A group of downtown Ottawa tenants pleaded with a city committee on Wednesday to block the demolition of their homes, moving councillors to take a rare step they hope will pressure the developer to offer a better deal.
Smart Living Properties wants to tear down four buildings on a block of Bank Street between Nepean and Lisgar streets, replacing 25 affordable units with 263 units at much higher market rates.
Just 11 tenants remain in the buildings. Some are on pensions or disability payments. Others are artists, while still others are students. They told councillors that their rent-controlled apartments are the only things saving them from homelessness.
“For the first time in my life, I will be without a home, at 67 years of age,” said Nicole Seguin, a tenant of more than 35 years whose sister read a statement on her behalf. “I do not know what will happen to me, and this causes an immense stress.”
Seguin pays just $454 a month for her one-bedroom apartment, but the developer estimates that a studio in the new building will rent in the $1,600 range.
Another tenant, Ben Emond, pays just $750 for a two-bedroom apartment and says his rent would triple were he forced to move out.
“You have to realize that this step in the process is giving permission for the eventual destruction of our homes,” he told the committee.
But that step was a simple one, and something the committee generally rubber stamps based on recommendations from city staff. Smart Living Properties was looking for permission to build a bit higher, to nine storeys, and with reduced setbacks. The company agreed to preserve historic facades with heritage protection.
That put the committee at an “impasse,” according to the chair, Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper. If it voted against the proposal, the developer could simply appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. It would likely win, with the city achieving little beyond the added cost of defending its move.
City lawyer Tim Marc said the tribunal would consider provincial policy and planning documents. Though there is “some leeway,” he advised that relying on tenant protection alone wouldn’t be enough for the city to prevail.
Tenants say tiny studio units aren’t real housing
Still, the tenants pleaded and pleaded.
“If you slow these things down, then it gives the tenants a chance to fight,” said Mark Jones, a tenant of 20 years.
Smart Living Properties and its representatives argued for their project, saying it would “revitalize” a block of abandoned storefronts and create far more housing on the site.
But that housing would consist largely of studio apartments, some as small as 220 square feet. One of the tenants, Julie Ivanoff, presented councillors with a scale model she drew showing a living space barely bigger than a parking spot.
“Think about what housing means,” Ivanoff urged councillors. “Is that studio housing? Can you live in a unit that small? Can you raise a family? Can you have a partner, have friends over, or even work from home?”
When councillors got a chance to question the developers, they asked why they aren’t trying to keep the tenants in their homes.
Mahshad Madahi of Neuf Architects said the structure of the current building wasn’t strong enough to support more storeys. So Somerset Coun. Ariel Troster, whose ward includes the buildings, asked why the tenants couldn’t get a right of first refusal in the new units at rents similar to what they pay now.
“The option to return, within the current economic environment, was not financially viable to accommodate,” said Ryan Denyer of Smart Living Properties.
“Are you saying you would lose money on those units?” Troster asked
Denyer responded that “in today’s economy, things are very difficult to build.”
Company offering $20K, but councillors call it ‘bare minimum’
Rowland Gordon of Smart Living Properties, said the company previously offered tenants a lump sum worth one year of their current rent, plus money for moving expenses. That offer has since risen to $20,000.
River ward Coun. Riley Brockington said that might look good on paper, but it isn’t nearly enough to cover what the tenants are losing.
“I think the most important thing that all tenants want, above money, is a place to call home,” he said, calling a right of first refusal at comparable rents a “win-win situation.”
Councillors and legal staff broke off into small conversations in the margins of the meeting, and it became clear that the committee would not recommend the proposal.
Orléans-West Innes Coun. Laura Dudas said she couldn’t support it because the developer had done the “absolute bare minimum.”
Troster introduced a motion to refer the matter to a full meeting of city council on Dec. 11. She warned Smart Living Properties that there’s “a real chance this could be rejected” unless they do better.
“Come up with a better offer, consider the right of return for these tenants, and then you might get the votes to see this application pass,” she told the company.
“I think you’re seeing rare unanimity on this committee today,” she added. “I think folks were substantially moved by the delegations, and the reputational damage that you will face in not making this offer is far greater than it would cost to just do the right thing for these tenants.”
Gordon said he would take the question back to the development team.
After the meeting, Ivanoff said she was reeling from the decision to refer the matter, which she didn’t expect.
“I’m moved by the people who came forward, not only my fellow neighbours, but community members in support. I’m truly just shocked,” she said. “I appreciate that it did not fall on deaf ears.”