Once a week, Vandalist features some of the most interesting street art and graffiti from around Toronto. Find something great? Email vandalist@torontoist.com.

The proposed development site. Photo by lxdesign, from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

The Beach is known for its unique small-town vibe, but a possibly precedent-setting new six-story condo planned for the area has residents fiercely divided over the evolution of their neighbourhood.

The community, the developer, City planning staff, and Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon (Ward 32 Beaches-East-York) have been in heated discussion for the past year over the condo development, which is proposed for 1960-62 Queen Street East, currently a Lick’s. On May 15, the Toronto and East York Community Council voted to allow the rezoning necessary for the project to go ahead, and it’s almost certain that city council will finalize that zoning approval in early June.

Brian Graff, a leading member of Friends of Queen Street, a group which has been actively campaigning for changes to the 1960-62 Queen Street East condo plan, says he isn’t against condo development in the Beach, but that he prefers three- or four-storey buildings that emulate existing development the area.

“Most people…don’t have any problem with the condos that were built under the guidelines in the ’90s, and so that is what people, and myself included, generally want,” said Graff. “Buildings that fit in, that are not modern, that attempt to somehow respond to the context like the old ones did.” Graff added that he believes most Beach residents are opposed to development.

McMahon, who voted in favour of the rezoning at last Tuesday’s community council meeting, insisted that local sentiment is much more nuanced. After all, she said, around 80 per cent of the people buying condos at the controversial development are Beachers looking to downsize. “Every business owner I speak to wants development. You have to progress for the economic viability of this street,” McMahon said. “We have 148 condo [buildings] going up in downtown Toronto, so we need to get ahead ahead of it and have our plan.”

If anything’s certain, it’s that change is hard. Still, major changes to the Beach’s streetscape will likely be limited. Only four sites in the area have been identified as fit for future development, according to a study commissioned by McMahon. Of those, only one appears primed for imminent construction–the site of the former Shell station at Queen and Woodbine (a soil remediation company has purchased the lot).

McMahon is now looking to push forward a study that will engage the community in workshops to design a community wishlist and discuss issues like architectural design and height. Set for completion in November, the study’s findings will have to be balanced against the City’s Official Plan, which supports increased development along avenues, like Queen Street.

While McMahon managed to finagle design concessions from the 1960-62 Queen Street East developer to keep the project more in line with its surroundings (its brick exterior will now extend to the main floor, it will be set back at the third story), Graff still wonders if there aren’t more appropriate places for development in Toronto, such as Eglinton or Lawrence Avenues.

Even so, now that Beach homes often go for a million or more, perhaps it’s time to extend the opportunity to live in the neighbourhood to those who can’t afford such an overwhelming price tag.

If you’re a lady of just the right age, there is a good chance you went head over heels for The Cutting Edge. You swooned over D.B. Sweeney, maybe took a few skating lessons, and now must accept full responsibility for the three (!) sequels…and you probably were too young to know or care it was shot round these parts.

See if you can follow on this summary of the complicated plot: There’s this spoiled figure-skating gal trying to get into the Olympics and she needs a partner. Then there’s this hockey playing guy and he can’t play anymore due to an injury. Do they get partnered up? Of course. Do things go poorly at first? Mos def. Do the two somehow eventually develop mutual respect and even (gulp) love? Maybe, maybe. Are there montages set to ’80s music complete with close-up shots of graphic equalizers twinkling and muscles getting pumped? Come on! Is there a last-minute hiccup that gets resolved just in time for the pair to admit their true feelings and win a gold medal? Is any of this actually ruining the movie for you?

So, where were we? Skating, right. Gotta have some ice, eh? Well, this is supposed to be Calgary but…

…the distinctive seats let you know it’s actually Copps Coliseum, in Hamilton, cowboy notwithstanding.

This rink is supposed to be in Chicago but, uh, they don’t have Tim Hortons there. No, this is just Copps again.

Diva Moira Kelly has her own personal practice rink, which is supposed to be in Vermont…

…but it’s actually the rink at Newmarket’s Pickering College. (And it also can be seen in this vintage Kurt Browning Diet Coke ad. Sweet!) Pickering was also briefly seen in Mark Wahlberg’s The Big Hit.

This factory, where Sweeney works before putting on the spurred skates, is also back in Hamilton.

This doctor’s office, where he gets the bad news, was shot in downtown Toronto, on Pearl Street.

In a real coup, they got Jack Layton to play the doctor. No, not really.

But this really is awesome character actor Terry O’Quinn busting a move as Kelly’s rich dad.

As for Toronto itself, this not-actually-American hotel is actually the SkyDome Hotel. (Now it’s the Renaissance, of course.)

The atrium of this hotel, however, belongs what’s now the Hilton Suites in Markham.

Now, when you come across The Cutting Edge on TV and find yourself sucked in for the umpteenth time, you’ll be able to watch it in a whole new way. You’re welcome.

Regent Park construction, February 2012. Photo by Linda Edwards from the Torontoist Flickr Pool

In 2007, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation opted to embark on a $1-billion, 15-year revitalization of Regent Park, a social housing development, parts of which are more than sixty years old. According to the TCHC website, the current redevelopment will include “diverse architecture, expanding and reconnecting the road networks and adding new pedestrian-friendly streets maintained by the City.”

The project will increase the number of people living in the development by a little more than 50 per cent, and will add market-rate condos to the mix, whereas before, the neighbourhood had been defined by its many rent-geared-to-income housing units. A number of brand-new shared community spaces will also be built, including new spots for stores and other types of businesses.

Now, five years later, the occasionally controversial undertaking is about to see its first major results: the completion of renovations on the neighbourhood’s nearly-century-old Nelson Mandela Park Public School and development of an adjoining, integrated community hub.

“This idea of a community hub is really all about facilitating community interaction and overcoming isolation,” explains Susan Lewin of CS&P Architects, the firm behind the project. “The trustee for the school, in our opening meeting, told us to dream no small dreams.”

Construction on the school began about a year ago and is slated to wrap before classes start in September 2012. The community centre is set to begin construction this summer. The combined facilities, when complete, will serve as what Lewin describes as a “key platform” in the reimagined neighbourhood—”a whole basket of activities and uses.”

A rendering of the Regent Park Community Centre, scheduled to start construction this summer. Image courtesy of CS&P Architects.

Much of the community hub’s functionality is designed with children and youth in mind. “We’re seeing the school and the community centre as one integrated facility,” Lewin says. “Within the school we have a new City of Toronto childcare on the same level as the kindergartens. So, what we’re doing within the school is reducing transitions for children between different programs.”

Lewin points out that, with the community centre, transitions between activities for older kids will also be reduced. “They can finish school and then just go over to the community centre and play some basketball or go out into the playground,” she explains, adding that computer lounges, game centres, and gym spaces within the centre are being developed specifically with youth in mind.

There will also be a new library in the school that will be open to the public, as well as a new green schoolyard—complete with a community garden—as a public park space for all to enjoy. An employment centre is also part of the package. The whole complex is intended to foster a sense of Sesame Street-style togetherness central to the greater revitalization vision. The hoped-for outcome is a high-density, mixed income, mixed-use space that brings together a melange of people.

“Revitalization has been a catalyst for other positive changes in the area and we’re happy to know that the new facilities will be able to accommodate the growth in the community,” says Sinead Canavan, a spokesperson for TCHC. “The cumulative impact of revitalization is even greater than the sum of the parts.”

Or, as Lewin puts it: “The community hub is really intended to be a hive of activity, to really promote a sense of community and build engagement and a sense of belonging.”

Photo by alexindigo from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

As price tags go, it’s rather impressive: $1.266 billion. That’s how much Scotiabank will be receiving in exchange for its eponymous complex. The centre at 40 King Street West has two new owners — Dundee Real Estate Investment Trust gets a two-thirds share, and H&R Real Estate Investment Trust has picked up the remaining third. That purchase includes several buildings: the 68-storey main tower, the 27-storey older Bank of Nova Scotia building next door, and several adjoining properties—over 2 million square feet of office space in total.

In a press release issued this afternoon Scotiabank COO Sabi Marwah announced that Scotia will remain in the building as the lead tenant; they’ve signed a lease to stay on site in both the modern tower and the older tower for the next 13.5 years.

Kensington, meet your new garden car.

There are a few key moments that mark the arrival of warm weather in Toronto (the proper, here-to-stay kind, not the false February spring): the first major ferry line-ups, the May 2-4 weekend, and for many people, the return of the garden car in Kensington Market.

This year’s installation will be a little different though: the iconic white car with the smiley-faced flowers, having served the community cheerfully for six summers, has been retired. In its place, a whole new ride.

“We made the original one in June 2006 and it’s been out there and overwintered since then—it was a little rough around the edges,” explains Kensington Market BIA coordinator Yvonne Bambrick. They still have the original car, she told us, and the BIA is “looking for a place for it to retire.”

In its stead on Augusta this year will be a successor, a 2001 sedan that the BIA purchased with the help of a 50 per cent discount from Standard Auto Wreckers.

Still in the beginning stages of its transition, the new car won’t look at all like the photos above by the time it’s done. Some work began a few days ago: cutting out openings, putting in some filler materials to provide bulk without weight, laying down some tarps, and then filling the sections of the car with gravel and soil. The clover lawn’s already been seeded; plants will go in a little later on.

In keeping with tradition, the car will be getting a whole new paint job, too. The BIA successfully applied for a mural grant from the City of Toronto and has hired graffiti artists Adrian Hayles and Erin Zimmerman to paint the car with a mural that “reflects the culture and history of the market,” says Bambrick. They plan to begin painting at the end of this week, including some live painting during the first P.S. Kensington of the year this Sunday.

Happy summer, Kensington.

Photos of the new garden car in progress by Alex Pietrowski. Photo of the previous garden car by Yvonne Bambrick.

Once a week, Vandalist features some of the most interesting street art and graffiti from around Toronto. Find something great? Email vandalist@torontoist.com.

Ward 13 Councillor Sarah Doucette, landscape architect Janet Rosenberg, and Mike Holmes. Photo by Miroslav Glavic.

“Think of me as the new Jamie Bell,” might not have been the most tasteful thing for celebrity contractor Mike Holmes to say to a room full of the late Bell’s friends, family, and neighbours, but surely Holmes meant well. Standing in the auditorium in Humberside Collegiate Institute on Thursday night in his spotless overalls, he laid out the plan for him and his “guys”—and his new Holmes Makes it Right TV show—to rebuild the Jamie Bell Adventure Playground in partnership with the City of Toronto and Janet Rosenberg and Associates landscape architects. Though light on a few details, like whether the updated playground will include a climbing wall, or if wood chips or rubber are best for the ground-cover, the plan’s finish-date is clear: July 7.

Local councillor Sarah Doucette (Ward 13, Parkdale-High Park) told the crowd of about 60 adults, 10 kids, and eight TV production crew guys (who were filming the event for the TV show) that the groundbreaking ceremony for the park will be today, Friday, at 1 p.m.

The July 7 deadline will be the official “community build day” when local residents can add finishing touches to the playground, after Holmes and his crew have done the heavy lifting.

Though Doucette confirmed that wood will be the primary building material, Rosenberg said that the actual design of the new structure will be “a surprise,” but it will be “based on input from the community.” To facilitate input from the community, tables were set up at the front of the auditorium for families and children to draw design ideas. Doucette added that any other ideas or drawings can be sent to her office email, and told us after the meeting that given the tight deadline, any ideas should be sent in “as quickly as possible.”

Police investigate at Jamie Bell Playground in High Park, which was set ablaze in mid-March. (Christopher Drost/Torontoist)

A previous offer to rebuild the playground in time for summer, extended by a group including Landscape Ontario and Natural Playgrounds, was turned down by the City, citing the need for community consultations and special planning considerations in light of the playground’s location in an environmentally sensitive ravine. But Doucette stressed that she and Rob Richardson, the acting manager of partnership development in the City’s parks department, who was in attendance at the meeting, have been doing lots of work behind the scenes in the meantime. There are also some important differences between the two plans, she explained later by phone: the earlier one wasn’t focused on rebuilding the castle, which she identified as a key priority, and involved design ideas that weren’t feasible in a graded ravine. Utility line information for the area was still being nailed down, and the whole thing would have been too rushed. “We just needed that little bit more time,” Doucette said.

She also told us that Richardson spoke with Landscape Ontario this week; their offer to help stands, and once the summer season is over they will be looking at making some contributions to the playground as well.

In addition to Holmes’ in-kind donation of the labour, a previously announced corporate donation of $50,000 from Canadian Tire is still coming through (along with an additional $10,000 that was fundraised at two individual store locations); TD Bank Group has made a $10,000 donation via the Bloor and Runnymede branch; and Toronto Parks and Trees has received over $16,000 in donations for the project. Doucette also announced that any donations made to Toronto Parks and Trees from May 17 to June 30 will be matched dollar for dollar by the Sprott Foundation, up to a total of $30,000.

As for how the partnership between Holmes and the City came to be, Doucette told us Holmes’ people contacted her office, but also that “we had to do a video to let [HGTV] and Mike know what we were all about. So we sold ourselves. And obviously we did a good job.”

Every year, Heritage Toronto works with local photographers to create Building Storeys, a visual documentation and anecdotal exhibit of our city’s heritage sites. This year’s exhibit—which is on view at the Steam Whistle Roundhouse throughout the month of May—is dedicated to rail and marine transportation. Over the month, Torontoist and Heritage Toronto are exploring the context for Building Storeys; today we look at the TTC’s maintenance and storage yards.

Building Storeys
Steam Whistle Brewing (The Roundhouse, 255 Bremner Boulevard)
May 3–31
FREE

Sometimes streetcars and subways need a little pampering. Whether it’s cleaning, critical repair work, or a good night’s sleep, the TTC’s maintenance and storage yards provide the timeout vehicles need in order to continue moving the city around. From sites that have serviced streetcars since the Victorian era to the giant yards required for the subway system, generations of transit workers have kept vehicles in as fine shape as technology and budgets have allowed. The gallery visits several of the TTC’s current yards, as well as one from the past that has been successfully reinvented for other uses.

Photo by OliverN5.

To give the mayor his due: during Monday’s debate on the prospect of building a casino in Toronto, he executed what would not be considered a typical Ford manoeuvre. Instead of just blustering through, acting impulsively on gut instinct or what he believes some mythical taxpayer wants, Ford introduced a motion calling for further study and fact-finding before asking his colleagues to make a decision about whether to give a thumbs-up to the OLG and allow a casino in Toronto.

What’s that you say? A reasoned debate? A little of the old rational discourse? Well, I do declare.

Of course, the mayor made it clear what he personally thinks about casinos. For him, they are all upside. A hundred million delicious, lilac-smelling dollars would flow into our coffers—a number that, like many of the mayor’s boasts, is of uncertain origins. (Perhaps he simply multiplies 100 by 5 cents and arrives at the amount he needs to back a claim?) It’s never the same number, but it always works in the mayor’s favour. Call it the new math.

While we’d like to think this call for careful deliberation and evidence-based decision-making heralds a new approach from our chief magistrate, that might just be wishful thinking. After all, during this very same executive committee meeting, he led the charge to try and rescind the 5 cent plastic bag fee in order to … what? Eliminate any evidence that David Miller was once mayor? Generate some sort of political issue with it?

Respecting Toronto Taxpayers One Nickel At A Time.

Far more likely: what’s giving the mayor pause on the casino issue isn’t a new-found desire for informed debate, but rather the thorny matter of its location. Jane Holmes, Woodbine Entertainment Group’s vice president of corporate affairs, told the committee that a new casino anywhere else in Toronto would jeopardize Woodbine’s existing business—and by extension, the mayor’s much ballyhooed Woodbine Live complex. For Ford, the decision of where a casino might go clearly comes with much larger implications. How could he be seen championing a waterfront casino to the detriment of a business in his own backyard? Don’t us downtowners already get everything without leaving even so much as crumbs for the suburbs? The optics of that—not only for the mayor but for every pro-casino suburban councillor—are ugly.

It’s unfortunate that’s the direction it seems the casino debate will take: not if, but where. Because there’s a much larger conversation we need to have, one that bubbled up at Monday’s meeting: What is the net benefit of building a casino in Toronto?

Note the word net. Anybody who’s pro-casino can read off the reasons having one would be good by rote. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Added revenue to plug budget holes or build much-needed infrastructure. The zazz of a shiny new edifice dedicated to the pleasure of vice and a palace to watch Howie Mandel perform. Why would anybody be against that?

Besides, if we don’t build a casino, Mississauga will. And if Mississauga builds a casino then, well… Yes. What does happen to Toronto if Mississauga has a casino and we don’t? Do we get economic spin-offs, and do they mitigate massive traffic jams? That’s where the question of net benefits—gains minus the costs in receiving those benefits—enters in. The pros minus the cons. Just because the project comes with some advantages doesn’t mean we end up in positive territory.

It’s too soon to say what realistic revenue projections look like, but they won’t be nearly the amount Ford declared. It’s pretty well established that municipalities in Ontario with casinos get the short end of the stick, the slightest slices of financial pie. And the notion of our mayor marching into the premier’s office and striking a better casino deal for Toronto is delusional even by the hyper-delusional measure of this mayor. He’s missed no opportunity to alienate our current premier, regularly threatening him with electoral pain at the hands of Ford Nation. Not to mention that little bit of debt the province is wrestling with. Yeah, they’ll want to hand over more cash to us.

Oh wait, we can parlay the highly desirable waterfront location the likes of MGM wants in order to secure a better deal for the city. This is the flip side of the Woodbine situation for Ford: he’s got reasons to keep it local, but the city stands to make a lot more if we put the casino near the waterfront. As pointed out by MGM’s representative to reporters, the biggest source of revenue for the city would occur by putting the casino on city-owned landed and raking in lease payments—and it’s a fair bet the waterfront would command a good price. (MGM has gone so far as to say it wouldn’t be interested in building at Woodbine at all.) We’ll pimp ourselves out, sure. But we won’t come cheap; it’s high-class hooking all the way.

Aside from a whiff of desperation, this interest in putting a casino by the waterfront also reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of downtown Toronto. The last thing it needs is the glitz, glamour, and showy spectacle that some sort of resort-y hotel/casino might deliver. Aside from the gambling, we already have all of that—just see our restaurants, theatres, shopping, hotels, and convention spaces. It might come as a bit of a surprise to some councillors who just come downtown to work or see the Leafs, but it already is a bit of a destination.

What downtown Toronto needs—especially along its waterfront—are more vibrant public spaces. Real, tangible, lived-in ones, not those manufactured by corporate entities catering to some projected desire we have to get away from it all. How much is it worth to us as a city to bargain away a chunk of our prime real estate in return for a whack of service jobs and an uncertain revenue stream that will invariably fall short of expectations?

The only certainty, gained from the experiences elsewhere: a casino is never the economic saviour it’s played up to be for a city of our size, with an economy as diverse as ours. At best, it’s a gap filler, a provider of some of those nice-to-haves the mayor could easily have us do without. Hardly what you would cede choice property over for, on the very likely losing end of what’s shaping up to be a “steal.”

This is unfamiliar territory for Mayor Ford with no easy division to exploit. The big boys in the private sector are calling for a prime waterfront location. If he acquiesces it might mean putting the final nail in a pet project he’s long been claiming as his own, right in his neck of the woods. Either one probably won’t be the windfall he’s proclaimed. In gambling parlance, the mayor needs to throw a hard eight and a staff report may just help him hedge his bets.

Placemaking tells the stories behind the buildings that define the GTA, beyond the downtown core.

The stretch of Dufferin near Steeles is unexceptional. Driving along (and one is, almost certainly, driving), low peninsulas of mini-malls jut into bodies of asphalt anonymous as standing riders on the 29 at rush hour. The Federal Government Atmospheric Environment Services office building at 4905 Dufferin isn’t much different. A squat, earth-coloured compound pushed behind a dandelion-flecked swath of grass, the structure itself doesn’t call for attention. “I’m functional,” it says instead, to no one in particular.

Then you see the three-headed monster.

It sits casually before the building’s front entrance, spinning rust-caked appendages when the wind opts to strike it. Designed by Ron Baird and erected in 1971, it’s one of the largest steel sculptures in North America.

As the description from Environment Canada reads:

The stelcoloy® structure is 33.5 meters high and weights 31.75 tonnes. The upper parts have demon-heads denoting the gods of weather. Rather than being immobile, the sculpture is free to interact with the weather elements. Cup wheels, reminiscent of an anemometer (instrument measuring wind speed), revolve in the wind. Sun-shaped “metal discs clank, and air movements resonate through pipes and tuned metal arrays.”
The sculpture has been given a protective oxide coating which will rust in harmony with the weather and yet shield the steel from deterioration.

Baird didn’t bother naming his sculpture; following the logic of the times (it was the 1970s, after all) he went with a 17-line poem instead:

Three Dark Figures
Making the Weather
In Folk, in Myth, in Legend
A threefold test.
Schiva, Vishnu, Brahmin.
Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
Body, Mind, Spirit.
Triune, Triumvirate, Tribunal.
One is Isolate
Two is Divisive
Three is Peace.
Three is Torment.
Three is Potent.
Power, Power, Power.
Air, Fire, Water.
Three Dark Figures,
Making the Weather.

According to this description, the sculpture’s “three dark figures” are meant to represent the elements air, fire, and water. A pointy-eared, south-facing creature that roughly resembles a dog wields a staff that could be interpreted as a thunderbolt. Below it, a birdlike creature stands over a tilting wheel. Another creature faces opposite.

In Creating Memory: A Guide to Outdoor Public Sculpture in Toronto, author John Warkentin quotes a 2005 Toronto Star article which explains that Baird’s “interest in the primitive art of Africa and Egypt fuelled the creation of the primal heads that adorn the weather gods.” The result—after cringing over the use of “primitive”—is something at once familiar and absurd, spinning and waving in the breeze.

MGM wants to introduce you to a whole new land filled with rainbows and fun! (Copies of these were handed out to media and councillors this afternoon.)

After a long day of hearing from various interested parties, ranging from recovering gambling addicts to executives hoping to build an “integrated resort entertainment complex” on the waterfront, council’s Executive Committee has voted to defer further debate on a casino in Toronto until they can learn more about the implications of such a project. Mayor Rob Ford moved a motion, which the committee passed by a vote of 11-1, asking City staff to report back on October 9 on everything from the economic impact of a casino to potential sites that might make suitable locations to the effect such a development would have on crime.

Key points of discussion from today’s meeting…

Where would a casino go?
The corporations who want to build casinos have a few key criteria in deciding where to put them: most prominent among them are proximity to large numbers of people with cash, and proximity to infrastructure—namely transit—to facilitate those patrons’ journey to the game tables. Thus Alan Feldman, speaking on behalf of MGM, which is very interested in building a resort complex in Toronto, made it clear that Woodbine wasn’t something his company was interested in—for them, he said, proximity to the waterfront and to the financial district are essential.

Woodbine, of course, has a rather different take: they are extremely concerned that any new casino would “cannibalize” revenue from their existing slots and horse-racing revenues—which would risk, they say, 6,000 jobs. Jane Holmes, Woodbine’s vice-president of corporate affairs, hopes that the City would preserve those jobs by installing any casino on their site (it’s 650 acres, she said, and the separate Woodbine Live project is only slated to take 200 of those acres).

How much would a casino net the city?
Nobody knows. The mayor is saying $100 million a year, but there aren’t detailed studies which chart out the economic effects a casino might have. Part of what City staff will be examining is what those effects might be, both directly (in tax revenue and potentially lease revenue, should a casino be built on City-owned land), and indirectly (via job growth and other spin-off benefits).

Among today’s speakers were representatives from the building industry, who support the development of a casino/resort because of the construction jobs it would create. Adam Vaughan (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina), during questioning, argued that this wasn’t a casino-specific effect: any robust development of underused land creates that kind of job growth.

How much would a casino cost the city?
Another unknown. Many deputants, and many academics who study gambling, are quick to point out that with gambling comes increased crime, addiction, and social ills. Rob Simpson, a gambling addiction expert, told the Executive Committee today that five per cent of casino gamblers generate 35 per cent of the revenue for casinos—and they aren’t the most affluent patrons. Those, he said, are the problem gamblers, and the ones who will suffer most if we put a casino in the city.

City staff have been directed to examine what the crime and other social costs of a casino might be as part of their report.

What about a referendum?
Among the provincial regulations that establish the conditions under which a new casino can be built is one that mandates a referendum, to be held by any city considering a casino, during its regular municipal election. The province is planning to revise those regulations shortly, however, and is expected to remove that requirement. Any referendum the City might hold independently (i.e. outside of those regulations, or if they are stripped out of the provincial process) would be non-binding—although it would certainly be invoked by whichever councillors liked the results.

The City Clerk’s office estimates that a referendum held outside of a regular election would cost $7 million, however, a tough sell for an administration that maintains it won’t spend a cent it doesn’t need to.

What happens next?
City council will have to ratify today’s request for a study; they will consider the matter at their next monthly meeting, on June 6–7.