Ummm… didn’t you give the event just that kind of coverage, Sol?

To start, we agree that some of the earlier flyers were a bit rhetorically overblown. We are new to this local activism thing, and are still finding our feet; hence the much mellower tone of our ‘Let’s talk about Ossington’ flyer—people can decide for themselves about whether to support the proposed development, on the basis of the facts.

Still, thanks to these ubiquitous posters, as well as heavy engagement with both business owners, the Portuguese community (which included a mailbox flyer in Portuguese and door-to-door canvassing with my Portuguese neighbor), the Givins-Shaw school community, and more generally reaching out to all those who appreciate Ossington’s presently wonderful business district and neighborhood vibe, we had one of the biggest turnouts ever for a Community Consultation meeting—500+ people. Randy of Beaconsfield Residents Association said “It was the one meeting you had to be at in the last 7 years”. Councillor Mike Layton explicitly said that if we was trying to get our point across, we were completely successful.

Moreover, Layton has responded to the overwhelming show of community opposition to the proposal by promising to immediately initiate an ‘Area Study’ of Ossington, as directed by Policy 3 of the ‘Healthy Neighborhoods’ Section of the Official Plan, when “significant intensification” threatens to negatively impact neighborhoods or otherwise destablilize the community area. And dedicated City Planner Francis Kwashie, who is legally obliged to take community opinion into account, heard everyone loud and clear.

This meeting was a huge success for the Community at large. Thanks again to Ossington Village for helping to get the word out!

To be a “Nimby” is to be someone who rejects a project that would
enhance the public good just because it would interfere with some aspect
of your pleasure. What is the public good that the introduction of
MIDRISE development with chain store retail is supposed to bring about?
One might suppose that the need for growth is the public good in
question. But growth is a public good only if it is smart. Alll sound
planning principles—enshrined in Toronto’s Official Plan—say that
growth should be appropriately integrated into existing built form, and
should not negatively impact abutting neighborhoods. The introduction
of MIDRISE development with chain store retail would not be good growth,
since it would (a) drastically depart from existing built form on
Ossington, and (b) drastically negatively impact dozens of residential
homes, not to mention raise serious safety concerns (see Smart Growth
for Ossington’s remarks on the 109OZ proposal for details). Moreover,
the call for growth—that is, good growth, that does not cause more
problems than it solves—can be answered while staying within the
LOWRISE by-law limits—there is double or even triple the room for
additional density within these limits. On Ossington, we have not
outgrown the by-law. There is no good reason to go MIDRISE on
Ossington, and many good reasons to STAY LOWRISE. Sorry, that’s not
quite correct. Some people would stand to make millions of dollars by
air-dropping a MIDRISE condo onto LOWRISE Ossington. But that’s not a
public good. To resist the imposition of development whose only real
motivation is profit—not the public good—and which would drastically
negatively impact both business and residential communities is not
NIMBY-ism. It is common sense.

Also relevant to Sol’s comment, and to the meeting more generally, is preparing in advance for what you want to say.  It might be better to focus on one particular issue and develop that point in some (concise) detail, rather than try to hit every point that might be made about the proposal.

My understanding is that only the planner and the developer will be allowed to make formal presentations. Members of the community and concerned citizens will be allowed to comment and ask questions afterward, but there is no provision for actual deputations. This is not Mike’s idea, it’s just the way the city planning department does things. 

A dreadful cynic might suggest that the setup is pretty much designed to make ordinary members of the public look angry and reactive. It’s not an ideal way to forge collaborative relationships, and it’s got the potential for confrontation and volatile tempers. The kind of coverage that generates could be more harmful than helpful, so it might be worth keeping that in mind going in.