NIMBY’ism is a growing theme in Toronto and the topic has really taken off over the last few years.

I watched first-hand for more than a decade as politicians and even economists trotted out a steady stream of demand-side measures to try and bring affordability to the housing market, while all the while, folks like myself and blog reader, Appraiser, knew that it was supply-side action that needed to be taken.

The CMHC made countless changes to the mortgage landscape all in the name of “improving affordability.”

Changes to minimum down payments, amortization periods, insurance premiums, borrower qualifications, investor regulations, and even something called a “mortgage stress test” were implemented, just to name a few.

I’ve written for years about how taxes aren’t the path to affordability, and yet we continue to see new taxes pulled from thin air each and every year.

But all the while, we’ve known that it’s the supply in the market – or lack thereof, and not the demand that is truly going to improve housing in this city, province, and country.

You can pull all the demand out of the market that you want, but there will still be more demand than supply.

Finally, over the last year or maybe two, we’ve started to see a majority of commenters noting that supply-side measures are necessary.

Earlier this year, Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, noted that housing affordability isn’t about lowering interest rates, but rather about boosting supply.

Thank goodness, Mr. Macklem!

“Housing affordability is a significant problem in Canada but not one that can be fixed by raising or lowering interest rates.”

No kidding.

As to why supply has fallen short, Mr. Macklem said:

“There are many reasons why: zoning restrictions, delays and uncertainties in the approval processes and shortages of skilled workers.  None of these are things monetary policy can address.”

But one thing Mr. Macklem didn’t suggest was “NIMBY’ism,” or at least not directly.

Within the red-tape or “approval processes,” I would suggest that NIMBY’ism is alive and well in Toronto like never before, and greatly impacts our ability to build housing.

Politicians often don’t help with this.

City Councilors are quick to say, “We need housing in this city,” but when an application for a development is made in their ward, they’ll stand directly in front of the wrecking ball if the constituents want them to.

But I think NIMBY’s are worse.

Politicians have sway, but the source of their sway is from NIMBY’ism.

Not only that, NIMBY’ism causes residents to write “Letters of Objection” to the City of Toronto when a development is opposed.

I don’t know if you are aware, but these letters are publicly available.

The City of Toronto’s website has a section called “Application Information Centre” which you can access via that hyperlink.

You can look up any development application in the city and see all the supporting documentation.

It’s incredible.

Let’s say that you’re driving south on Broadview Avenue and you see a hole in the ground and a crane.

What is that?

Well, you can search on the City of Toronto site, find the link HERE, and see that the first application to build a 6-storey condominium on this site dates back to 2018.  There are two closed files on the property, and one open file.  That’s how hard it is, and how long it takes, to get a project approved in Toronto!

I have spent hours lost on this site.  It’s like falling into a Wiki-hole and just going from page to page.

But one of my favourite things to do on the site is look at “Letters of Objection” from people who put their names on publicly available documents.

Today, I want to look at some letters of objection and ask whether they represent NIMBY’ism or a necessary grievance that is in the best interest of the residents, the community, the city, and the future of housing in Toronto.

I won’t provide addresses and specifics, but here we go…

There is a lot of vacant land somewhere in the core that’s sitting empty.

It’s a patch of dirt.

The current zoning would allow for 35 dwellings but there was an application for 52 dwellings.

These are to be houses, by the way.  And we need many, many more of these.

The application applied for a “minor variance.”

Here is one of the letters of objection:

“First, the proposed increase in dwellings from 35 to 52 represents a 48 percent increase. This is hardly a minor variance as the additional 17 families will require parking which will likely spill over into neighbouring streets. This area is already facing difficulties with the current homeowners finding available surface parking.

Second and most importantly is the loss of privacy and shading effect this development will have on the residents of Sufi Crescent. The development is already positioned on an elevated parcel of land, to further increase the maximum height would block the eastern daylight on the residence of Sufi Crescent. Furthermore, the proposal calls for balconies to be constructed on the western side of the site which would directly look into the current residents back yards and bedrooms. This loss of daylight and privacy will have detrimental affect on property values for current residents.”

The person who wrote this can obviously do math.  An increase from 35 units to 52 is indeed a 48% increase.

But the argument might not hold.

After all, a piece of land might currently be zoned for a 2-storey dwelling, based on 80-year-old legislation, but it could be re-zoned for a 75-storey tower with 800 condo units.

This objection is NIMBY’ism.

The percentage-increase isn’t a reasonable objection, nor is the idea that “17 additional families will require parking,” since these new home would all have garages and private driveways.

“Loss of privacy and shading,” eh?  It’s Toronto.  Get used to it.

And I can tell you, having visited this lot, that the construction of 2-3 storey townhouse aren’t going to change the amount of light over the existing 2-3 storey townhouses.  That makes zero sense.

This letter is from a NIMBY.

And three people sent the exact same letter, with different fonts and formats, and different names.  But they all used the exact same letter.  They didn’t even try to make it seem like it wasn’t tantamount to one Grade-9 kid writing the essay and two other ones copying it, word-for-word…

–

Sometimes, home-owners will grasp at straws to come up with reasonable “objections.”

But everybody has an opinion, right?

To each, their own.

What might bother me might not bother next person, and so on.

But here’s an example of an objection that just feels like it’s based on nonsense:

“1. Request for increase in maxim (sic) lot coverage from 35% to 38% will result in less green space on a smaller lot for water to be drained and absorbed.

2. It appears from the plans that mature trees on Broadway will be removed.  This will reduce the tree canopy on Broadway and increase heat and reduce shade, not in keeping with the city of Toronto’s objective to increase the tree canopy for the city.”

Uh-huh.

Increase heat and reduce shade, eh?

Water drainage, you say?

I realize this might be an unpopular take with the greener and friendlier crowd, but the world is growing at an unprecedented rate and we are all collectively killing this earth.  Before people, there was paradise.  Alright?

This guy just doesn’t want to be built next to.  Period.

But he’s talking about water absorption and an increase of heat because of fewer trees.

The city of Toronto wants to increase the tree canopy, eh?  Good for them.  For that to be possible, we’d have to halt all construction.

There are people in this city who would actually argue that cutting down one tree in order to find space for four our five new dwellings is unconscionable.

Although, those people are probably already homeowners…

–

Here’s another thing to consider: there’s often power in numbers.

Then again, there’s often not.

All kinds of “community groups” are formed in attempts to thwart development, whether it’s a massive condominium or a minor variance on a driveway.  I’ll come back to the latter in a moment…

Have you ever been to one of these “community consultations?”

They can get VERY heated!

Then again, they’re often on Zoom and people can attend anonymously, and likely comment anonymously as well.

Two weeks ago, I noted this article in one of my blog posts:

“A Denser City?  In The Annex, Neighbours Say ‘No'”
The Globe & Mail
April 8th, 2024

This article is about a proposed development at 171 Lowther Avenue.

However, the link to the Application Centre, which you can find HERE, doesn’t have any letters of objection. 🙁

Really?

Nobody wanted to put their name on it?

That’s too bad!

Because there are a lot of great quotes in the G&M article, many from people who put their names on it…

“It’s as gentle as razor wire.”

“It’s a dangerous precedent.”

Just a couple of the catchiest lines.

But some residents went into more detail:

“This is a matter of breaking the rules,” said 40-year local resident Brydon Gombay. “If they’re broken on Dalton Road, which is a quiet street of affordable housing, then why not do it on all the streets west of here? We could become an area of high towers and I don’t think that’s what people want.”

He’s right.

People who own houses in the area don’t want The Annex to be “an area of high towers,” but as the article explains in great detail, there are going to be two subway stops within an 8-minute walk, and to spend billions building public transit without allowing density in the immediately surrounding area is poor planning.

Ironically, “poor planning” is what the Leaside folks call the applications for condominiums on Bayview Avenue, mere meters from the multi-billion-dollar Eglinton LRT, when in fact, it’s the very definition of “good planning.”

But we won’t pick on them.  Shortly, I’ll pick on folks in my own backyard…

Back to The Annex article, here’s another quote:

A more sympathetic variation came from a younger resident, Rebecca Arshawsky. She spoke of the community in the rooming house where she lives with four roommates and a cat, and expressed her fears of being displaced. This redevelopment “will incentivize developers to buy up the surrounding properties, like my landlord’s,” she said, visibly emotional, “and kick me out of my home in the guise of more housing.”

This doesn’t quite follow.

Let’s say that a developer wants to buy four “rooming houses,” or houses with rooms where this individual probably lives.  And let’s say that the developer is going to, sadly, displace twenty renters.  But let’s say that the developer is going to build a 110-unit lowrise condominium in place of those four houses.

Doesn’t that math work?

I know, it’s a slippery slope.

But every level of government is shouting, “We need to build more housing!” so shall we just get in a time machine and go back to when Toronto was a city of parking lots, and build on one of those?  Or do we need to admit that all the land banking, land assemblies, and land consolidations happening in the city are an unfortunate reality of a city that needs to grow?

Here’s another quote from the article:

“This project is in no way gentle intensification,” said the architect Terry Montgomery, representing the powerful local group the Annex Residents Association. “It will set a dangerous precedent for all areas in the city which currently [are zoned for] low-scale residential-buildings.”

Wait.  What’s that?

What’s the “Annex Residents Association?”

Well, they’re one of many of these community groups that I mentioned earlier.

Now, for my next story…

As I mentioned above, I could pick on any area of the city and point out NIMBY’ism, but to show you that I’m not biased, I’ll pick on an area close to where I live.

Let’s say that a home-owner applies to the City of Toronto for a minor variance.

And let’s say that a “community group” objects.

Just how embarrassed would that community group be if every single neighbour around the home-owner’s property wrote “letters of support?”

This happens.

And it’s crazy when it does!

Here’s part of the letter from this “community group”:

It  is our understanding that the last minor variance has been triggered by a low to the ground rear yard deck which encompasses 9.01% of the lot. The house itself is at a much more acceptable percentage of 36.84% (versus an allowable lot coverage area of 35%). Our only concern is that this increased lot coverage request may be used as a precedent in our neighbourhood. In particular, we worry that a developer will want a similar variance but that it is used to build a house with a much larger footprint.

As such, should the committee decide to grant this particular lot coverage minor variance, we would ask that the wording of the variance request be maintained (in particular that it includes the phrase “including the portions of non-encroaching platforms of 9.01%”) and that the variance allowance be tied to the site plans which show that it is not the house itself which makes use of this high lot coverage percentage.

You’re kidding me.

They’re no longer objecting to the minor variance – a battle they lost, but now they’re saying that “if” the Committee of Adjustments grants the variance, then they want a hand in choosing the wording in the request itself to deter future abuse by developers?

This group has way too much time on their hands.

It’s funny, because when I saw the links on the application:

I merely assumed that all four links were to letters of objection.

One was a letter of objection from the community group.

The other three were letters of support from the neighbor to the left, the neighbour to the right, and the neighbour two doors down.

It seems as though as the “community group” was measuring flower beds on somebody else’s lawn, the three neighbours were all watching and shaking their heads in disbelief.  Proverbial, or otherwise…

I wouldn’t want an 8-storey condominium built in place of a 2-storey home on 30 x 120 foot lot across the street from me.

I also wouldn’t want an oil tycoon to buy up my entire block of houses to build a warehouse for his luxury cars.

But I don’t think that either of those are unreasonable, nor do I think that either of those would qualify me as a “NIMBY.”

The funny thing is – no NIMBY’s believe they are NIMBY’s.  They all believe that their situation is different, as is their position, which is warranted, justified, and righteous.

In order to build housing in Toronto at the pace that the three levels of government say that they want to, a LOT has to change.

But you know what won’t change?

Letters of objection.

Hell hath no fury like an area resident with ten working fingers, a keyboard, and an internet connection…