the inevitable long-term social commentary/politicization we will probably see about this development project in the near future when more info on the development plans are publicized at the community meeting, rather than towards the unfortunate short-term disruption caused by this event or questions of liability (which is not really up for debate given the residential tenancies act, at best Lamb could sue the previous owner if certain property conditions were kept hidden at the point of purchase, I suppose).

These dwelling units were evidently sub-par in quality, had un-permitted work done, and didn't conform to code (which is a combination of factors that directly led to the present situation). They are exactly the type of housing stock we should wish to see be torn down and redeveloped into new housing development, especially in such a well-serviced and transit-accessible area of the core.

If the dwelling units are deemed unsafe for occupation, then shouldn't it be in everyone's interest to move forward with a development plan and approvals? The project will come with rental replacement units where the existing tenants have first rights to return to said units upon project occupancy.
Click to expand...
This became social/political as soon as he drop the eviction ball on these tenants. What where you expecting?
 
Last edited:
This isn't some mom and pop landlord renting out a not-to-code basement apartment - this is a prominent developer with a professional property management company. There are professional, ethical, and legal obligations that these companies have.

So what if there's an active development proposal here? The tenants signed leases and were paying a company rent. That company, its principals, and its shareholders have a duty here, and no amount of development fandom should excuse Lamb from that.

According to the Star this morning, there were children living here that were being poisoned:

Davdani, a visual artist, newly separated and looking for a living space for herself and her two daughters, had initially been attracted to the unit’s high ceilings and large, open space when she spotted the apartment on MLS. It had some 1,100 square feet — room for her to work, with plenty left over for her daughters, who were schooling at home. In April last year they moved in.

But soon after, her youngest daughter started having headaches. She didn’t draw a connection, she said, until she heard her neighbours complaining about headaches as well.
Click to expand...
 
I find this kind of ironic... developers evict residential tenants unnecessarily all the time as soon as they buy a property because they don't want to deal with the hassle of tenants and don't need the money. Brad Lamb did not evict these tenants, even though he should have since the units were unsafe and illegal. He did the "nice" thing and is now getting pummeled for it in social media. Kind of funny.

I hope the tenants have renters' insurance, because this is awful. They should also get compensation.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top