To the profs: Please go back to where you came from, we really don’t need your ideas here, you are a perfect example of American politics at its worst (yes they are American).

To the profs: Please go back to where you came from, we really don’t need your ideas here, you are a perfect example of American politics at its worst (yes they are American).

By regulating all restaurants as if they were bars, the City will ensure an outcome that no one wants. The fact is, it is much easier to operate a bar than a restaurant, in terms of available space. In order to serve a plate of food, a restaurant needs a food storage area, kitchen space, a holding area, a server and a place to sit and eat. But a bar can be operated profitably with a much smaller footprint and fewer staffers. Restricting space may make it somewhat more difficult to operate a bar, but it will make it much more difficult comparatively to operate a restaurant proper whose primary focus is food service. This bylaw may slow growth, but it has ensured that this future growth disproportionately features bars, and not restaurants. This is exactly the opposite of the outcome sought by proponents of the bylaw.

By favoring bars over restaurants, the bylaw also favors nighttime businesses over daytime businesses. Daytime foot traffic is essential to creating a vibrant mix of businesses, including fruit stands, mixed retail and other businesses. Cafes tend to lead the way here, since more than most businesses, they attract local residents on a regular basis. But this bylaw does not even distinguish between a licensed establishment and an unlicensed coffee shop or a bakery, whose presence along Ossington appears to be universally desired. This bylaw makes it far less likely that Ossington will achieve a healthy mix of daytime-related businesses.
Joe Pantalone was warned over ten years ago that noisy new lounges on College Street were displacing longstanding fruit stands and retailers. He knew then that new bylaw definitions were needed to properly distinguish bars/lounges from restaurants in order to achieve some reasonable regulatory control. He did nothing. And then when it was too late, he imposed a bylaw that has had little effect. If anything, College Street is even more dominated by alcohol-serving night-time businesses than it was before the College bylaw. Fortunately, College is a mature commercial street, and the underlying economics of the area allow it to maintain much of its healthy commercial mix, no thanks to Joe Pantalone. But Ossington is still in transition, and if it is to avoid becoming a booze-driven theme park for douchebags, people will need to get much smarter about how they encourage healthy change and a diversity of desirable businesses. That will mean looking beyond immediate neighbourhood complaints (inevitable with even the most positive change), towards a long-term vision for Ossington. That takes some thought and effort, and Joe Pantalone is painfully low on both.

And to philosopher dude: you are guilty of a logical fallacy. You note that most existing restaurants would still be compliant with the new bylaw. But the success of a bylaw is not measured by how many desirable businesses it does NOT make non-compliant. The success of the bylaw will be measured by its ability to achieve its desired results. We need to encourage a vibrant, neighbourhood-friendly, mixed-use main street. This bylaw will likely achieve the opposite result, as College Street shows, and so it must be (largely) scrapped.

I say “largely,” because I would still keep a 300 square metre limit (not 175) on restaurant sizes. This limit was used with the College bylaw, and makes sense to prevent the type of neighbourhood-unfriendly big box restaurants everyone fears, including existing Ossington businesses. But it would be better to limit space based strictly on public service areas, and leave kitchen or storage space out of it.

By regulating all restaurants as if they were bars, the City will ensure an outcome that no one wants. The fact is, it is much easier to operate a bar than a restaurant, in terms of available space. In order to serve a plate of food, a restaurant needs a food storage area, kitchen space, a holding area, a server and a place to sit and eat. But a bar can be operated profitably with a much smaller footprint and fewer staffers. Restricting space may make it somewhat more difficult to operate a bar, but it will make it much more difficult comparatively to operate a restaurant proper whose primary focus is food service. This bylaw may slow growth, but it has ensured that this future growth disproportionately features bars, and not restaurants. This is exactly the opposite of the outcome sought by proponents of the bylaw.

By favoring bars over restaurants, the bylaw also favors nighttime businesses over daytime businesses. Daytime foot traffic is essential to creating a vibrant mix of businesses, including fruit stands, mixed retail and other businesses. Cafes tend to lead the way here, since more than most businesses, they attract local residents on a regular basis. But this bylaw does not even distinguish between a licensed establishment and an unlicensed coffee shop or a bakery, whose presence along Ossington appears to be universally desired. This bylaw makes it far less likely that Ossington will achieve a healthy mix of daytime-related businesses.
Joe Pantalone was warned over ten years ago that noisy new lounges on College Street were displacing longstanding fruit stands and retailers. He knew then that new bylaw definitions were needed to properly distinguish bars/lounges from restaurants in order to achieve some reasonable regulatory control. He did nothing. And then when it was too late, he imposed a bylaw that has had little effect. If anything, College Street is even more dominated by alcohol-serving night-time businesses than it was before the College bylaw. Fortunately, College is a mature commercial street, and the underlying economics of the area allow it to maintain much of its healthy commercial mix, no thanks to Joe Pantalone. But Ossington is still in transition, and if it is to avoid becoming a booze-driven theme park for douchebags, people will need to get much smarter about how they encourage healthy change and a diversity of desirable businesses. That will mean looking beyond immediate neighbourhood complaints (inevitable with even the most positive change), towards a long-term vision for Ossington. That takes some thought and effort, and Joe Pantalone is painfully low on both.

And to philosopher dude: you are guilty of a logical fallacy. You note that most existing restaurants would still be compliant with the new bylaw. But the success of a bylaw is not measured by how many desirable businesses it does NOT make non-compliant. The success of the bylaw will be measured by its ability to achieve its desired results. We need to encourage a vibrant, neighbourhood-friendly, mixed-use main street. This bylaw will likely achieve the opposite result, as College Street shows, and so it must be (largely) scrapped.

I say “largely,” because I would still keep a 300 square metre limit (not 175) on restaurant sizes. This limit was used with the College bylaw, and makes sense to prevent the type of neighbourhood-unfriendly big box restaurants everyone fears, including existing Ossington businesses. But it would be better to limit space based strictly on public service areas, and leave kitchen or storage space out of it.

Our local city officials just let Central tech high schools Olympic size swimming pool close due to lack of funds yet they have endless resources to descend on Ossington

I love when cocktail communists window dress their smartly worded arguments as fact/truth.