The title of this post is a double entendre. Figuratively, it is meant to convey that the size of the proposed development is going to contaminate our neighbourhood. Literally it is on contaminated ground that is being excavated without proper protocols.

419-425 Woodbine is just another in a long line of overdevelopment and overdensity. They want to demolish an existing 4 storey rental building to be replaced an 11 storey condo (however with 11 rental replacement units) with two floors underground on a tiny parcel of land at an incredibly busy and dangerous intersection, for which there are numerous glaring issues with the development application. This one being right up the street from me is quite personal as my home and experience of the street will be affected on a daily basis.

I and other residents teamed up to ensure the MANY issues with this development were covered. As the issues were glaring, in particular what seems to be an unpermitted and illegal excavation of contaminated soil to build a temporary parking pad, and the councillor’s office seemed to be attentive to these issues, I foolishly thought this one would not get approved. While he did acknowledge some of the issues and claimed they will work to be resolved, Councillor Bradford put forward the motion to approve without recommendation and of course it passed. You can see my deputation and that of others here:

Suffice to say, residents are quite disappointed. There were quite a few emails sent to the city about this, sadly however many of them got lumped together because people sent one letter as a group or used form emails. During the Murphy’s Law fight I tried to educate people on how to effectively communicate with politicians (full rules here), impressing upon them emails need to be individual and unique, but in the end Bradford asked a question about how much correspondence there was on this and when lumped together it was only just north of 30 emails, which is not a lot. The actual number was 47, however only 36 were received the day before the meeting and that was the rough count given by staff, but 125 emails got lumped together for using a form.

This fight isn’t over, city council still has to vote, but experience says, like 99% of development applications, this is a fait accompli. City staff work with developers behind the scenes long before there is a community “consultation”, and everyone knows the community “consultations” are not really to consult, it’s a placation to give residents the illusion of being heard, and they are just checking a box.

Below is my full 5 min speech (because of the number of deputants speaking time was reduced to 3 mins), and below that is the FULL list of issues with the development and its incomplete and deficient application. We may be able to take legal action due to the unpermitted excavation, but beyond that, Ford has ensured residents have no voice and city council isn’t listening.

Adam Smith, 21st Century

My deputation

Hello, my name is Adam Smith, and for 14 years I’ve lived on Woodbine Ave a bit south of this site.

I’m sure you all are getting tired of seeing me up here, and I feel like a broken record disputing overdevelopment after overdevelopment. But this rush to densify every ounce of land with absolutely no regard for existing residents or the many negative impacts needs to be questioned.

This development requires both an official plan amendment to change the area from a neighbourhood to an apartment neighbourhood, and a bylaw adjustment to go from height of 11m to 40m. Clearly once upon a time these classifications and restrictions were deemed appropriate, but now we need to rewrite our laws just to jam in an oversized development?

We have empty holes from failed developments all over the neighbourhood for years, in particular right up the street at 507-511 Kingston Rd, why are we approving new builds before old holes have been filled? Or down the street at 73-83 Woodbine, which has been left derelict for years. This rush to approve anything and everything feels like a desperate attempt to throw everything at the wall in the hopes something finally sticks.

Most of the time I am up here pointing out issues with height shadowing and towering over the neighbourhood, or the impacts on scant local services and programs and schools at capacity, or how transit really isn’t great with only 2 bus routes which can both be completely full at rush hour, or how dangerous and congested this intersection has been for decades, or pointing out the flawed economics where there is no consideration for realistic projections of supply and demand that take into account population demographics because this is all about propping up GDP growth using the housing industry. Nothing ever seems to budge anyone, no one is willing to acknowledge these facts and resident concerns are never taken into consideration.

However, all those valid issues aside with this proposal, there are far more concerning details. In particular environmental concerns.

The environmental site assessment was done for a 2-3 storey building with one level of underground only on the northern parcel of land and maintaining the existing rental apartment at 419 Woodbine. It was not done for an 11 storey building with two levels of underground and demolishing the rental building. The developer Artlife Developments has a documented history of regulatory failures, including projects where over 100 pre-construction buyers lost deposits after the company failed to comply with provincial regulations for extended periods.

Perhaps more troubling, the staff report acknowledges the shortcomings of the Functional Servicing Report, in that “hydrant flow was deficient and there may be a break in the system, the report does not conclude whether or not the site’s fire and domestic flows can be met with the municipal watermains”, and “no investigation of the existing sewers was provided to explore the possibility of storm flow being removed from the combined system. The report does not propose an offset to the flow increase as required by the Sewer Capacity Assessment Guidelines. Ultimately the report does not conclude whether or not the municipal sewers can support the development.”

Staff’s only recommendation seems to be a holding provision, in the hopes sometime down the road the applicant will actually fulfill their application requirements. I find it absolutely Orwellian that staff can admit there are shortcomings that may completely invalidate the development, but that council should approve it anyhow. I ask the approving director of Community Planning for Toronto and East York, Carly Bowman, in light of these shortcomings and the insufficient ESA, do you still stand by this recommendation?

Is council aware that the applicant has been doing what seems to be illegal and unpermitted work on the site? That they excavated contaminated soil while not following the required protocols in the certificate of property use? I wrote to 311 and the planner assigned to the project Sean Guenther about this, Mr Guenther dodged the question by irrelevantly referring to the permitted demolition of the shed next door.

Then there are the issues with the existing rentals. I would love answers to these questions, but I will pose them in the hopes council will seriously consider those answers necessary before approving.

Despite the condo market crashing hard, this building is meant to be a condo except for the 11 rental replacement units. What I would like to know is:

• will the developer be able to demolish the existing rentals before they have enough condo purchases to start construction, or do we risk losing housing to another empty hole that will sit there for years because the economics keep changing?
• Neither Municipal Code Chapter 667 nor the housing issues report make clear, when the ten year limit on rent control expires, is the property owner free to crank rent high enough to drive out tenants, and does that open the possibility of selling those units, or are they forever rentals?
• Will the 7 parking spots being lost at the existing building be part of the rental replacement units, or will those renters have to sell their cars because there are no new street permits being issued?

With the number of unresolved issues in the application, especially the fact the ESAs were not done for this proposal and the applicant has yet to even prove if the development is compatible with water and sewage, I implore council not to approve this application. Thank you for your time.

Issues with 419-425 Woodbine Ave:

• requires official plan amendment to change it from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods and a bylaw amendment to change it from 11m height to 40m height
• April 2, 2025 Functional Servicing Report is missing information and inadequate: ▪ Hydrant flow test was deficient (inadequate flows). Report claims the City is investigating the possibility of a break in the system. While not entirely within the applicant’s control, the report does not conclude whether or not the site’s fire and domestic flows can be met with the municipal watermains; and ▪ Report identifies an increase in sanitary flow to the combined sewer but defers a complete sewer capacity analysis to site plan. No investigation of the existing sewers was provided (dye test, CCTV) to explore the possibility of storm flow being removed from the combined system. The – 2 – report does not propose an offset to the flow increase as required by the Sewer Capacity Assessment Guidelines. Ultimately the report does not conclude whether or not the municipal sewers can support the development. March 16, 2026 Development Engineering staff have reviewed the submitted materials in support of the Zoning By-law Amendment application. Staff concluded the Functional Servicing Report (FSR) has not confirmed that there is sufficient water supply in the existing infrastructure to meet the site’s requirements, including fire fighting flows. In order to ensure these zoning-related issues are addressed, a holding provision will be placed in the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment. The holding provision will require satisfaction of certain conditions before receiving approval. In order to satisfy the conditions, the owner will be required to submit a revised FSR confirming the existing watermain infrastructure or any required upgrades have adequate supply to meet the site’s requirements, including fire fighting flows. The owner will be required to enter into a financially secured agreement to ensure any required external servicing improvements or demonstrate that the required external servicing improvements are constructed and operational.
• too large, completely out of scale with anything for blocks in every direction. Will tower over 2 storey houses to the south and east and 3 storey houses to the north, and is nearly double the height of Beach Club Loft condo at 60 Haslett
• uninspired aesthetics, just another boring, boxy, bland, stack of drab cubes
• this will demolish 11 rental units from a building not long ago renovated, and who knows how long until they are replaced
• as this is primarily a condo, they should not be able to demolish the rental units until the prescribed number of units are sold, lest we end up with another hole in the ground for years
• speaking of holes in the ground, right up the street at 507-511 Kingston, empty pit for years, also down the street 1895 Queen St E, empty hole as well, 73-83 Woodbine derelict for years. There should be no new approvals while empty holes sit there
• in the Housing Issues report they claim affordable rent as 100% or below average rent. Affordability is not determined by the market, it is measured as rent being 30% or less of income
• rents will only remain controlled for ten years, after which presumably the building owner is free to crank rent to any level they choose, effectively providing an eviction tool after which those units can be sold
• will the 7 parking spots at the current building be included in the rental replacement units? As it stands there are 115 parking spots for residents, less than the number of units, and presumably these spots would go to owners not renters. Otherwise what are returning tenants to do with their cars considering no new street permits will be issued?
• Traffic is extremely heavy at this intersection, in particular at evening rush hour. Northbound traffic on Woodbine waiting to turn east on Kingston Rd can back up to soth of Norway Ave, (I see this all the time from my window). Getting in or out of this building at that time of day is going to exacerbate those issues greatly
• transit is not high order here, there’s only two bus routes, 92 Woodbine and 503. 92 can be almost full in morning rush hour, and the 503 is rammed by Leslieville in morning rush hour. 503 being a very long route can also be very spotty service eastbound as buses need to make their way back from downtown. The crowding is worsening with back-to-office policies
• inconsistent details in the development application: Housing Issues Report states 137 residential units, architectural plans state 123 units. More concerning, Phase 2 ESA was for a 2-3 storey building with one underground level whereas final design is for 11 storeys with 2 levels underground, ESA does not take this into account. According to ESA “”This SVA was conducted under the assumption that the building on-site will remain and continue to be used for residential use” which seems to imply the ESA wasn’t even done for the site as whole.
• soil is quite contaminated, and in the ESA “Monitoring wells BH-203 and BH-204 could not be located for sampling in 2022” and “The groundwater conditions along the southwest to southern property boundary of 419 Woodbine Avenue could not be further confirmed at the time of this investigation, due to the presence of trees and an overhead electric utility line.” and so gives an incomplete picture
• (to be confirmed) the owner has started excavation of the contaminated soil without following the protocols outlined in the CPU
• excavation of 2 levels of underground may have impacts on foundations of nearby homes

Despite numerous valid concerns, Toronto and East York Community Council approved the new Murphy’s Law development unanimously and without an ounce of scrutiny. But the fight isn’t over yet, there is still a chance to convince the rest of council, or sway councillors who already voted yes at community council, to not approve the new design.

Yes, it’s a LONG shot, yes, council has become a rubber stamp for developments, yes, residents have zero influence beyond convincing our elected representatives, but we can’t go out without a fight. We have to try and use every tool in the toolbox.

Unfortunately, after Ford gutted many planning laws and gamed the OLT to exclude residents’ voices, there is really only one mechanism left, and that’s an old fashioned letter-writing campaign. Hiring lawyers to represent a neighbourhood or having the president of an RA reach out to councillors or the mayor is all well and good, but it’s only one email from one person. But if HUNDREDS of emails come across the desks of councillors and the mayor, we might just be able to get some concessions, or at the minimum, get the can kicked down the road giving us time to find new ways to resist.

However, there are some unwritten rules to emailing politicians that most people are unaware of. Following these rules greatly increase the chances of your email being seen by a politician, breaking them pretty much guarantees your email ends up in the trash.

The rules of emailing a politician

I learned these rules from a friend who spent nearly two decades working for an MPP, and I have managed to engage many politicians of different levels of government across the political spectrum and gotten at times quite fulsome responses, despite the fact I am not their constituent.

There is no guarantee of a response, as many local residents know it’s hard enough to get Councillor Bradford to respond to any concern, never mind a campaign fighting against a development, but the hope is if enough volume crosses the desks of council and the mayor we might budge them.

1. Email each politician separately. When you send mass emails, with the entirety of council CC’ed, it goes in the trash.
   
2. Address the email using the politician’s name in the subject line and in the greeting of the email. This makes it obvious you are addressing that politician directly, and it’s not just a template sent to everyone.
   
3. If your letter is in regards to an item on an official agenda, include it in your subject line and body of the email. Politicians may not be immediately familiar with the subject you are writing about, in particular if it’s about a property they may not recognize the address. This ensures politicians know precisely what item before them you are concerned with.
   
4. Do not use form emails or templates. When a politician receives a hundred of the same email, it goes in the trash. Even if you fill out the section forms have to add your own words, if the rest of the email is clearly from a form, it goes in the trash. Basically anything that makes it look like you’re trying to mass communicate with a few clicks and didn’t take the time to individually write a politician, it goes in the trash.
   
   That said, you can totally send every politician the same body of email, they won’t know you sent everyone the same email. As long as it’s a unique email individually sent and personally addressed, for all they know they’re the only one you wrote to.
   
5. Be respectful. Whether you’re bashing the politician you’re writing to, or someone else in their legislature, it’s not likely to get you far. No cursing, no insults, no slang, be as professional as possible. You want to win them over with your logic. Emotional pleas can work, but it’s tricky, you have to make your case about emotional impacts without sounding emotional.
   
6. Don’t write an essay. Keep it as short and to the point as possible. A basic introduction, lay out your points in a list so it’s easy to identify your concerns, and then a conclusion and thank them for their time.
   
7. Include your full name and all contact info. Emails without such contact info go in the trash, because who knows who’s sending them. They could come from a bot, or a Russian troll, or the same guy with 100 email addresses that likes to stir up trouble. You need to include your address and phone number. The politician will know you’re a real person and, even if you’re not their constituent, may decide you’re worth responding to or listening to.

There are easy ways to do this, in particular a little email add-on called mail merge (for Gmail or this, for Outlook), but if you’d rather not get into add-ons and figuring them out, thankfully there are only 25 councillors and the mayor and it’s not terribly hard to copy and paste their names and emails into your email.

Sample email DO NOT COPY VERBATIM!!!

Here is the email I will be sending. You can cherry pick what you like from this but remember the rules, you will need to rewrite this in your own words, and maybe change the order of the items as well.

Subject: TO: Councillor <name>, RE: TE29.12 please don’t approve the new design of 1684-1702 Queen St E

Hello Councillor <name>,

My name is Adam Smith, resident of Beaches-East York. Toronto and East York Community Council recently approved the new design for 1684-1702 Queen St E (the Murphy’s Law site, item TE29.12 on city council’s upcoming agenda) and I implore you to please not approve it as the new design will have many negative impacts that the old design did not.

• it violates the Queen St E Urban design guidelines that are still part of the Official Plan
• it will greatly overshadow properties to the north, in particular 7 and 9 Orchard Park Blvd are going to lose almost all light in their yards 6 months of the year
• between the new residents and the closure of Penny Lane it will increase traffic on Orchard Park Blvd, a very narrow one-way street, and will reduce the only exit of Orchard Park Blvd to one lane
• despite the promise of Councillor Bradford that no new street parking permits will be issued, anyone driving to visit residents of the new site will impact local parking
• it has no affordable units planned, and the city doesn’t need yet more unaffordable market rate units
• there is already fierce competition for scarce local programs and extracurricular activities for kids, and the closest school, Duke of Connaught, is already at capacity
• transit only seems sufficient on paper, taking the 501 or 503 during morning rush hour becomes extremely crowded soon after entering Leslieville
• this is intended to set a precedent for more density around the area that will only exacerbate the above issues

For these reasons I ask you to please consider not approving the current design of the development and work with the developer to find a compromise that respects the existing residents of the area and will not contribute to worsening current issues with density. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Adam Smith
416-454-5014
339 Woodbine Ave
Toronto ON M4L 3P5

Councillor contact info

Here is a spreadsheet of the councillors’ names, emails, and ward numbers:

Toronto Council email list

Good luck everyone, and don’t hesitate to ask me any questions.

Cheers,

Adam Smith, 21st Century

Hello, my name is Adam Smith; lifelong Toronto resident, father, activist, and two-time candidate for Toronto councillor.  I created the Restore the Wards campaign to convince provincial parties and candidates that restoring Toronto’s wards prior to Ford’s 2018 mid-election slashing was an important issue in the 2022 Ontario election.  Sadly, it was not.

You know the elite have won when the people reject democracy. In 1975, two years into our last era of high inflation triggered by the OPEC oil crisis, Rockefeller and his fellow elites at the Trilateral Commission published a paper called “Crisis of Democracy”.  Do you know what they felt the crisis of democracy was?  An “excess of democracy”.  Yes, ironic as that sounds, they found that too many people exercising their democratic rights was interfering with the elite’s ability to impose their agenda.  Sounds diabolical?  It’s easily found:

The Crisis of Democracy

“some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from an excess of democracy…  Needed, instead, is a greater degree of moderation in democracy…  the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups.”

47 years later and it would seem they’ve accomplished their goal.  Voter turnout for the provincial election was an all-time record low at 43%.  With Ford getting 40.88% of the popular vote that means 17.58% of eligible voters gave Ford 100% of the power.  Due to the distortions of our archaic first-past-the-post electoral system, the NDP had just shy of quadruple the number of seats of the Liberals, and yet the Liberals had more of the popular vote, while the PCs now have a super majority, controlling over 66% of seats.

The Restore the Wards campaign was a dismal failure.  Not only did it not pick up steam with the public, very few candidates beyond the NDP pledged to restore the wards, and only two Liberals and nearly a dozen Greens pledged.  From reactions on social media I can tell you that the majority of people seem to think less democracy is a good thing, that less politicians is always a move in the right direction. 

Cynicism and distrust is super high, people who complain about never being heard and having no say are ironically clamouring for less representation and more concentration of power.  And whether they realize it or not, that means they are asking for even more elite and unaccountable politicians, because with larger wards it will be even harder for someone lesser known and independent to ever get a foothold  against a candidate with elite connections and a deep election war chest.  City hall will become even more overtly partisan.

The longer Toronto stays in 25 wards the more likely it will remain this way, and we will continue to have the least amount of municipal representation for a city our size in the developed world.  It’s always been obvious to some that we don’t actually live in a free and democratic society, that ultimately the elite run the show and we’re all just along for the ride.  Unfortunately more people are finally waking up to that reality, it’s just too late to do anything about it.

It’s a shame to end this campaign on such a sour note.  I truly believed what Ford did to Toronto was a travesty and an attack on democracy, but very few seem to agree, and so many seem not to care.  Which is exactly where the elite want us.  They strived for “apathy and non-involvement”, now it’s clear they have it. 

I will continue trying to fight for increased democracy and a more equitable society, I encourage others to do so too, but the elite have the public so well-divided and thinking only of themselves that such a goal seems ever more a fantasy.  Stay well everyone…

Adam Smith, 21st Century