FAQs

Frequently asked questions about the Don Mills Centre demolition, the redevelopment, and our opposition.

1) Q:
Your group has been saying that Council failed to reject CF’s application. But Ward 25 Councillor Cliff Jenkins says, “We did reject the application.” Who is telling the truth?

A:
The Council decision was “to reject the application in its current form.” Read the words carefully. What does this mean? Effectively, it means that, provided some changes are made, the application is accepted. Only an outright rejection, as proposed by Ward 34 Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, would be a true rejection.

2) Q:
Is it true that rejecting Cadillac Fairview’s Don Mills Centre redevelopment application “in its current form” was the only way Council could send City staff (lawyers, planners) to the OMB to negotiate something of value for the community, such as space for a community centre, and that if Council had rejected the application completely, this would not have been possible?

A:
This is not true. The City can always send staff to the OMB. An example of such a scenario is the case of the application for a seven-story apartment building on Avenue Road between Fairlawn and St Germain avenues, which was rejected by North York Council in September 2006, and the responsible councillor, Karen Stintz, said: “We should send our city solicitor to the OMB and we should send a planner to the OMB to defend the community’s interests, to defend our plan.”

A similar thing happened in the case of 20 three-storey town homes at Bayview Ave. south of the Bridal Path, where both North York Community Council and City Council voted against the development and voted to send a city solicitor to the OMB to defend the refusal of the proposal.

Apart from all this, there was no need to negotiate anything. The application should simply have been rejected. There will be more than enough opportunity to negotiate for a community centre in phase two. Council should have rejected the application and sent staff to the OMB to vehemently defend the decision.

There is NO EXCUSE for failing to reject this application, which is a crime against our community!

3) Q:
Is it true that there was nothing that could legally be done to force Cadillac Fairview to give us an indoor mall?

A:
While there may not be a law that says, "there must be an indoor mall," this issue should have been approached differently -- through creative lateral thinking, instead of with a blind linear approach. The City should have insisted on adherence to the Secondary Plan, which calls for change in the community to be managed “in a manner that retains and enhances the existing character of the area” and for the Don Mills Centre “to be strengthened as a community centre” and should simply have rejected any and all proposals that were not line in with these requirements and that the community did not agree with. CF should have been sent back to the drawing board until they came up with a proposal that conforms to the Secondary Plan and satisfies the community. Plain and simple.

4) Q:
I have read the City of Toronto Staff Report/Request for Direction Report to Council regarding the application, and it does refer to the Secondary Plan. The guideline to “manage change in the community in a manner that retains and enhances the existing character of the area” is shown in this report as if it refers to Landscaping, and this is where it is mentioned in the report (p. 11).

A:
This was clearly misapplied. Where in the Secondary Plan does it say that this guideline relates only to landscaping? This guideline appears right under point 2, Objectives, as “the general goal.” It says nothing about its relating only to landscaping. This is an example of how the Secondary Plan guidelines were manipulated and misapplied to help CF, not the community. Clearly, there is more to the character of an area than landscaping.

5) Q:
Are you sure that what you are saying is valid, and have you sought legal advice about this question?

A:
Yes, we have spoken with a lawyer, who agreed with our interpretation of this section in the Secondary Plan. This lawyer agreed that the text means what it says and does not imply a different meaning. It is plain English and not an encrypted message only decipherable and interpretable by city planners or city lawyers.

However, we are a group of private citizens, and we do not have the resources to pay for legal representation vis-a-vis the developer and the city.

6) Q:
What should Council have done differently in dealing with this application?

Insist that CF take the wishes of the community into account because they are in partnership with this community.
Insist that CF listen to 5,000 signatures and the many additional voices of protest.
Insist that CF conform to the Central Don Mills Secondary Plan, which calls for change in the community to be managed in a way that retains and enhances the existing character of the area.
Insist that CF respect Don Mills’ heritage status.
Insist that CF not use Canada’s first planned, award-winning community as a guinea pig for a first-in-Ontario, unproven, experimental retail project that does not serve our community.
Insist that phase one and phase two of CF’s redevelopment be combined in one single application and not be split in two.
Involve the media on a large scale and get the community to rally en masse against the redevelopment plans.
Involve all levels of government and go to the Prime Minister’s office, if necessary, to fight for Canada’s first planned, award-winning community, for our community!

There is simply NO EXCUSE for failing to reject this application!

7) Q:
I understand that construction of the open-air lifestyle centre will be completed in 2008, at which point phase 2 (the condominiums) will be tabled. How can we ask for an indoor mall as a condition of approving phase 2 when the outdoor centre will already have been built by then—will it not be too late?

A:
We can let CF know already now that when it comes to phase two, they will get nothing from us (rezoning, condos, through roads, etc.) until they make the Don Mills Centre site conform to the Central Don Mills Secondary Plan as it stood when we had the mall, and until they listen to the wishes of the community. We don’t have to give them anything unless and until they work in partnership with us.

8) Q:
I understand that CF has already begun giving leases to tenants in the new outdoor lifestyle centre. Is it not too late to demand an indoor mall?

A:
CF managed to break leases with existing, longtime tenants in the mall that was demolished, so surely they’ll know how to cancel a lease with a prospective tenant in a store that hasn’t even been built yet. Alternatively, these prospective tenants can still be offered admission by CF to a new indoor mall.

9) Q:
What about a community centre on the Don Mills Centre site?

A:
If the people of Don Mills want a community centre, this can be negotiated in phase two, and we will support this. However, this is a separate issue, and our first priority is the construction of a new indoor mall—to put back what CF had no right to take away. After that, a community centre can be negotiated.

10) Q:
By continuing to insist on a new indoor mall to be built, is your group not sabotaging negotiations for a community centre?

No. The community centre is a separate issue that can be negotiated in phase 2.
CF had no right to rob this community of our shopping mall, and they should have to put it back before we negotiate anything further with them.
Getting our indoor mall back does not prevent us from working towards a community centre.

11) Q:
CF is the owner of the Don Mills Centre, so can't they do with it as they please?

They are the owners, but they are in partnership with this community and must work with the community, not against it. That is how all successful partnerships function. It can’t be a one-way street.
They are also obliged to conform to the Central Don Mills Secondary Plan.

12) Q:
CF says that the mall was not financially sustainable. We can’t expect them to run a minus operation.

A:
Many of the mall merchants have said that their businesses were doing extremely well, and that, in fact, the Fall 2005/Winter 2006 season was their best season ever! They have also suggested that CF deliberately ran the mall into the ground. Don Mills is a prosperous community. Surely, a large, well-connected company such as CF can find ways to work with the community to ensure the success of the shopping mall in the heart of Don Mills.

If you have other questions that you would like to have answered, please send us an e-mail.