The Lynwood-Charlton Centre Imbroglio, Part Two: One Thing Leads To Another

I don't have any need to get melodramatic about what transpired at the January 17th Planning Committee meeting as they considered an exemption/amendment to the 2001 Radial Separation bylaw. But I did have moments when an eyebrow would rise, when I stared at the screen, when I jotted down references...or when I paused the video to ponder what I'd just heard. (Oh, poo; I've done precisely what I'd said I had no need to do.)

Instead, here are my impressions...in no particular order, though I've attempted to establish some order...including a cursory swing at the 'history of things' bat. 

History:

• Charlton Hall has been operating for decades at 52-56 Charlton. The building is owned by us, The City. For three decades, CH has been paying $1300/mth, well below market value. The building is, 'literally crumbling', and in need of roughly $1.2 million in repairs/restorations...despite having work done on it in the past five years. Their facilities house a maximum of 8 young women. 
• Lynwood Charlton has operated 121 Augusta Street as a non-residential facility. It also owns and operates a residential care facility nearby on Forest. 
• In order to provide a more synergistic approach to the services they delivered, Charlton Hall and Lynwood merged. I'm assuming that part of the logic was that as Lynwood already owned a building that could house the 8 patient-clients that Charlton managed, and that as Charlton's building was 'literally crumbling' (and had been deemed, at least so far as a City memo was concerned, to be 'surplus'), amalgamating made perfect sense. So the plan was to house Charlton's services at 121 Augusta. Which of course presumes that an amendment/exemption be granted to the Radial Separation bylaw. 
• Corktown is a neighbourhood that has been fighting diligently to raise itself up, to improve its appearance, its liveability, the very quality of its day-to-day living. The residents are proud of how far they've come, making things happen on their own, fostering a genuine 'community' spirit. 

-"Please don't do this to us!" This was the sentiment repeated during the proceedings time and again by residents, including Barry Bogusat, the president of the Corktown Neighbourhood Association. The consensus to me was 'We don't want to risk the progress we've made by having the facility move in.' Now, the issue of the day was the application for the amendment/exemption. Which is based on the fact that there are currently two other 'day facilities' within this 300 meter radius. (the 'radial' in the term). So my immediate question, the real test of 'NIMBYism' would be: 'Pretending that these other two facilities did not exist, what would the community's stance be to seeing Lynwood-Charlton opening a day facility at 121 Augusta?' 


My sense is that the 'Please don't do this to us!' sentiment would prevail. And from what I heard, the inference that's natural to draw was that the facility's profile...including the 'police visits' so repeatedly referenced by Councillor Farr, which I'll get to in a minute...is a negative one. Despite the fact that the reality of the Charlton Avenue location is that in terms of the behaviour/influence of the patients (the 'girls'), there has never been a clamour on the parts of the neighbours about it being a 'negative'. So despite everything else contributed by those who presented testimony (and again, I'll get to all that presently), I sensed a fair amount of NIMBYism over the duration of the proceedings. 

-Lynwood-Charlton hardly did an exemplary job of communicating with the Corktown neighbourhood. It would be difficult for me to be convinced otherwise. The L-C Board all seem like good people. And their intentions seem above reproach. But my sense was that not enough was done, given the chutzpah displayed (using the press to show that the 8 girls had been informed of the likelihood of the move...which again, presumes that either an amendment/exemption would be won at Council, or that the OMB would decide in their favour...eventually). I'm rather amazed that such a simple part of the formula would have been so egregiously overlooked. This was result of either arrogance, or sloppiness...or both. 

-In shutting down any communication between them and L-C, the Corktown Neighbourhood Association did themselves no favours. (And as was pointed out, this may come back to bite them on the collective ass if an OMB appeal is heard) I understand that they felt that they were being 'lied to'. I understand the 'Us vs Them' default setting that probably kicked in. But nothing is ever accomplished by closing the door to dialogue. Ever. 

-You can't have it both ways. Probably the hardest thing for me to listen to was Councillor Farr repeatedly going back to the number of times police were at the Charlton Avenue location in 2009, 2010 and 2011: 65, 72, 30. One hundred and sixty-seven times. He hammered away at this ad nauseam. Regardless of the fact that Councillor Whitehead noted that he'd been informed that 99% of the calls had to do with one of the girls having gone 'missing', that no mischief or vandalism or untoward behaviour was being acted upon, Councillor Farr was 'hell-bent for leather' to put these stats up on the board. 

Um...there's one problem with that: You can't have it both ways.

Throughout the proceedings, Councillor Farr referenced the contributions he's made in his career to 'youth at risk' endeavours, how supportive he was of what Charlton Hall did, touting the wonderful work they do there...and yet here's this campaign to impugn what they do, based on the number of police calls. 

In hammering on about these constabulary visits, Councillor Farr was clearly saying that 'police visits are a negative'. Which by extension (and it's not much of one) means that the very presence of the facility is disruptive...and that the kids themselves are negatives, that Charlton Hall is a blight on the neighbourhood. Because...

Because you can't have it both ways. 

This, not to put too fine a point on it, is a cloaked expression of NIMBYism.

(For the record, I also found it a bit much that he was unrelentingly effusive ('weening'?) in thanking the Corktown residents ('Us') for attending the proceedings and contributing testimony...but was hardly so with the L-C side ('Them').)

-While understandable within the context of not wanting the facility relocating to Augusta, I found it odd (to say the least) to hear residents so loudly advocating why the building at 121 is not at all suitable for the children who would be living there. (No greenspace, proximity to rail tracks, etc). This seemed skewed to me. I don't think that in negotiations (or anything that's akin to them, or leads to them), that one side should be addressing factors such as these. Their points were dead-on, and to me these alone make the relocation a bad business decision, but I still felt they were inappropriate. 

-I also found the argument about 'thin edge of the wedge' ('If you grant a variation to the Radial Separation bylaw, and then L-C leaves, we have no idea what will happen to the property next!) to be a bit much, and beyond the remit of the session. (The fact is that if our City is that mired in- Oh, never mind...)

-On the other side, I found that some of the arguments from L-C were rather choice: Charlton Hall's presence hasn't hurt the 'gentrification' of Durand, and things are moving east from Locke, so maybe L-C's presence will help...and in having police come to 131 Augusta on calls means that these are instances when police are present and might prevent other incidents from happening, 'cleaning up the neighbourhood', as well as the girls helping to clean things up. (Yes, I did a spit-take at this comment.) I should note that Councillor Whitehead's stance was 'I have residents that would love the police to be coming by more regularly; they're begging for the deterrent!'

-As 52-56 Charlton Avenue is a City-owned property, I have a few questions. a) Why has such a low rent allowed to continue for such a long time? (Fifty years.) b) Why has there -seemingly- been no long-term strategizing on this property's future? The building is an unquestionable neighbourhood asset, a resource, so how is it that it's currently 'literally crumbling'? c) Why has there been no consultation with the community as to the potential future of the building? Why is this yet another bombshell that's being dropped in typical sequential, slow-motion?

-'A lack of planning and sound business acumen on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine...no matter that I'm your landlord in one instance, and the rule-setter in another.' It's L-C's responsibility to ensure its operations can continue. If the 52-56 Charlton location is no longer ideal due to its deteriorating condition...perhaps not even viable in the long-term...surely it's inarguable that Charlton Hall's had decades to sort out a different strategy, and during this time they've have had the benefit of a good run re: finances. (Given the low rent since its inception.) The fact is that L-C chose the wrong location for what's required for the day treatment centre. It's in contravention of the Radial Separation bylaw, it's not an appropriate facility for its intended use...and they used what amounted to (emotional blackmail) in presenting things in the ways they did, basically telling the City that it had a responsibility to make things right...'for the girls'. 

-Ah, yes: the lawyer for L-C. He was, and I'm being kind here, clutching at straws, once again using a form of 'allusive blackmail' to say 'In the end, the City will have to accept its responsibility in the process.' I think that while Councillor Farr's tack was disappointing in its volume of delivery (the 'hammer'), this gentleman's approach was startling in its sharp thrusts (a 'stiletto'.) And it was great to hear him rebuked by at least one member of the Planning Committee (Councillor Johnson) for this. 

-Conflation. Way too much of it. As usual. A lack of clarity reigned, facts were never really gotten under control, and there was benign fomenting (aka 'grandstanding') when there shouldn't have been any at all. Not the time, not the place. Inappropriate. Surely to God there must be some moment within a councillor's term when pandering to potential supporters is absent. 

-On a brighter note, I was heartened by the clear voices and sound logic of at least two and a half members of the Committee: Councillors Johnson, Collins, and for some of the time, Whitehead.