So there I was, at the barbershop1, thinking about a post catching everyone up with events at City Hall this week. It’s been fairly routine: I caught some discussion with the usual levels of frustration and confusion at the Community and Protective Services Committee on Tuesday, followed by a chunk of Planning and Environment Committee that I followed online (with the Scottish - I mean British - women curlers merrily defeating the Japanese team on my second screen)2. I was planning to write something like this: sometimes, in municipal matters, it looks like nothing much is happening, but the business of our city is no less important, and let me tell you why, and so on. So I enjoyed a trim, ready to catch up later.
And this happened.
Wait, we need the basics
The crucial item is number 3.5 on the Planning agenda (direct link), and here’s a quick summary from my City Hall editorial bot:
City planning staff recommended refusal of an application for a 30-storey (31-storey with rooftop features) apartment building with 286 units on the northeast corner of Ridout and Kent. That’s a lot of height, even in downtown where tower height is a feature of so many planning applications. The staff report talks about over-intensification, along with other things, but, in recommending refusal of the proposal, signalled a clear “path to approval” for a substantially reduced-height design.
Here’s the reporting, which is superb work by both journalists:
Jack Moulton, London Free Press - Outbursts, accusations.
Daryl Newcombe, CTV - Councillors spar.
tl;dr - the committee voted to endorse the tower, subject to confirmation by Full Council.
Feelings ran high in the gallery. Also, that was quite a moment when we heard a reference to campaign donations, with Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis ruling a comment from Councillor David Ferreira to be out of order.
I notice the reporting quotes planning committee chair Steve Lehman as saying: “Let’s stick to the facts, folks, let’s have an honest debate and leave it there”, and I’m delighted to share that sentiment.
The facts, to which we will stick
At the committee meeting, representations on the matter included a letter from Ali Soufan, President of York Developments, arguing the proposal was indeed appropriate. The committee agreed with him. You might remember Mr. Soufan from my post last week, about city council donations. It is a matter of public record, in filings which you can see at london.ca, that Mr. Soufan donated to the successful 2022 election campaigns of the following members of council:
Mayor Josh Morgan
Shawn Lewis — Ward 2
Peter Cuddy — Ward 3
Steve Lehman — Ward 8
Elizabeth Peloza — Ward 12
Steve Hillier — Ward 14
In each case, someone called Ali Soufan donated $1,200 to the candidate’s campaign, declaring these donations, as is normal. This is a total of $7,200, not counting further donations to unsuccessful candidates, and indeed this is separate from the donations by another 10 individuals with the last name Soufan.
Remember that info is listed under Candidate Official Statements, on the right of this page. As always, I’m offering this as context, based on information that is readily available in the public domain.
Further, a personal disclosure which is also in the public domain. I’m a member of the Board of Directors at Eldon House, and a former Board Chair. I was appointed to this board by council, at least three times, now I think about it. So that creates obvious bias, which I’ll own openly. Everybody has their interests and connections, and we need to be clear about them when having important conversations, in my opinion.
Otherwise, I will limit my comments to this: London’s a big city, small town, and lots of folks are connected to each other. It’s better for Londoners to be aware of these connections when they’re relevant to the City’s municipal functions. I’m sure this issue will stay in minds through to the election in October.
And at CAPS on Tuesday
Lots of items came through a complex and challenging Community and Protective Services Committee, where, as usual, there was much discussion about City Hall’s own processes. You can find the full agenda here, alongside various others for this week and next - look out for news reporting based on those other committee agendas coming soon. It’s busy right now, and I plan to address that later in the week (see below).
One story stood out from this committee, the question of changing the Residential Rental Unit Licensing by-law to force landlords to publicly display their name, phone number, and maximum permitted occupants. City staff looked into it and produced a report (on the CAPS agenda, item 2.4) recommending no change, and basically saying it’s covered elsewhere. There was some discussion at the meeting, including a strong verbal summary of the issues by campaigner Skylar McFarlane, who had delegation status.
The committee wasn’t keen enough, though, with an unusual 2-2 tied vote seeing it fail, although of course it’ll be on the council agenda in a couple of weeks. As recent events have shown, anything can pop up again at Full Council, which is always a delightful experience3.
Here’s the local media on it:
CBC’s Andrew Lupton put together a fulsome report.
There’s a prominent mention of that tied vote in the Jack Moulton LFP story.
And Daryl Newcombe from CTV gives us this extensive reporting.
My opinion: landlords are adults. They can handle being on a public register. Publish and be damned4.
Your Executive Summaries
One final thought for today: you might note from council agendas, if you have the constitution to endure them, that city staff are producing a lot of foundational documents right now. ‘Tis the season, with annual reports and the like available for our reading pleasure.
Following this here Substack will give you another option: some nice, neat summaries, incoming soon, and letting you know how your city is really doing. This is your useful info, lifting us all up together to make us better. Public interest journalism as corporate communications, and somehow it continues to hold my attention.
It’ll never work5.
Yes, I also watched the hockey, but I like the British TV coverage, which has the amusing addition of comments such as “and the puck weighs about the same as a cricket ball”.
YOU LAUGHED FIRST.