Scarborough councillor seeks ‘leverage’ in rental demolition and replacement agreement for Glen Everest Road buildings

By AMARACHI AMADIKE, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Scarborough Community Council voted to approve the proposal for the demolition and replacement of 68 rental units in low-rise residential buildings at 54-62 Glen Everest Rd. in a decision made at a public meeting last week.

The applicant, Altree Developments, aims to redevelop the site with a 12-storey residential building that comprises 414 units – 68 of which will be rental replacements for the demolished units.

The public meeting (which was held both in-person and online) on the rental demolition and replacement agreement proposal was held on Friday, Jan. 19, at the Scarborough Civic Centre.

Altree Development’s legal representative Joe Hoffman told the meeting that the applicant aims to replace buildings that are nearing the end of their lifecycle with new developments “while ensuring that all existing tenants have a right to return to a new unit of the same type, the same size, and at a similar rent”.

Hoffman said that tenants will also receive three months rent compensation, a rent gap payment for the entire duration of construction of the new building, access to a leasing agent that will assist them in finding new accommodation, as well as compensation for tenants with special needs.

Additional compensation includes $1,500 moving out expenses for tenants currently living in studio or one-bedroom apartments while those living in two and three-bedroom apartments will receive $2,500.

These tenants are also expected to receive expenses to move back in should they choose to do so when the development is completed.

Although tenants have acknowledged the applicant’s efforts in mitigating hardships through this process, some, like Katie McPherson who has lived in the building for 21 years, still find difficulty accepting that a place they have called home for so long will be demolished.

“This is my home,” McPherson told Friday’s meeting. “Why does it have to be our building that’s torn down? Why can they not develop where [people aren’t currently living]?”

Other concerns expressed at the meeting revolved around a distrust that the applicant’s provision of a leasing agent will be of any help considering many tenants are living under conditions that have made it difficult to pass a credit check.

“A lot of people are on pensions and assistance,” said McPherson. “We all know that if you don’t have a 720 credit report no one’s going to rent to you.”

McPherson also highlighted that many of the tenants who are on assistance don’t have full-time jobs which is a red flag to landlords. This, she believes, will make it difficult for many tenants from the Glen Everest building that is being demolished to easily find new accommodation.

However, City of Toronto staff told councillors at the meeting that this is a “matter of ensuring that the applicant is fulfilling their duties” of the tenant relocation assistance plan to ensure that proper documentation and references are provided for each tenant as the city itself cannot act as a reference for tenants.

This did little to ease the tenants’ worries as they said they are being forced to trust they will be taken care of by Altree Developments, said McPherson. The tenants also find it difficult to trust that rental costs, upon returning to the new building, will be the same, she said.

“There’s so many delays in the construction industry,” said McPherson. “This could take longer. Where are our securities? What are they going to do for us to ensure that we are guaranteed to walk back into these new units under the same rental conditions?”

Current tenants who choose to return to 54-62 Glen Everest Rd. upon completion of construction are expecting to pay “similar rent” as when they were forced to move out. However, city staff said this implies that “over the years that they are displaced, the provincial guideline [rental] increase could be applied each year.”

The units reserved for people to return will stay available for new renters at this affordable price for 10 years and anyone who moves in during this period will have their rent secured for the duration of their tenancy. However, if a tenant is evicted before the rental agreement tied to the demolition approval is issued, this locking in on the amount of rent to be paid option becomes unavailable.

With that detail in mind, Scarborough Southwest Councillor Parthi Kandavel moved a motion to send the item to Toronto Council without recommendations. Ultimately, Toronto Council makes the final decision on whether to approve or deny the rental demolition and replacement agreement for the Glen Everest Road property.

“As human beings, I don’t think anyone here in this room would like to see their lives uprooted, negatively impacted, or disrupted especially given the social realities many of these tenants face,” said Kandavel at Friday’s meeting.

Kandavel told his fellow Scarborough Community Council members that by moving the rental demolition motion without recommendations, it gives Toronto Council the “ability and leverage” to seek good faith commitments from the developer in order to guarantee that they adhere to the needs and concerns of tenants.

Scarborough Centre Councillor Michael Thompson questioned Kandavel’s position on sending the motion through without recommendation.

At the meeting Thompson and Kandavel had a heated exchange on the matter, that included the rules of the meeting and who could and could not ask questions of each other. Thompson questioned why council would ignore the city staff report’s recommendations on the rental demolition plan since those recommendations adhered to the needs of both the tenants and property owner.

“I’m not sure why we wouldn’t want to move and accept the recommendations that are in this report, which are extremely beneficial, than to suggest that [we want] leverage that is going to demonstrate to the property owner that [council] has the power to prevent the demolition permit,” said Thompson.

He said a better way to move forward would be to approve the recommendations based on City of Toronto policy as well as past discussions with the applicants and tenants.

However, Kandavel said at the meeting that some of the tenants in the building had reached out to his office about current living conditions and fears that they would be evicted prior to the rental agreement provisions being locked in. If that happened, property owners are under no obligation to allow these tenants to move back in at the same rental prices.

The call to send the motion to Toronto Council with or without recommendation reflected a difference of opinion between Thompson (who has been a councillor since 2003) and Kandavel (who was just elected as Scarborough Southwest’s councillor in November of 2023 prior to serving as Toronto District School Board trustee for the area from 2014 to 2022). Kandavel’s position of forwarding the motion without recommendation won by a narrow 3-2 vote among the five of six Scarborough Community Council members at the meeting.

Voting with Kandavel were Scarborough-Rouge River Councillor Jennifer McKelvie and Scarborough Centre Councillor Jamaal Myers. Apposed were Thompson and Scarborough-Guildwood Councillor Paul Ainslie.

Kandavel later told Beach Metro Community News that the purpose of moving the motion without recommendations was to allow his office time to further consult with the tenants and Altree in order to get to the bottom of tenants’ “demoviction” worries.

“Today my staff has been in touch with MLS (Municipal Licensing and Standards) and public health for them to go the building and [investigate] these concerns,” said Kandavel on Monday, Jan. 22.

– Amarachi Amadike is a Local Journalism Initiative Reporter for Beach Metro Community News. His reporting is funded by the Government of Canada through its Local Journalism Initiative.