So long, casino

I guess that’s that. City council roundly rejected allowing any new gaming facilities in Toronto in a 40-to-4 vote. In a separate vote, council also defeated the notion of expanding gaming at Woodbine Racetrack, by a 24-to-20 margin. Then they defeated a motion from “Mayor” Rob Ford that would have rejected a downtown casino but left room for adding table games to Woodbine, by 31 to 13 votes.

Although he had previously lobbied for a casino in the core, when it seemed that the city’s share was too low, Ford did a 180 and withdrew his support.

City manager Joe Pennachetti said that though the casino was dead, we needed to be looking at ways to obtain the convention centre space that would have accompanied it, and to take a serious look at convention centre development.

I have never been on board with the casino-haters; the only legitimate gripe seems to me to be about parking and traffic, which needed to be address about 30 years ago anyway. Otherwise, Toronto the Good is one legacy I’m happy to leave behind. Historically, casinos do not increase crime or decrease property values, and our downtown core is seriously lacking a grown-up playground. Unless you want to eat, shop, or hang off the CN Tower by a thin wire and your wits, there isn’t much luring out-of-towners into spending some of their money in the 416. I can’t wait to see what the powers that be have in mind for some convention centre development now, but I have a feeling waiting is exactly what’s in store.

***

I can’t quite decide what I think about condo developers making deals with the city to include below-market sales and low-income rental units in their developments, which is making new in The Star this week in the wake of a new provincial campaign aimed at putting low income housing back on the political agenda.

On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the cause. With more than 70,000 households on Toronto’s affordable housing wait list and few public resources devoted to a solution, it’s a gaping wound of a problem. In spite of my conservative leanings, I’m for well-managed public housing. There are many families with a legitimate need: abandoned or abused single parents, breadwinners with diminished capacity through illness or accident, grandparents raising grandkids, any of our working poor — myriad permutations of sad stories resonating throughout the GTA.

On the other hand, it is a huge problem, and slapping any number of four-unit Band-Aids on it seems woefully lacking in substance. Also, I always wonder who gets first crack at them, especially the below-market ownership opportunities. How are the potential owners vetted? By whom? By what criteria?

The Toronto Star yesterday reported that proposed amendments to Toronto’s Official Plan would be debated by council next month, amendments designed to encourage more developers to “play ball.”

Councillor Adam Vaughan (Ward 20) said, “It’s not a solution to the housing crisis, but in the absence of a real national or provincial housing program, we’re going to have to find a thousand other small inventions to try and see what works and what can be done.” He added that if Ottawa or Queen’s Park one day got on board, policies and models would be already litmus-tested and ready to roll. OK, I guess.

In my experience, home builders are engaged in the communities in which they build and, believe it or not, have a genuine interest in doing right by the residents there. I don’t know too many who wouldn’t do as Great Gulf, for example, has done, offering up four affordable rental units in the 36-storey Charlie condo in the Entertainment District. In no way do I mean to diminish the effort but four in the face of 70,000 barely qualifies as a “small invention.”

Great Gulf senior v-p of development Alan Vihant told the Star he has had no push-back from purchasers, whom you may expect to balk at sharing their building with low-income families. He rightfully points out that many condos are purchased as rental properties, and that as a strategy to address affordable housing issues, it’s better to distribute a few units in each building than to collect a couple hundred affordable units all in one building.

But let’s not overlook that these units are offered at least partially in consideration of added height and greater density. Does it make sense to add dozen of families to the strained downtown infrastructure to help house less than half a dozen low income families? If we really think that such measures are part of a far-reaching solution, why not just legislate a certain percentage of low-income units in every new condo built and dispense with the extra height considerations?

There are some small strategies afoot in Toronto that really do make sense, like the Bisha Hotel by Lifetime Developments, which is offering a floor of rent-controlled apartments for hotel workers in its condo project on the old Second City site, including five family-friendly three-bedroom units. Tridel is including 12 affordable units to be managed as co-ops by the Co-op Housing Federation of Toronto in its 62-storey Ten York project, another laudable effort, as is Habitat for Humanity and Diamond Corp.’s efforts to secure eight below-market ownership units for families in an upcoming 35-storey building.

But I can’t quite get behind Artscape’s efforts with Pace on Dundas at Sherbourne: they’re working with Great Gulf to include 13 below-market ownership units and one rental apartment for artists in the 46-storey tower. They’re also working with Diamond Corp. to include four affordable ownership unit and one affordable rental unit for artists in a Diamond project near the OCA. Call me curmudgeony, but I’d sooner support a single parent working two crappy jobs to keep the kids fed than an artist of any kind who is unwilling to make the same sort of sacrifice. And I like artists!

Artscape helped pioneer the movement in 2007, when they partnered with Urbancorp and community group Active 18 to include 48 below-market condos and 20 affordable rental units in its Artscape Triangle Lofts on the first three floors of the 18-storey Westside Gallery Lofts, as well as a gallery and café space for artists.

One actor/resident profiled in the Star’s story pays $790 a month for a 600-square-foot “bare bones” apartment, which qualifies as “affordable” by being at least 20% less than the average for the unit, which in this case is more than $1,000 a month.

The 40-something says she was sofa surfing before that, and dreading moving into her parents’ basement. Am I crazy to think that if you’re sleeping on friends’ sofas or contemplating moving in with your parents and you’re in your 40s, it may be time to give up the dream and get a job? If there’s a developer out there who wants to house low-income artists at their own expense, have at it, but these units are city-supported through property tax and development charge exemptions.

I’m not against public support for the arts. I think the arts are an important aspect of public life, but by supporting the arts with our tax dollars, we’re usually supporting results, or at the very least, efforts. What are we supporting by keeping 40-year-olds off their parents’ couches? What about all those who struggle to fund their own artist’s way, by bartending or mowing lawns? What if she’s just not a very good actor?

Ah well, at least somebody’s trying something. I’m always in favour of that.