DEPUTATION BY MIGUAL AVILA AND LARRY PERLMAN

Re: Item ED5.5 Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) - Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 19 and Proposed Exemptions to the Public

Appointments Policies

June 30, 2011

Dear Chair and Members of The Economic Development and Culture Committee:

i) Introduction

On behalf of Miguel Avila and myself, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on the item before you today. Miguel and I are proud residents of the City of Toronto, but quite concerned about the future direction our City is taking in a number of areas. Business Improvement Areas (or BIAs) are one such concern.

You may not know this, but the proposed changes would not have been brought before you without my efforts. Although TABIA and the Toronto BIA Office listened to me initially when I brought concerns to them as early as 2006, they chose to ignore more serious problems beginning in 2009 – so did the old Economic Development Committee chaired by Kyle Rae. It was only through my formal complaint to the City Ombudsman in June 2009 and her November 2010 report that amendments are now being proposed that are, in my opinion, years overdue yet insufficient.

In other words, without understanding the history behind my initiatives and reading through Fiona Crean’s damaging report on BIAs, it will be difficult (if not impossible) for this committee (let alone City Council) to understand what needs to be done and what additional amendments need to be made to correct serious problems with BIA by-laws in Toronto.

Of course, there is insufficient time to discuss the past within the allotted deputation time, but for reference I have made available the November 2010 Ombudsman’s Report (Appendix 1) and my two deputations before the Economic Development Committee in 2009 and 2010 (Appendix 2). I will also be available to answer any questions you may have afterwards.

Recommendation 1: Read the City Ombudsman’s November 2010 Report on BIAs (Appendix 1), along with my two previous deputations to the Economic Development Committee (Appendix 2).

ii) There Was A “Corruption In The Process” By Staff In Expanding BIAs

In my 2009 and 2010 deputations, I identified a “corruption in the process” that wrongfully (in my view) allowed a BIA to expand into another community. By “corruption” I do NOT mean taking bribes (a serious mistake by Kyle Rae, who refused to understand and listen). Instead, it refers to a “broken” process that differed significantly from its intended purpose. In the case of City Staff and BIAs, it allowed decisions to be made without established processes, justification or purpose by staff.

1

It was the problem first identified by Ms. Crean in her November 2010 report. In fact, the existing processes were so loose that Economic Development staff could make subjective recommendations with no justification. In fact, they did just that with the Emery Village BIA expansion into the Humber Summit community

Recommendation 2: Review the Emery Village BIA expansion into the Humber Summit community as an example of following old established processes. It is found in item ED29.6, dated April 22, 2010. Afterwards, reverse the expansion as it would not have passed Council under current proposed amendments to BIA processes.

iii) Political Interference In BIAs Has NOT Been Addressed By Amendments

One major issue not addressed by the City Ombudsman’s report is political interference in BIA activities. Before I begin, I would like to provide you with a quote from a May 2009 article in the National Post from Rob Henry, a business owner who decided to move his container business out of Toronto:

…As a former 'member' of the Emery Village BIA. I would love to see an article explaining the BIA's and the City of Toronto's dirty little BIA scam exposed for what it truly is, an extra tax placed on businesses operating in the City and a slush fund for Councillors like Giorgio Mammoliti's pet projects.  I can't speak to the other BIA's in Toronto but if the information I have regarding the Emery Village is any indication this is a huge sink hole for $1.8-million in tax dollars.  Once you enter the rabbit hole I sure (sic) you'll be shocked what you find. I have since relocated my business to Vaughan after 18 years in Emery Village.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/05/27/emery-village-needs-jobs-not-homes.aspx

This is by no means a unique example. On June 23, 2011, I received the following email from a business owner (wishing to remain anonymous) who is on her BIA Board in Toronto’s east end:

Hello Larry and xxxxxx,I got a threatening letter telling me I was going to be kicked off theboard. This was this AM.Larry, I hope you really make a point that BIAs should be organic, andnot the slush funds of the councillors. We should be allowed to havedemocracy with our BIAs and not have to be fearful of the councillors.I will talk to you two soon.

Anybody even remotely connected to BIAs (especially the larger ones) are aware of the power and money wielded by Councillors with BIAs in their Ward. The Emery Village BIA, for example, has an annual operating budget of over $2 Million!

In fact, I first noticed this problem during the municipal election of 2006, when the incumbent Ward 7 Councillor received a political endorsement from the Emery Village BIA. This BIA THEN chose to hold a community meeting during the 2006 election campaign, paying for full-page colour ads in local community newspapers and glossy flyers sent to homes throughout the Ward (with costs exceeding $10,000). The guest speaker of this community meeting was the incumbent Councillor. Although my

2

complaint to the Integrity Commissioner and Compliance Audit Committee was ineffective, both the BIA Office and TABIA closed this loophole the next year by forbidding such endorsements from occurring again.

However, political interference does not end there. A large flagpole is being considered for the Emery Village BIA, promoted shamelessly by the local Councillor (and, in my opinion, an embarrassing initiative). During the City strike in 2009, the Emery Village BIA also paid for private garbage trucks and containers to help local residents deal with the deluge of trash – again promoted shamelessly by the local Councillor.

In summary, this type of political interference in BIA business must stop immediately!

Below are recommendations that would be effective in stopping political interference by Councillors in BIAs:

Recommendation 3: Separate Councillors from their BIAs completely, including keeping them off the BIA Board. BIAs are designed to benefit the member businesses and the City as a whole, NOT the Councillor. The Councillor’s only role should be to bring the parties together, not to take advantage of the potential “slush fund” afterwards. Please note that there are Wards without BIAs and other Wards with smaller, more modest BIAs.

Recommendation 4: Do not combine separate City community project funding and the saving of municipal fees with starting up or expanding BIAs. For example, in an effort to encourage the expansion of the Emery Village BIA into the Humber Summit community, the target business community was given a $100,000 grant for streetscape improvements, funded by the Public Realm Office (part of Transportation Services), and business owners in one plaza had thousands of dollars in annual encroachment fees waived in exchange for their participation in the BIA expansion. The money and savings were initiated and controlled by the local Councillor. The project costs and lost encroachment fees were hidden from view and is perceived (at least in my eyes) as a proverbial bribe.

Recommendation 5: Disallow BIAs from making charitable donations. First of all, BIAs can not claim tax deductions, and the decision to donate should be left to individual member firms only (if they choose to do so). Second, and most importantly, charitable contributions can potentially be directed to Councillor pet projects and be perceived as an initiative by the Councillor (and given extraordinary media attention).

Recommendation 6: Prevent residents and business owners who are not members of a BIA from participating in BIA activities. For example, sub-committees should be composed of BIA members only. The present amendment to allow non-members on sub-committees has George Mammoliti’s hands all over it – when he was not appointed to the Toronto Zoo Board in late 2010 he tried to stay in the Zoo loop through sub-committee participation; the Zoo Board saw through this charade and excluded him from all such activity (just ask any Zoo Board member).

Recommendation 7: BIAs must be transparent, in the same manner as this committee and all other Agencies, Boards and Commissions in Toronto. There should be a regularly-updated website for each BIA, with announcements of ALL meetings of the Board and sub-committees. All meeting minutes should be made available in the same manner as it is available through the City of Toronto website. The public must be allowed to attend these meetings and be provided with sufficient advanced notice.

3

None of this is happening at this time. For a good example, go to the Emery Village BIA’s website and see how poorly it is designed and updated.

iv) Conclusion

There is no doubt that the current amendments to BIA by-laws are a step in the right direction. Both TABIA and the Toronto BIA Office spent a great deal of time putting together a set of processes that dealt with serious concerns made by myself, the City Ombudsman and the NUMEROUS business owners complaining about the many loopholes and power grabs taking hold at various BIAs in Toronto.

However, there continues to be loopholes present, while at the same time there is no doubt that certain members of Council will be making an effort to curtail many of the suggested amendments. THIS COMMITTEE AND CITY COUNCIL AFTERWARDS MUST NOT ALLOW THE LATTER TO HAPPEN.

BIAs are a wonderful concept and worthy of the City’s investment in funding, resources and expertise. However, it can NOT be overwhelmed by political interference from members of Council. The goal of a BIA should be to promote and strengthen a unique business community, and a BIA should benefit business owners. In the end, a successful BIA benefits the City as a whole.

Any deviation from this goal, especially through political interference, can only hurt BIAs and the City.

Sincerely yours,

Migual Avila and Larry Perlman

4

APPENDIX 1

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

APPENDIX 2

Larry Perlman

27

Chair and MembersEconomic Development CommitteeToronto City Hall100 Queen Street WestToronto Ontario M5H 2N2

November 11, 2009

Re: Item ED26.9 – Intention To Expand Emery Village BIA Boundaries

Dear Chair and Members of the Economic Development Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Larry Perlman, a proud resident of Toronto and concerned member of the Humber Summit community. I have come here today to voice my opposition to the Emery Village BIA expansion into my community, outline the reasons thereof, and provide this committee with a reasonable solution that meets everyone’s needs.

In my opinion, the report prepared by the Toronto BIA Office provides little substance to the numerous overwhelming issues that has led to a CORRUPTION IN THE PROCESS of expanding the BIA. And, like a carefully-followed recipe, I will provide you with the ingredients to this disaster of a process.

First Ingredient: Bully and Intimidate Humber Summit Business Owners

Starting in June 2008, Ward 7 Councillor George Mammoliti used every ounce of power at his disposal to bully and intimidate the Humber Summit business owners. In a community meeting for residents (and without inviting business owners who were there in any event and visibly upset), Mr. Mammoliti informed the audience that something would be done to clean up the area. Daily harassment from MLS by-law officers started at the same time and in October 2008 he introduced and passed a motion at Etobicoke York Community Council (EYCC) to take back approximately 75 parking spaces along both sides of Islington Ave. After many business owners took the City to court to get back these parking spots (and lost), Mr. Mammoliti introduced and passed ANOTHER motion at EYCC in March 2009 to have him negotiate with the business owners for the return of the parking spots (and waiving of legal fees) in exchange for beautification plans and encroachment fees. As two of the members of the Economic Development committee are also on the EYCC, they could provide the remaining members with an idea

28

of how wrong-headed and controversial these motions were (see Appendix A for Metroland articles)

Second Ingredient: Recruit The Majority Owners Of One Plaza For The BIA Expansion

Mr. Mammoliti met with the majority owners of the Italian Gardens Plaza on the same March 2009 evening after the EYCC motion was passed. In a May 13th 2009 letter from the majority owners of the Italian Gardens Plaza, a request was made to the Emery Village BIA to “discuss the possibilities of becoming part of the expansion into Emery Village”. The next day, a letter was sent to the Toronto BIA Office making the request formal (see Appendix B, letters). The Toronto BIA Office has no record of a BIA Steering Committee, minutes or support from anyone outside the Italian Gardens Plaza

Third Ingredient: Have Mr. Mammoliti Promote It As A Beautification Project To Residents, With Before And After Photos

In an effort to promote the idea of the Emery Village BIA coming to the Humber Summit community, a number of colour flyers were sent out with before and after photos of the area and a meeting was held September 14th 2009, three days prior to the Toronto BIA Office meeting (see Appendix C, Flyer and Metroland Articles). Large posters of the transformation were placed conspicuously in both meetings. The plan failed miserably to convince residents and most business owners, for the simple fact that Humber Summit is a unique community and entirely separate from Emery Village.

Fourth Ingredient: Have The Toronto BIA Office Divide Humber Summit In Two And Keep The Most Vocal Opponents Of The Expansion Out Of The Decision-Making Process

In early September, the proposed expansion boundaries were changed by the Toronto BIA Office, divided into two relatively-equal parts (see Toronto BIA Office Report). The parts excluded from the expansion include the whole west side of Islington Avenue (three plazas and a building) and three plazas on the east side. Please note that the excluded plazas were from business owners most opposed to the Emery Village expansion. These actions are nothing more than political gerrymandering in its worst possible form.

Fifth Ingredient: Introduce $100,000 From The Public Realm Office For Streetscape Improvements to the Satterley/Islington Corner (Includes Italian Gardens Plaza)

29

In the September 17th meeting, Mr. Mammoliti passed along copies of a letter, dated September 15th, advising him of "project funding up to $100,000 for boulevard enhancements to Islington Ave, south of Satterley Road as part of Public Realm's boulevard transformation capital program" (see Appendix D – Public Realm Letter). It is NOT co-incidental that the whole amount was earmarked for ONE particular corner, dated two days prior to the meeting date, and provided to business owners in favour of the BIA expansion. It appears manipulative and is in itself a wasteful use of resources, especially when a better and cheaper solution is available.

MY SUGGESTION: Reject The Toronto BIA Office Report, Allow A Stand-Alone Humber Summit BIA Poll To Go Forward Under A Small Budget ($25,000) and Allow The Public Realm Office To Do The Necessary Boulevard Transformation Improvements For ALL Of Humber Summit…For MUCH Less…

Last month I did a walkabout through Humber Summit with an officer from the Public Realm Office, showing him the areas most in need of beautification. The strategy would involve taking out asphalt along the boulevards, replacing it with sod, trees and faux brick (cement) in small areas. The transformation would be incredible and it is exactly what is needed for Humber Summit – and for much less than the original funds!

At the same time, allow a poll for a stand-alone Humber Summit BIA with a small budget for communal maintenance of the boulevard transformation and overhead (managed with volunteers). The Humber Summit name would remain intact and funds directed to the needs of the community, not Emery Village.

Finally, it is time to look a little more carefully at the Emery Village BIA and its connection to Mr. Mammoliti. Examples such as street-naming, electoral support, expansion plans, the use of BIA funds during the City strike and other shenanigans are getting to be an embarrassment -- not only to the residents and businesses of Ward 7, but to the City of Toronto as a whole.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

Sincerely yours,

Larry Perlman

APPENDIX A – METROLAND ARTICLES

30

http://www.insidetoronto.com/article/73712--city-may-waive-legal-costs-in-parking-dispute

LISA QUEENApr 02, 2009

City may waive legal costs in parking disputeMammoliti extends olive branch to shop owners in Italian Gardens plaza

As anger over a bitter Islington Avenue parking dispute now turns to compromise, York West Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti is considering letting store owners off the hook for the city's legal costs.

"I think I should show some good faith and ask the legal department to reconsider going after costs," he said.

The legal costs, which Mammoliti estimates at about $80,000, stem from the shop owners of Italian Gardens at 2965 Islington taking the city to court.

The Italian Gardens business owners launched the lawsuit after Mammoliti decided the city should take back parking spaces in five Islington plazas that the owners had been using for more than 35 years.

Mammoliti further upset the store owners when he said their plazas are riddled with crime.

Last month, Justice Elizabeth Stewart decided in the city's favour and ordered the store owners to pay the city's legal fees.

Last week, the Italian Gardens owners approached Mammoliti about working with the city to beautify their plaza.

They have also not appealed the court ruling, which they would have had to do by Monday's deadline.

Now, Mammoliti said he is willing to extend an olive branch to the shop owners by asking the city to waive the city's legal fees, as long as they refrain from further court action and continue to work with the city to spruce up the Italian Gardens plaza.

"I think if there is no appeal, and I don't think there is going to be, I've had some really good meetings with the group over the weekend and they're clearly showing they want to work with the city, not just for the parking but for a beautification project that works," he said.

"We're trying to reach a settlement that has been pretty exhausting for everybody."

31

Italian Gardens property manager Darlene Wronzberg is keeping her fingers crossed Mammoliti's offer comes through.

"That is a good thing. That is what we're hoping for," she said, saying the plaza is already facing $15,000 in legal fees for its own lawyer.

"We're in discussions and hopefully things will go well for everybody."Mammoliti said getting business owners in Italian Gardens, and possible other plazas, to beautify their property will save taxpayers money.

"If they work on a green plan for Islington, it is good for the taxpayers. They won't have to pay and it could cost hundreds of thousands (of dollars)," he said.

Mammoliti defended his approach to the parking issue.

"I think my style and technique may have gotten us to this point," he said. "My style and technique brought everybody to the table."

When asked whether his method didn't, in fact, create unnecessary bad feelings with the store owners and land the issue in court, Mammoliti dismissed suggestions he could have broached the issue in a more conciliatory manner from the start.

"I'm not sure it would have worked that way. I don't think people would have been at the table," he said.

"It (my approach) worked."

At a meeting of Etobicoke-York Community Council last week, where dozens of people packed the council chambers to debate the parking issue, some councillors criticized Mammoliti's heavy-handed approach.

"Personally, I would have preferred for people to have their say right from the beginning but that has passed. We have to look to the future," Etobicoke North Councillor Suzan Hall said.

http://www.insidetoronto.com/article/73229--councillor-s-fear-tactics-source-of-community-angst-reader

32

April 22, 2009

Councillor's fear tactics source of community angst: reader

Re: 'City may waive legal costs in parking dispute, News, April 3

As a Ward 7 resident and deputant at the March 26 Etobicoke York Community Council meeting dealing with the Islington Avenue parking dispute, I would like to clarify and correct some important points stated in the North York Mirror article of April 3.

First, the original idea to waive legal fees came from my deputation at community council. I made other suggestions to community council as well, including a deferral of encroachment fees for two years, more on-street parking around the plazas during the day and a bicycle lane on the public boulevard between the sidewalk and curb. Not only would these ideas benefit the affected business owners, it would minimize the crowding of parked cars in the plazas and provide a transportation alternative for community residents.

Second, it is impossible that the city's legal costs to defend the court action would even be close to $80,000 given the facts of the case. Since the city used in-house legal counsel, legal costs overall could not be more than $20,000 (more likely half that). Finally, George Mammoliti does not have the power to "ask the city to waive the city's legal fees" as it must be done in consultation with Toronto Transportation Services and brought to Etobicoke York Community Council for approval. The statements made by Mr. Mammoliti in the article are nothing more than a means to hide his use of intimidation and bullying that caused irreparable damage to the businesses and residents of the Humber Summit community.

Larry Perlman

APPENDIX B – LETTERS FROM BIA AND BUSINESS OWNERS

33

Italian Gardens Plaza2965 Islington Avenue Suite

34

North York OntarioM9l 2k7

May 13, 2009

Dear Emery Village Board Members

Attention: Chair of Bia-board of Management, Harbhasan Daillon

As per last night meeting, we would like to have a preliminary meeting withthe board of management to discuss the possibilities of becoming part of theexpansion into Emery Village.

Interested Parties:

Samarkand Investments -2965 Islington Ave.-Unit 17 – Sharon Shefsky,Manny Langer,Darlene Wronzberg

Samarkand Investments -2965 Islington Ave.- Unit 18–Sharon Shefsky-Manny Langer,Darlene Wronzberg

2965 Islington Ave. - Sams Barber Shop, Unit 16-Manny Langer- DarleneWronzberg- Sharon Shefsky

2965 Islington Ave. - Singer Sewing – Unit 15-Manny Langer- DarleneWronzberg- Sharon Shefsky

2965 Islington Ave. - Ital Pizza– Unit 1 – Manny Langer, DarleneWronzberg- Sharon Shefsky

2965 Islington Ave. - Angel Convenience Store – Unit 2 – Manny Langer,Darlene Wronzberg, Sharon Shefsky

2965 Islington Ave. - Mago Coffee – Unit 14- Manny Langer, DarleneWronzberg, Sharon Shefsky

35

2965 Islington Ave.-Zishon Enterprises – Unit 13- Manny Langer, DarleneWronzberg, Sharon Shefsky

2965 Islington Ave.- Pina Bakery – Unit 12- Manny Langer, DarleneWronzberg, Sharon Shefsky

2969-2973- Samarkand Investments –Darlene Wronzberg,Manny Langer,Sharon Shefsky- Office 416-744-3185 or cell 416-816-4015 (DarleneWronzberg)

2965 Islington Ave. - Unit 10 – Tony Romano- cell -416-740-1969

2965 Islington Ave. - Unit 11 – Gino Rea – Hair Performers – Business- 416-741-4790

2965 Islington Ave. – Unit 5 – Paul Sarra – Crazy Nails- cell- 416-997-4037

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated,

Darlene Wronzberg. Sharon Shefsky, Manny LangerGino Rea, Paul Sarra, Tony RomanoYou can reach Darlene Wronzberg at 416-816-4015 to arrange aPreliminary meeting.-

APPENDIX C – FLYER AND METROLAND ARTICLES

36

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/article/151009--plan-to-expand-bia-boundaries-splits-community

37

Plan to expand BIA boundaries splits community

Emery Village expansion plan concerns some Humber Summit businesses

Depending who you talk to, expanding the boundaries of the Emery Village BIA will either tap the new businesses into a big pool of money to improve their area or rob the community of its identity. A divided standing room-only crowd passionately argued both sides at a meeting Thursday, Sept. 15 at the Humber Summit Library.

Mike Major, manager of the city's BIAs, said the city has been approached to expand the BIA to include sections of Islington Avenue, Plunkett Road, Millwick Drive and Satterly Road.

Thursday night's meeting was held to gauge opinion to see if the city should proceed to the next step, holding a formal poll.

A straw vote revealed the audience was split and Major said he will "have to see" whether he recommends the poll.

If more than one-third of businesses in the Emery Village BIA and the area of Humber Summit included in the new boundaries oppose the plan, it can't go ahead, Major said.

York West Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti argued expanding the boundaries of the BIA, already the largest in North America, will help Humber Summit businesses beautify their area and rid the neighbourhood of drug problems.

Without having the BIAs financial resources to draw on, Mammoliti said it would take businesses a quarter of a century to fund needed projects in the area.

But others are against the larger borders, arguing business interests in Humber Summit would be dwarfed by those in the larger Emery Village.

Opponents are also upset the new boundaries take in only a portion of Humber Summit, a move that would leave the community fractured.

"Why are you trying to split up the Humber Summit community?" resident Larry Perlman said.

He argued the businesses outside the proposed boundaries have been excluded because they would be more likely to reject the idea.

"Stop this charade," he said.

A shouting match erupted as Perlman continued several times to press his point."You're here because you are running for council. You are not even a business owner," said one woman, who did not want to be identified.

38

The woman, who said she is a landlord, supports the expanded boundaries so shabby business areas can be improved.

"This is a no brainer," she said.

But Tony D'Aversa is in favour of creating a new Humber Summit BIA.

"I feel a Humber Summit BIA makes more sense. A small fish in a big pond makes no sense to me or the people I talk to in the community," D'Aversa added, saying he shares Mammoliti's "zeal" to clean up the area.â?¨"It (the expanded boundaries) would delete our heritage, our integrity and our history and that hurts. I feel strongly about this."

But he added the Humber Summit request has been set on the back burner while the Emery Village plan proceeds, even though proponents of the Humber Summit BIA pitched their plan to the city last May, the same time the proposal to expand the Emery Village boundaries was submitted.

Arguing the Humber Summit proposal was the only one of the two to follow proper protocol, he wants the city's legal department to investigate.

If the Emery Village expanded boundaries are ultimately adopted, D'Aversa wants a committee to ensure Humber Summit's identity and history are preserved.

Mammoliti gave his "personal guarantee" Humber Summit's character will be saved.

Major said other BIAs in Toronto, such as the one representing the entertainment district, can serve a broad area while retaining the flavour of smaller neighbourhoods within it.

http://www.insidetoronto.com/opinion/letters/article/155262--expanding-bia-will-only-hurt-community-reader

Oct 09, 2009

39

Expanding BIA will only hurt community: reader

Re: 'Plan to expand BIA boundaries splits community,' News, Sept. 25

To the editor:

I am a resident of Humber Summit and was a guest at the Sept. 17 meeting.

To begin with, the BIA expansion is inextricably linked to the 75 parking spaces taken away from business owners since October 2008 along Islington Avenue, north of Finch Avenue. It was only after a motion was passed in March 2009 to have Mr. Mammoliti and the city negotiate with the Islington Avenue businesses for the return of these parking spaces that the idea of expanding the Emery Village BIA was forced upon all Humber Summit business owners by Mr. Mammoliti. It was never their idea in the first place.

Secondly, the request for a legal opinion on prioritizing the expansion plans and assurances that a committee to ensure Humber Summit's identity and history are preserved are suspicious. The so-called "personal guarantee" by Mr. Mammoliti that Humber Summit's character will be saved was difficult to believe given the many posters showing before and after photos of the renewal of the area with Emery Village BIA flags shown all over the after photos; Emery Village and Humber Summit are two separate and distinct communities.

There is no doubt the councillor is bringing unnecessary controversy and pain to the community. While many business owners are up-in-arms over the BIA expansion plans, most Humber Summit businesses are simply trying to survive: they see their neighbours going out of business and they have no time for these shenanigans. Any attempt to effect change in this manner is not only bad politics, it will cause long-term damage that will be felt by the residents and businesses in the community for years to come.

Larry Perlman

APPENDIX D – PUBLIC REALM LETTER

40

41

Larry Perlman

Chair and MembersToronto Economic Development CommitteeToronto City Hall100 Queen Street WestToronto, Ontario

April 22nd, 2010

Re: ED29.6 – Expansion Of Emery Village BIA

Dear Chair and Members of the Economic Development Committee:

My name is Larry Perlman, a resident of Toronto and proud resident of the Humber Summit Community (see Appendix 1). The purpose behind this deputation is to provide this committee with an update of my concerns to the Emery Village BIA’s expansion plans and ask that Item ED29.6 be deferred until a full investigation of the BIA process is completed by the City Ombudsman’s office.

As background, I first approached the City Ombudsman in July 2009, specifically:

The taking away of parking spaces as a method of intimidation against the Humber Summit business owners,

The unprofessional methods used by the Toronto BIA office to push the expansion through, and,

Privacy concerns as my communications with the BIA Office were passed on to third parties without my knowledge or permission.

A formal complaint to the Ombudsman’s office proceeded in September 2009 by Humber Summit business owners concerned, as I was, about the corruption in the process. While some business owners sided with the BIA expansion (and had their parking spaces returned, at least temporarily), it appeared that parking spaces were denied others (see Appendix 2 for a good example).

In November 2009 I approached the Economic Development Committee with specific concerns about the expansion (item ED 26.9) and, despite serious shortcomings from the BIA Office report on the process (in my opinion), the expansion poll was allowed to proceed (see Appendix 4 for my November 2009 deputation).

42

Since that time, more information has been made available. Specifically, a letter was sent by a legal representative of business owners of Italians Gardens Plaza (within Humber Summit) to the City Solicitor’s office (see Appendix 3), asking for the following:

That Italian Gardens Plaza be permitted to continue the use of its parking slots as it has allowed to do up until now. In return:

Italian Gardens will accept the landscaping plan currently in existence for this site

The estimated cost of $350,000 will be made up as follows: $100,000 from Clean and Beautiful (sic) $250,000 from Emery Village BIA on the anticipation that Italian Gardens

will become part of this BIA and the BIA will provide the funding

THIS STINKS! It is nothing more than an attempt by the business owners in the Plaza for the return of their parking spaces in exchange for joining the Emery Village BIA, supplemented by $100,000 in City money from the Public Realm Office (as recommended by the local Councillor no less!) . Any Humber Summit business owner against this plan would have significantly less parking spaces as a result. Members of the Economic Development Committee must put themselves in the position of a small business owner struggling to survive under such dire conditions and presented with a BIA expansion poll – WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

The above is what I (and other Humber Summit business owners) are asking the Ombudsman to investigate.

I am now asking that item 29.6 be deferred until the Ombudsman’s investigation is complete. The alternative is to allow the poll results to continue and have the Ombudsman’s report on this issue paint an ugly picture of a process that, in my opinion so far, has been corrupted.

It is my hope that the Economic Development Committee does the right thing in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Larry Perlman

43

APPENDIX 1 – NEIGHBOURHOOD MAP OF TORONTO

44

APPENDIX 2 – A HUMBER SUMMIT PLAZA NOT PART OF THE BIA EXPANSION

45

APPENDIX 3 – LETTER

46

47

48

49