Comments (1)

By Brians, February 19, 2010 10:15 am

I received a note the other day through this blog from Jim Likourezos, who is running in Ward 19 (ours) now that Joe Pants is running for Mayor (god help us if he wins) as well as a flyer in my mailbox. It’s the first candidate we’ve seen so far.

His webpage says he’s for “responsible government”, which really doesn’t help us out much. (not that we don’t like responsible government, but give us some more!).

So, to help us get to know him he’s holding a couple of meet and greets in the area, although unfortunately none on Ossington… yet.

The first of his meetups is at Victory Cafe on Monday the 22nd at 7pm

The second meeting takes place at one of my faves, the Wheat Sheaf Tavern the next night at 7pm also.

I’m sure he’ll be heading and meeting up with us here on Ossington soon. Reposado, Sweaty Betty’s and The Painted Lady make for good meet-up locales, and the local business owners would love to find out more about him.

Comments (5)

By Brians, December 17, 2009 11:34 am

In a series they are calling Heros and Villains of 2009, Torontoist has named Joe Pantalone one of the villians of 2009. We’d agree. By stifling the growth of the strip (and we understand aiming to enact more laws like this across the city to ensure Torontonians don’t go out and have fun) he’s slowed the growth of the neighbourhood and may not allow more seating in places like Pizza Libretto, who needs more seating and has the space upstairs.

Here’s hoping he runs for mayor….. and loses.

Comments (0)

By Brians, November 20, 2009 2:06 pm

With all the hoopla going on around how ‘hot’ Ossington is, it was interesting last weekend to walk down the street and see the reality of the situation. There are still a lot of places on Ossington not leased, nor will they likely be leased in the near future. Only 6 months past the moratorium it seems that the street is starting to close for business.

Below are a few photos of the recent devestation:

Empty Storefront on Ossington

The Long Awaited Saint closes - is Joe Pantalone to blame?

Get Real awoke to the new Ossington Reality.

Does Ossington need another mechanic now that Rolly's will be closing?

A Fantastic Potential Restaurant Location - but no more

(will I have to change this blog to be the DundasVillage blog? – or is that the next local target)

Comments (6)

By Brians, November 19, 2009 12:03 pm

As those who read this blog know, I don’t support the new regulations that Joe Pantalone is in the midst of putting in place. And, until this weekend, and hearing a few voices in the first neighbourhood hearing which I wrote about here, I had only met a limited few – generally not homeowners – who agreed with the city councilor.

This included a number of talks with neighbours, random discussions at the great I Deal Coffee, and a full night of meeting about 50 people at the BD Travelling dinner (and this is worth a post in itself, which I haven’t got to yet).

This past weekend I was interviewed by a Toronto star reporter who was putting together an article on the issue which was published on Saturday. He mentioned that he was having trouble finding people also, and I would have directed him to the right people, if I knew they existed. Out of that article emerged a commenter, who also got a response published in the paper on Wednesday.

As an always cooperative neighbour willing to discuss issues and argue the merits of one side or the other, I reached out with an offer of a local coffee to discuss the issue with the U of T Philosophy professor. My offer was rebuked, however she did provide a well reasoned argument (which I disagree with) on why Joe should strangle entrepreneurship in the neighbourhood (ya, I’m biased, I know) . It’s my believe that her arguments are not based on economic facts, because, like a good philosopher, you can’t let facts get in the way of a good argument. ( and full disclosure – I have a BA in philosophy)

Below I’ve included the key points of the thread. Hopefully I haven’t left out any relevant details of the exchange:

My offer for discussion:

I wanted to introduce myself because I had seen your posts in the Star articles about our neighbourhood, and, while we’re both neighbourhood residents we obviously have different views of the current change to the neighbourhood.

I hadn’t met you, and haven’t yet met anyone yet in the neighbourhood who supports Mr. Pantalone’s plans, it was good to finally find out that there was, in fact, another perspective on this. When I talked to the Toronto Star reporter he said he’d been scouring for days trying to find someone like you.

I thought it might be helpful to grab a coffee in our neighbourhood and chat about the different perspectives. I have been talking quite a bit to the owners of some of the places on Ossington and they have, like me, been trying to reach out to talk to the people who are in favour of the current city council plans to try and find some good common ground.

I thought I’d reach out myself, as a resident, and see whether we can meet for coffee and I can share my perspective, listen to yours, and see whether there’s more common ground in this, which I feel there is.

The rebuke, and philosophical argument:

Thanks for contacting me.  Given what you say below, you must not have been at the two Community meetings discussing the moratorium and the proposed amendments.  At each meeting, it was obvious that most residents were in favor of imposing size restrictions.  Nearly all residents voicing opposition were restaurant owners or business property owners.  And if the reporters were interested in finding supportive residents, a logical place to start would have been to look at the many letters of support for the amendments that were sent to the Planning board and to the Toronto-North York Community council.

Of course, no one is saying that the amendments are perfect.  Obviously, it would be better if the city by-laws distinguished bars from restaurants.  As I mentioned at the last Community meeting, it would also be nice to be able to keep back and side patios, assuming there were some way of keeping noise down after hours; but as Pantalone pointed out, there isn’t really any way to do this.

Given the overriding need to prevent the entertainment-districting of our neighborhood, Pantalone and the planner did the best they could.

As for meeting and finding “common ground” between what the bar owners (or sympathetic businesspersons like yourself) want and what other residents want… I’m open to this in principle, but what is supposed to be the point, exactly?  So far as I can tell, the facts of the case are this:

—It’s clearly true that it is of the first importance to prevent Ossington’s large spaces from being turned into fake “restaurants” that operate as nightclubs, for all the obvious reasons.
—It’s clearly true that the only feasible way to do this is to impose size restrictions as per the by-law amendments.
—It’s clearly true that the size restriction won’t restrict growth, as is evidenced both by the fact that the vast majority of “restaurants” currently on Ossington are below the size limit, and also by the fact that size restrictions in other areas of the city have not led to downturn, and on the contrary those areas are thriving.

So, really, what’s to discuss?  I don’t mean to disregard your opinion, I’m just curious.  Which of the previous clearly true claims do you reject?

I thought I’d present the counter arguments – economic facts, supported, of course, by the CRFA and ORMHA:

I was at the post-mortum meeting that Joe held at the community centre, and spoke there. What was interesting is that I, and other locals I know, walked away with a vastly different impression of the tone of the meeting. Apart from some comments about how the city should be building places to buy tomatoes (and I’m assuming you don’t lean that far to the left), my sense of the meeting was that there was more annoyance about the lack of consultation. There was, I’d admit, some discussion about bars and the night life.

But, I suppose that it’s a matter of perspective.

The second meeting I couldn’t attend as I was travelling on business, however I have written to Joe Pantalone.

In terms of your points below, one of the premises that seems to be missing in your very well reasoned arguments is that in order for a fine dining restaurant to be viable, they really need to be greater than 2000 square feet. As a past restauranteur, I can definitely confirm this. Union, Paramour, Delux and even Libretto are probably money losing restaurants, however, if they can expand, even minimally, they will become more viable. They had set themselves up for growth, but will now be limited. As an example of this you’ll notice that no chain restaurant (Swiss Chalet, MileStones, The Keg) will ever be in a location this small. I was very excited to have a restaurant like Bohmer, a restaurant that has already has had to change their business model to become more of a ‘bar’ instead of a restaurant in order to comply. We might have had something like Scaramouche or Auberge in our neighbourhood, instead it looks more like it’s going to become a small bar, with a fine food store attached. This is the result of the particular regulations. Unfortunately that’s just the economics of restaurants.

Another part of the economics of restaurants is that small bars just don’t survive. When real estate prices rise, they won’t be able to afford the rents. I can guarantee you that the Crooked Star will be forced to move or close when their lease is up if the current growth in nice high-end restaurants on the street continues because they won’t be able to afford their lease.

In terms of other areas of the city and their growth, I keep in contact with a few of my old restaurant owner friends, including Susur Lee,  from my past, past life in the business. They tell me the locations that they have no interest in going to because of the size restrictions. College is off anyones list. Queen East is off anyones list. Those are areas that these size restrictions exists. It’s a purely economic argument.

So, I’d agree with you that there are some bars on the street that have issues. But current law actually covers all of this. In almost all the city there are very severe limitations on the use of space. You can’t just open a club anywhere in the city, and especially on Ossington. The fact that some restaurants are non-compliant is simply an enforcement issue. And the city has some strong tools at their disposal. My old restaurant was in a very sensitive and high-end residential neighbourhood. I used to have neighbours who would complain when we dropped a bottle in the blue bin at 9pm at night. And I got fined heavily for really silly little things (like bottles dropped in blue bins making too much noise at 9pm), until I finally met with the people who were sending the inspectors and we came to some reasonable alternatives.

I’m excited to have the new, high-end restaurants in my new neighbourhood, and hope for less of places like The Garrison which recently opened on Dundas. I’ve found both the bar owners as well as the restaurant owners – as well as the gallery, bookstore, cafe, laundromat, salon, and kitchen stores – really wanting to work and discuss with local residents how to make the neighbourhood a great place. They’d really like a place as described by many of the people on both sides of this – where people end up congregating on the street.

By imposing these restrictions, it creates an economic situation where we’ll end up with more of the same, and not what we both want.

Another philosophical response:

As per my previous message, I claim that the answer is yes, on the following grounds:

1. It’s clearly true that it is of the first importance to prevent Ossington’s large spaces from being turned into fake “restaurants” that operate as nightclubs, for all the obvious reasons.
2. It’s clearly true that the only feasible way to do this is to impose size restrictions as per the by-law amendments.
3. It’s clearly true that the size restriction won’t restrict growth, as is evidenced both by the fact that the vast majority of “restaurants” currently on Ossington are below the size limit, and also by the fact that size restrictions in other areas of the city have not led to downturn, and on the contrary those areas are thriving.

As I understand your response below, you think that the second and third claims can be challenged, and that the reasons for resisting the third claim are reasons to oppose the amendments (in particular, the size restriction).

Let’s start with your reasons for challenging (3):

In terms of your points [above], one of the premises that seems to be missing in your very well reasoned arguments is that in order for a fine dining restaurant to be viable, they really need to be greater than 2000 square feet. As a past restauranteur, I can definitely confirm this. Union, Paramour, Delux and even Libretto are probably money losing restaurants, however, if they can expand, even minimally, they will become more viable. They had set themselves up for growth, but will now be limited. As an example of this you’ll notice that no chain restaurant (Swiss Chalet, MileStones, The Keg) will ever be in a location this small. I was very excited to have a restaurant like Bohmer, a restaurant that has already has had to change their business model to become more of a ‘bar’ instead of a restaurant in order to comply. We might have had something like Scaramouche or Auberge in our neighbourhood, instead it looks more like it’s going to become a small bar, with a fine food store attached. This is the result of the particular regulations. Unfortunately that’s just the economics of restaurants.

Another part of the economics of restaurants is that small bars just don’t survive. When real estate prices rise, they won’t be able to afford the rents. I can guarantee you that the Crooked Star will be forced to move or close when their lease is up if the current growth in nice high-end restaurants on the street continues because they won’t be able to afford their lease.

In terms of other areas of the city and their growth, I keep in contact with a few of my old restaurant owner friends, including Susur Lee,  from my past, past life in the business. They tell me the locations that they have no interest in going to because of the size restrictions. College is off anyones list. Queen East is off anyones list. Those are areas that these size restrictions exists. It’s a purely economic argument.

OK, let’s assess the claims here.

—You claim that “in order for a fine dining restaurant to be viable, they really need to be greater than 2000 square feet”.  That’s clearly false.  There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of viable fine dining restaurants in downtown Toronto under 175 square meters, including, so it seems, all or most of the fine dining restaurants on Ossington (they’re still in business, aren’t they?).  That there has been a “gold rush” on opening restaurants on Ossington, nearly all of which are under the new size restriction, further undermines your claim: obviously, these restauranteurs expect their businesses to be viable.

—In support of your previous claim, you observe that chain restaurants need larger spaces.  That’s besides the point: unlike fine dining restaurants, cheap chain restaurants need to seat more people to make a profit.  Moreover, you seem here to be pointing to an unexpected benefit of the new size restriction (it’ll keep chain restaurants out).

—You claim that various fine dining restaurants on Ossington had “set themselves up for growth, but will now be limited”.  That’s implausible.  Given that these restaurants occupy individual leased spaces, how were they planning to expand?

—You claim that the size restrictions may require restaurants to change their business model.  Perhaps so, but change is not elimination.  We won’t get large restaurants on Ossington: so be it (I prefer more intimate restaurants, anyway).  Again, your claim that the “economics” of restaurants somehow requires large square footage just doesn’t stand up to the facts.

—You claim that “[a]nother part of the economics of restaurants is that small bars just don’t survive. When real estate prices rise, they won’t be able to afford the rents. I can guarantee you that the Crooked Star will be forced to move or close when their lease is up if the current growth in nice high-end restaurants on the street continues…”  I’m confused.  I thought you liked high-end restaurants and were concerned that the size restrictions were going to somehow prevent them from being viable.  Here you say that if we get more high-end restaurants then the small bars will have to close.  With or without the size restrictions, there are going to be more high-end restaurants on Ossington.  So I don’t see how the point about small bars bears on the size restriction issue.

— Is the previous claim about small bars intended to suggest that the size restriction will raise rents?  That seems false.  On the contrary, if you are right that some restauranteurs don’t want to open restaurants in areas with size restrictions, then there will be somewhat less demand for restaurant space on Ossington, and rents will go down.  Of course, lots of restauranteurs will still be happy to open restaurants on Ossington, so with size restrictions in place we avoid entertainment-districtization, get more nice restaurants, the rents go down, and the small bars stay open.  Yay!

So far, then, you haven’t given any good reason to reject claim (3).

Next, let’s consider what you have to say concerning (2), according to which “It’s clearly true that the only feasible way to [prevent Ossington's large spaces from being turned into fake "restaurants" operating as nightclubs]  is to impose size restrictions as per the by-law amendments.”

So, I’d agree with you that there are some bars on the street that have issues. But current law actually covers all of this. In almost all the city there are very severe limitations on the use of space. You can’t just open a club anywhere in the city, and especially on Ossington. The fact that some restaurants are non-compliant is simply an enforcement issue. And the city has some strong tools at their disposal. My old restaurant was in a very sensitive and high-end residential neighbourhood. I used to have neighbours who would complain when we dropped a bottle in the blue bin at 9pm at night. And I got fined heavily for really silly little things (like bottles dropped in blue bins making too much noise at 9pm), until I finally met with the people who were sending the inspectors and we came to some reasonable alternatives.

Here you grant that there is already a problem on Ossington with restaurants operating as nightclubs, even though nearly all our restaurants are below the size restriction.  As a matter of fact the by-laws forbidding nightclubs are not being enforced.

One important question here is: why aren’t the by-laws enforced?  I don’t know the answer to this question.  Perhaps the problem is lack of resources—maybe the city doesn’t have the “strong tools” for enforcement that it once had.  Another reason may have to do with an admirable desire on the part of police and other authorities to try to “live and let live”, insofar as possible.  I do prefer that police err on the side of non-interference.

Still, the undeniable fact remains: for whatever reason, the by-laws are not being enforced: restaurants on Ossington are operating as nightclubs, with all the associated disruptions.  Now suppose, as seems likely, that the by-laws continue not to be enforced.  Now envision a 2000 or more square foot “restaurant” operating as a nightclub on Ossington.  Now we’re talking serious degradation of our neighborhood environment.  Sucks, right?

Given that enforcement is not working, for whatever reason, my claim stands: the only feasible way to prevent Ossington’s large spaces from being turned into fake “restaurants” operating as nightclubs is to impose the size restriction.

So far, then, you haven’t given any good reason to reject claim (2).

So far, then, all my claims stand and anyone who wants to prevent entertainment-districtization of Ossington does well to support the amendments.

It may be worthwhile to offer full disclosure, apart from what readers of this blog already know about me. I am an entrepreneur in the web services/web advertising business running a site called HomeStars. In a past career I owned a restaurant in a well off neighbourhood, which I sold because I couldn’t grow due to space and regulatory limitations. In the past few months I have got to know some of the restaurant owners on the street, but own no property on Ossington apart from a house on a nearby street, nor do I have any interest in any of the businesses there, apart from my own selfish interest in having nice food, live music, and comfortable cafes near my house. I will disclose that Pol, from Sweaty Betty’s has bought me a couple of beers while discussing the issues (for which I’m very grateful!).

Feel free to comment in the comments section on the arguments above. I’ll post them. If there are other homeowners who agree with Mr. Pantalone’s restrictions, go ahead and post. Continue the argument below!

Comments (1)

By Brians, November 11, 2009 11:08 am

The Globe and Mail covered the council meeting yesterday with this article. Feel free to add to the discussion on the Globe site.

Xtra also covered the story here.

And Blog TO is headlining this morning with an article about Rolly’s Garage. Don’t forget to vote and help them get support from Aviva Community Fund!

UPDATE: Chris, a reader, has also pointed out a MartiniBoys article about the meeting also here.

Comments (1)

By Brians, November 10, 2009 1:18 pm

Today the city council met to discuss the Ossington Restaurant study and the recommendations presented by the city planner Jeff Markowiak. The amendment to the city laws prohibits restaurant sizes to less than 175 square metres and restricts any second floor use or patios by restaurants on this small local strip. Unfortunately council voted to pass this restrictive amendment.

While there were about 15 presenters who opposed the motion, the council decided to ignore them to support what they called the ’silent people’ who don’t come to these sorts of meetings. There were both local residents and business owners who presented and many, including myself, mentioned the fact that they weren’t consulted on what was going on in the neighbourhood.

After everyone presented Mr. Pantalone spoke for about 10 minutes presenting a case that disputed the evidence presented by the people who spoke at the meeting. He again cited his usual ‘An Ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure’ mantra to justify his position. He stated that one of his challenges was to balance the interest of local business owners and businesses.

Many of the other councilors spoke up and supported Mr. Pantalone and they all seemed to think the city planner had done a great job in the ’study’  and that it was standard practice to simply have a town hall meeting just before the study is complete to get the feeling of what local residents are thinking.

A number of councilors spoke up and said that there were avenues to go through to work around the by-laws presented, including going to a committee of adjustment. A few business owners, as well as city planners I talked with after the meeting say that this creates an unfair burden on the business, both the local business owner and the building owner, to go and meet with the city. And from what I understood from prior experiences conveyed to me, a single local resident can veto any amendment proposed. This does not create a level playing field for entrepreneurs, especially because restaurants on Dundas and Queen are not subject to the same rules. Any proposal to the city of adjustment takes time and money, and not something that would be undertaken by most small local businesses. They would just go somewhere else.

Another issue raised by the councilors was that this was a balance between business owners and local residents, but this wasn’t in evidence at all. Both local residents and business owners were represented at the meeting.

Mr Pantalone, to his credit, offered to meet with the business owners before the 30th of November when some adjustments can be made to the bylaw. The local business owners are intending to take him up on the offer.

Local residents should too. We will be setting up a website where local residents can support the local businesses and their community in order to allow the entrepreneurship on the street to flourish and grow. Look forward to something posted here.

Comments (1)

By Brians, November 1, 2009 3:49 pm

According the City of Toronto there is an upcoming city council meeting to take place on November 10th, starting at 9:30am, with a portion on the Ossington restaurant study at 10am. According to the initial Background file “Given the complexities of the issues being discussed, staff require further consultation between City Divisions prior to completion of the staff report.”

We are not sure who the city planner is talking to in this Restaurant study during the moratorium. Certainly they have not discussed the issue with the owners of the local businesses, and as a resident I haven’t had an communication from the city regarding the restaurant situation on Ossington.

Have any local residents or business had any connection with City planner, Jeff Markowiak? Maybe local residents should let him know whether they support the local entrepreneurs, or whether they have a vision on where Ossington is going to go and who they are going to consult on the study. His info is: Tel. No. (416) 397-4647, email: jmarkow@toronto.ca

We are assuming no decisions will be made at this meeting, but it’s important that local residents and businesses know what’s going on. Given that Joe Pantalone is known for his anti-entpreneurship stance, and for pulling surprises out of his pocket at council meetings, it’s important that people attend the meeting and let the council know what’s going on with the neighbourhood.

Comments (1)

By Brians, October 30, 2009 10:12 pm

I wrote about Ici Bistro challenges in getting a liquor license back in September. On the 30th the AGCO had a hearing and the Globe and Mail is reporting today that the liquor license was granted!

Let’s hope this is the first in a number of setbacks for Joe Pantalone. The rumour has it that Mayor Miller is going to be supporting Mr Pantalone, although he let me know via Twitter that he hasn’t committed yet last night. Let’s hope he picks a candidate with more a more entrepreneurial focus.

Comments (3)

By Brians, October 29, 2009 10:51 pm

I was invited to sit in on a get-together tonight at one of the local Ossington businesses where about 25 of the local business owners came together to discuss the future of the neighbourhood. It was a powerful group of people, not by wealth, but by conviction and love of the neighbourhood. A true group of local entrepreneurs supporting both employment and the arts.

They were there to put together an organization to counter a proposal being organized by Deputy Mayor, Joe Pantalone. After a first strike at enterpreurship in May when he, pretty much single-handedly, stopped growth on Ossington with a moratorium on new businesses on the strip, he intends to push through a proposal to drive a nail through that coffin by imposing a harsh new set of bylaws which, essentially, kill all potential for the neighbourhood to grow and develop.

Local entrepreneurs are, as you can imagine, enraged.

The new proposal being floated before council will essentially end entrepreneurship in the area of the city. The proposal include such restrictions as:

• Limits on Restaurant Size to less than 1800 sqft – hardly enough to make money. (as a former restaurant owner, I can confirm this)
• Removing any potential of the restaurant use to ‘entertainment purposes’. Currently 20% of the eating area of restaurants can be designated.
• No patios are permitted anywhere. Whatsoever! (too bad for summer lovers in the city)
• No second floor restaurants. (where’s the cool local flavour in that? and what about cool rooftop patios? – and there are no other current restrictions on that anywhere else)
• Limits on window and door openings. (these don’t consider in other places)

The moratorium was imposed in May and I can’t see where there’s been any local study take place. The restrictions proposed replace the moratorium and are the same ones that have been imposed on College, Queen West, and Queen East. There’s been no discussion with local owners or residents. In fact, these regulations have been imposed suddenly, with a sense of local malice.

As a resident of the neighbourhood I haven’t been polled, asked, or even invited to a resident’s association to talk about how the great entrepreneurship and development in my neighbourhood affects me.

While the people I met with tonight seemed like a bit of a rag-tag group – busy, and struggling entrepreneurs struggling against comfortable local, government and, perhaps, corporate interests – I think they are genuinely protecting the vibrancy of the neighbourhood. If its a good neighbourhood in the day, at night, and on the weekends for residents and visitors, they succeed, and we all succeed – as residents, businesses, as a city, and as a culture.

Let’s hope they do, for all of our interests!

Comments (0)

By Brians, September 16, 2009 9:22 am

Micheal Lewis Johnson, the notorious organizer of the Ossington Blackout Party is celebrating World Car Free day next week just off Ossington, on Queen. World Car Free day has been a global movement which was started in 2000 to show the world what a day without cars would be like.

This Sunday, on Queen West, between Dufferin and Bathurst it’s time to pay a parking meter and do what you want. Come by bike, TTC, foot – but just don’t drive. It’ll be a great day.

Then, on Tuesday, gather at the south gates of Trinity Bellwoods Park for a World Carfree Day parade along Queen Street ending up at City Hall. It’s sure to have music, dancing, bikes, and much more.

Don’t forget to tell them your coming at the FaceBook page.