On Saturday morning, Sureya Ibrahim, identification in hand, plans to walk to the Regent Park Community Centre for her chance to weigh in on one of the most consequential development projects in the city’s history.

What awaits her are presentations from three developers — The Daniels Corporation, Capital Developments and Tridel Builders Inc. — each vying for the rights to the final stages of the revitalization of Regent Park.

The meeting is open to all Regent Park residents, including the buyers of newly constructed private units, and those expecting to return after construction is finished on a neighbourhood that will eventually be home to 12,500 people in a mix of public and private housing. The community centre has space for about 300 people. No proxy votes are allowed. No members of an opposing development team can watch the other’s proposal. Media cannot attend and Ibrahim and all who attend must sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA).

Each development team has 20 minutes to present and 15 minutes to address four identical pre-screened questions and community members will submit score cards on each one. Community feedback will count for 20 per cent of an overall score that will be used to determine if developers are moving to a final round.

While the NDA was a surprise to Ibrahim, what really concerns the long-time resident of Regent Park and supervisor of community connections with the Centre of Learning and Development is how little time residents will have to consider the presentations that could affect the remainder of their lives.

“Let’s say you are getting married, can you decide in 20 minutes who you are getting married to,” asks Ibrahim. “Really?”

She is not convinced the feedback given by community members will factor heavily into the final decision. “To be honest I feel like they have already made up their mind,” about which developer will be selected.

Ibrahim was among residents who say they were blindsided by the 2018 announcement by Toronto Community Housing to, after working with The Daniels Corporation for more than a decade on the first three phases, put the final two phases of the project out to tender.

Vincent Tong, chief development officer with TCH, said they have aimed to be as transparent and inclusive as possible while adhering to rigid guidelines developed by a law firm specializing in the tender process.

“What we are trying to control for is elements of individual developer’s presentations being discussed in a public forum and that is to make sure we maintain integrity in the process,” Tong said. The process, he said, is also not complete.

Aside from aiding in the earlier decision-making process, community feedback will also be used to refine developers’ final pitches, Tong said. The final decision will be made by TCH’s board who will review a recommendation from TCH management.

Tong said compared to most large companies what TCH is doing is “groundbreaking” and was done out of recognition of the value resident feedback brings to the process. Tong added the entire process will be overseen by members of neighbourhood associations and subcommittees involved in the revitalization.

Bruce Malloch, head of TCH communications, provided the Star with the four questions that each developer will be asked to speak to and which were also, he said, developed in consultation with community: They include: Regent Park is a diverse community — what programs, strategies and ideas do you have to help bring the community together and promote social cohesion?; How will you support engagement with residents about improving safety in Regent Park?; What types of training, scholarship and local employment programs for residents will you bring to Regent Park?; How does your proposal support social and economic sustainability for Regent Park and its residents?

Area councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam will also be observing Saturday’s meeting, but not in the same room and will not score the developers. Wong-Tam told the Star she understands both the concerns of community members and the requirements of TCH.

“The fear is that the community and neighbourhood will change and become more unaffordable and (original community members) will be left behind,” she said. On the flip side, she said, TCH is responsible for making sure the process is fair.

Wong-Tam is pushing for city council to fund a Social Development Plan, a path for Regent Park’s future developed by community, Daniels, TCH staff and city staff. That plan was endorsed by council more than a decade ago and has undergone revisions but has yet to be costed out or implemented.

City staff are expected to report back on a strategy for 2020, including budget requirements at the October meeting of the economic and community development committee, Wong-Tam said.

Regent Park resident Walied Khogali Ali said there should also be a detailed community benefits agreement folded into this stage in the process.

Ali is part of a community-based coalition that has advocated for such an agreement, where project developers pledge to boost economic, social or structural needs of residents, as part of the tender process.

In July, city council voted to adopt a Community Benefits Framework to “co-ordinate and maximize the social and economic impacts of community benefits initiatives when the city buys, builds or provides financial incentives for construction or remediation,” as stated in a staff report.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The request for proposal (RFP) states that the winner will be expected to “formalize an arrangement with the community” and TCH to oversee the delivery of benefits promised as part of the pitch.

Khogali Ali said council’s recent commitment should mean that a detailed agreement be presented now not developed after the bidding ends.

“We want developers to set up key infrastructure that will support the community for years to come,” and those priorities should be clearly defined, said Khogali Ali.

Malloch said the current plan “provides for flexibility should the successful proponent bring forward ideas for community benefits that the community had not contemplated,” while the RFP was being developed. That proposal, wrote Malloch in an email, “was vetted by the community more than twice” and making a change would require cancelling the current deal and starting all over again.

With files from Jennifer Pagliaro