The Spec: Committee delays parking decision for James South redevelopment but renters want ‘a solution that doesn’t displace families’

Tenants facing displacement from two James Street South buildings have more breathing room after a city committee delayed a decision relating to their landlord’s redevelopment plans.

“The underlying issue is we want a solution that doesn’t displace families and people living in these buildings,” tenant Pamela Cooper said after the committee of adjustment’s tabling motion Thursday.

Cooper and dozens of others at 325 and 325A James St. S. have received notices from their landlord to vacate their apartments for renovations.

With the goal of staying put, they’re contesting those notices before the Landlord and Tenant Board, with hearings scheduled this spring.

Toronto-based real estate developer Arkfield aims to increase the number of apartments to 164 from 107 by subdividing larger units into smaller ones.

Parking permissions through the committee of adjustment — that don’t add spaces to the mix, but keep the count at 52 — figure into the overall plan.

The proposal is backed by city staff, but it has sparked concerns about parking, not only from the tenants, but others who live in the busy area around St. Joseph’s hospital on Charlton Avenue East.

Parking is tight as it is, 325 James tenant Kristy Attridge told The Spectator.

“We weren’t able to get a spot in our own building,” she said. “We have to pay for street parking, if it’s available.”

The two buildings are within walking distance of the Hunter Street GO station and HSR lines, planning consultant David Falletta told the committee of adjustment.

When the ownership group bought the pair of buildings, which date to the 1920s and 1950s, the plan was to leave them as is, but a subsequent assessment revealed they were in “far worse shape than originally identified.”

The “significant issues” require major HVAC, plumbing, mechanical and electrical work, Falletta said.
His clients appreciate the tenants’ concerns about displacement, he said.

“But I think what’s also important is retaining the rental housing stock in the city,” he said. “This is part of the challenge in older cities like Hamilton.”

The tenants, who have enlisted the help of Hamilton ACORN, told the committee the renovation plans would eliminate affordable, family-sized rental housing in Hamilton.

Noting new information was presented Thursday, the committee decided to table a decision on the application.

Afterward, Cooper, 62, said that was the right move.

She and her daughter Emily, 31, who has disabilities that require her to live with her mother, want to move into the other building while theirs is renovated.
And then when work shifts to that building, they can live with the commotion, Cooper said.

“We’re willing to put up with renovation noises. We know what that means, but it also means we won’t have to lose our home.”

The prospect of securing something she can afford after nearly 11 years in the James building in Hamilton’s escalated rental market is dim, Cooper said.

They pay just over $1,200 a month for their three-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment, she noted.

“Now that only gets you a junior or bachelor these days.”

Previously, Arkfield director Amin Jalalpour told The Spectator via email “critical safety concerns” that had “gone unaddressed for years” made it “infeasible and even unsafe” for tenants to stay.

Jalalpour said the firm has held meetings with tenants to hear their concerns and “find individual solutions” for them.
The application for parking tweaks doesn’t reflect the magnitude of the “broader issue” of tenant displacement, said Karl Andrus, executive director of the Hamilton Community Benefits Network.

Rather than the committee of adjustment, the proposal should be put to city council, Andrus suggested.

“This was about parking, ostensibly under the Planning Act, but it was really about knocking down a bunch of units and changing and remodelling the building.”

***********
Article by Teviah Moro for The Spec