By 1960, Leaside had become a bustling town of more than 16,000 people – double the number of residents who lived there during WWII. As the town grew in population and prosperity, so did two of the key irritants of modern urban life – traffic and parking. The problem was particularly acute along Bayview Avenue and was expected to worsen once the soon-to-be-completed Bayview Extension became operational, bringing more cars into the area.
To mitigate the problem, the Traffic and Parking Committee of the Leaside Municipal Council proposed creating two off-street parking lots on the west side of Donegall Drive between Millwood Road and Fleming Crescent. The plan involved expropriating and demolishing between 12 and 20 houses. Upon learning of the proposal, the Donegall homeowners were outraged. They quickly organized to oppose the plan, sending a delegation to the January 1960 meeting of the Leaside Municipal Council. Arguing that the parking lots were unnecessary, costly and supported by merchants whose businesses “are here today and gone tomorrow,” the delegation got Council to admit that the whole matter was still being studied and would not be fully considered until April when the final report was tabled.
Over the next few months, the issue intensified as supporters and protesters made their case. One merchant, who was also a Leaside resident, wrote in the Leaside Advertiser (March 17, 1960) that “progress cannot be stopped” and that people need to realize that if “their house is in the way [it] must go.” He further warned that without adequate parking, retail businesses would close, and Bayview Avenue would become a “slum district.”
This enraged the anti-parking lot group, who countered by arguing that the parking lots themselves would create slums – by depressing home values and forcing residents to sell their properties to owners who would be less inclined to maintain them. Especially galling was the view that expropriation was an inevitable result of progress. Donegall Drive resident Frank Comper angrily responded: “Private Interests … have no right to even suggest that they may forcibly divest homeowners of their properties.”
By the end of March, the parking lot protest had gathered such momentum that when its leaders called for a strategy session at the Leaside municipal building on McRae, more than 150 people attended. There, the protesters resolved to take the following steps to fight the plan: hire a lawyer to launch legal proceedings if necessary; stage mass demonstrations at all municipal council meetings; vote against any town councillor who supported the proposal; boycott Leaside businesses which supported the plan; run ads against the plan and demand a referendum.
Armed with these resolutions, over 500 people (Globe & Mail, April 13, 1960) arrived at Leaside High School auditorium on April 12 to hear the final planning board report and challenge the expropriations. The meeting exploded when it was reported that each homeowner would receive $15,000 in compensation. “You can’t buy a rat hole in Leaside for $15,000,” yelled one angry spectator. More than a dozen homeowners spoke against expropriation – one of whom threatened dire consequences for any elected official in Leaside who supported the plan. “The road is littered with the political corpses of those who got out of touch with what the people want” (Toronto Star, April 13, 1960).
This warning had an impact on Leaside Mayor Charles Hiscott and the other town councillors at the meeting. The following week, they unanimously voted to prohibit expropriation of homes for parking lots. The people had spoken.
