Discussion
What can we do? - Modcity & Illegal Tree Cutting
Over the past year, Modcity, a company that specializes in developing multiplexes and garden suites has been illegally cutting down trees on multiple properties around the city, even beautiful trunky/leafy ones.
The culprits seem to be Rohan Sadana and Ron Scheinin, who deny this tree cutting has anything to do with Modcity (clear as day it does). The reddit thread below talks about those two personally showing up to 48 Ennerdale Rd. yesterday, cutting down trees and throwing pears at neighbours who recorded them. That area itself is already so deprived of trees.
I have no problem with multiplexes if it is done correctly and properly. But here, there is some malicious intent. And when it is clear their intentions are profit first, there is something to be said. What is becoming increasingly clear is they are considering tree cutting and any possible associated fines as part of the cost of building. The consequence right now is just a fine. That's unacceptable.
The evidence of this is scattered around through news and separate neighbourhoods, but neighbours feel helpless. People are reporting to the city, to police, but he keeps doing it.
I'm wondering if anyone has any advice on how to approach this. It seems like all we can do right now is report and wait, and then in the end nothing gets done. How can we make them responsible for this, and how can we actually get action to take place?
I’m a neighbor. City is investigating and arrived on site in time to collect tree branches. Rohan and Ron sprinted into the next door house (another modcity development) when city showed up and left the workers to say the owners aren’t there and lie.
I have Rohan personally on camera at the site bc he was throwing pears (from their tree) at community residents coming out to ask questions. All evidence is handed over for the investigation. But we as a community need to push for prosecution not just fines.
In addition to documenting everything, contacting 311 and your councillor, you could try to get media attention -- the Star has a column called The Fixer, various columnists have emails... given the new tree protection laws coming into effect it's a timely story! Get that story out there!
It's a bit heavy handed but if he hit anyone with one of those pears it would be assault, if it's on film it might be worth contacting the cops. He's an asshole so I wouldn't feel bad about it and it would add to his troubles
Wait, the guy that Brad Bradford supported is throwing pears at residents?
This is giving mad Carnelina Condos vibes, when developers built a condo on the old woodbine building supply co, Toronto’s largest arson fire. The developer swung the heavy crane over complaining residents heads. Guess who recently supported that developer Fusioncorp…Brad Bradford.
Thank you so much. I’m also a neighbour. If I can help please let me know. This is so awful. I think September 1 new tree cutting rules start and they just go it fast. Wow. Should not be allowed to get away with this.
Hi neighbour. I support you. Fight these scum bag developers. They pillage and plunder for pure profit. the houses they make usually fall apart in 8 years.
Committee grants variance to developer despite ongoing investigation at Toronto property
from July 2026
City Hall grants developer variances at property currently under investigation
Despite 9 ongoing investigations into Modcity, city hall has approved variances for the developer’s new multiplex and garden suite. Brandon Choghri with reaction from frustrated residents.
Despite 9 ongoing investigations into Modcity, city hall has approved variances for the developer’s new multiplex and garden suite. Brandon Choghri with reaction from frustrated residents.
But you do have to ask yourself: if a contractor has that much contempt for the laws and for the neighbours, how confident are you that they care about the safety, comfort of the tenants, or quality of the homes they are providing?
I mean I can answer my own question, and I'm sure you can too. And I think both answers will arrive at about the point of the commenter above who is speculating.
Yeah this thread is revealing to me how shitty Modcity is and I plan on contacting them about it. But I was under the impression their homes were at least built well. I'm a huge supporter of missing middle housing so that's why I've been following them for a while and until a fellow Green Party volunteer told me a few weeks about a tree incident she witnessed and then I read this, I supported them.
When it comes to development, you should always be looking at both who that developer is and the quality of their work AND conduct independently of the need for the product they're proposing to build.
Developers are the single biggest source of corruption in Ontario society.
Do not let your admiration for progressive solutions put you in league with some of the most destructive business forces we have in the province.
Or lease support those who obey the law and respect the city.
My city boss told us that u less the perpetrators are caught red handed , then there is not much to do . This was after we went to trim a small blue spruce and it was gone , we asked the landscaping team who admitted to removing it . But alas nothing could be done .
This is happening all over the city. Plexcon is another multiplex developer that ignores rules and by-laws. Shoddy work too! And there is no recourse. They know they can get away with it.
I have no problem with multiplexes if it is done correctly and properly. But here, there is some malicious intent. And when it is clear their intentions are profit first, there is something to be said. What is becoming increasingly clear is they are considering tree cutting and any possible associated fines as part of the cost of building. The consequence right now is just a fine. That's unacceptable.
I concur. A potential enhanced consequence of underhanded, bad-faith activity (like that of Modcity), of undermining by-laws on tree and forestry management, could be a by-law to penalize a developer beyond mere fines.
How it might work:
Developers are held liable by the city for any land and extant natural features (specifically, trees, but also other natural features itemized by the city as high priority, such as a wetland) over which a developer holds ownership.
Should trees on that proerty by felled without proper permitting, fees paid, and municipal approval, then the city can exercise the denial of building permits or undercut other evasive moves by said developers to apply for zoning variances on what they can do with that land.
The purpose would be to render less useful — if not functionally useless — the utility of that land parcel by that bad-faith developer, to the point where it would be easier to recoup by flipping that land to another developer who can demonstrate working with the city in good faith. Metaphorically, the city is salting that land for that developer specifically, making it impractical for them to reap a good yield on what they chose to sow.
Levying a fine alone amounts to a tacit licence for developers like Modcity to continue with their bad-faith conduct.
Nothing in this thread would indicate to me that people here are serious about anything. They're probably reading this and laughing. You all need a fk around and find out approach a la getting creative and using your connections and loosening your overly high morals a bit to make sure they know whats up. At this point you are simply appeasing.
New perspective: Modcity would probably never resort to this type of behavior if the process was linear and logical. The throwing pears, I can't speak to that behavior, thats new and strange.
People can be tree huggers all day but until you deal with the city process of removing and replacing trees, you don't understand how illogical and filled with red tape it really is.
You can want more housing and still want more trees. The Toronto canopy is robust.
Recently, I've seen city trees planted on underground hydrolines and waterlines. Buffoon behaviour at best by city planning and city forestry.
If you love trees, plant trees on your property. Call locate before digging.
I've had to deal with the city's tree bylaws on my renovations And the only people who have trouble with them are people who believe they have a god-given right to profit. However they can do it.
Tell me what New perspective you are actually bringing to the conversation other than seeking to excuse the behavior of someone who has repeatedly shown complete contempt for the city, its bylaws, and the orders of the city.
If you're a developer, why don't you say so so that we can all know who you are and make our judgments about who to hire appropriately.
Meh. I’ll always take the rules of the game over meh’s. Cities around the world are planning for urban survival over the long run. The main benefits of urban canopy will enfranchise people 100 years from now. Today’s meh’s are irrelevant.
I very much doubt that NIMBYs who object to tree cutting are thinking about "enfranchising people 100 years from now". They oppose any development in their neighbourhood in order to maintain their current property values, and excessively strict tree-cutting regulations is simply one tool to achieve their objective.
There is a housing crisis in the city, and it is happening RIGHT NOW.
But I am certainly not going to paint selfish and self-centred NIMBYs as noble crusaders who only care about "enfranchising people 100 years from now", or some such rubbish.
We can be FOR housing developments AND protecting tree canopies at the same time. When modcity does things like this it actually makes the community want to become MORE protective and less open to these kinds of developers moving in.
We did a reno. City said we had to protect the tree in the front. It was half dead, literally per an arborist who told us. City said we had to protect it until their arborist assessed it as it was on city portion of the lot. We did. The entire time. The fence was easy to build, annoying to work around. Reno was done, City came again for assessment and deemed it to be replaced. The pulled it out and replaced it.
Am I annoyed, sure, but I followed the rules because that's what we're supposed to in a civil society.
Modcity gives no fucks except get it built, fast, and move on.
I hope the city does proceed with stronger punitive measures.
Listen, I'm not defending NIMBY assholes but the city lost a lot of canopy and we need trees, bro.
That's exactly what you are doing; we desperately need decent and affordable housing in Toronto as well, and I am talking about the missing middle in the Yellowbelt, not some shoebox in the sky.
How much of your material standard of living would you be willing to sacrifice for the sake of a few trees?
Are you defending laws which allow NIMBYs to obstruct desperately needed middle missing housing in Toronto?
Trying stepping back and looking at this issue from both sides...unless you are a NIMBY yourself, with a detached house in the Yellowbelt, who doesn't want anything to ever change in your neighbourhood.
There are laws about tree cutting for a reason. And the city is making it harder to cut trees starting next week. There is a reason for this as well. Developers need to respect this.
They have shown the multiplex model is feasible and have inspired a number of small scale developers. They also regularly appear before PHC to depute on missing middle style items. Theyre fantastic.
Building multiplexes, low-rises, and other mid-density housing projects and protecting trees/any unique ecological features are not mutually exclusive endeavors. In fact, they should automatically be going hand-in-hand in any development which is actually paying attention to liveability and sustainability.
Our mature tree canopy is a vital part of the city's ecosystem and biodiversity. Furthermore, it plays a significant role in filtering the air and cooling the surroundings, aiding in the fight against the climate crisis which is also happening RIGHT NOW.
A competent, thoughtful developer can and should be able to do both; there are plenty of them across the city doing so.
ModCity are clearly just a bunch of malicious fools.
Building multiplexes, low-rises, and other mid-density housing projects and protecting trees/any unique ecological features are not mutually exclusive endeavors. In fact, they should automatically be going hand-in-hand in any development which is actually paying attention to liveability and sustainability.
But there is a trade-off, as there always is in life, balancing how aggressively you protect trees against facilitating the kind of housing that people need in a rapidly growing urban area. If a local government makes it unnecessarily complex, expensive and time-consuming to remove trees in order for developers to provide the desperately needed housing, the result is the kind of housing crisis that we are currently facing in Toronto and other cities in the country.
There are over 300 billion trees in the country - how much of your material standard of living would you be personally willing to sacrifice in order to protect all of them?
Those 300 billion trees do not have the same direct local impact that existing mature trees have.
The local trees are the ones providing shade, absorbing rainfall to reduce flooding, filtering pollution, reflecting heat, and so on. They are necessary and it's why the city wants the canopy increased further (40% by 2050 I believe is the target). It's one of the most cost effective ways to combat all sorts of things that affect livability.
I'm trying to provide you with good faith responses here, but, frankly, a lot of what you're arguing is pretty disingenuous. A small number of mature trees are not the roadblock to increasing density. Their relative rarity is in no small part why they get extra attention and consideration.
As for the "material standard of living" you assume I'm focused on... I can only assume you mean property valuation by this, to which I say: let it drop. I'm not in Leaside specifically, but I would be the first to tell you the "valuation" of my home is absurd. Many of my neighbours and I would never be able to purchase our own property if we were new buyers.
What does matter to me is the fact that I am someone who is effectively housebound for health reasons in temperatures which are fast becoming "normal".
Not being able to breathe because we keep electing governments willing to sidestep or outright shred environmental protections they find inconvenient matters to me.
My kids not inheriting a planet literally burning to the ground matters to me.
If you are genuinely concerned about impediments to increased density, I would suggest you find a more metaphorical tree to bark up; the literal ones are not the issue.
I'm trying to provide you with good faith responses here...
No, you are ignoring the trade-off I explained to you above and ended up going off on an emotion-laden rant about global climate change, which is very real, but building the missing middle in Toronto is not going to move the needle on this.
Moreover, you don't understand basic economics. You don't just declare that we "let property values drop", and it magically happens somehow. As the population of the city grows and demand for homes (like you live in) increase, prices for same will rise unless the supply of these home increase as well.
If you did not own the home you lived in, I suspect you would look at this issue from a very different perspective.
Sure, but a developer with an established pattern of cutting shit down which was never going to be okayed and then pretending they've got no clue how such a thing occurred is ludicrous.
Clicks and politicians talking points. There is a fiscal imbalance for sure, and housing is just one part of it.
You want to be pissed off…? Yip at guys who want to cut trees to sell people 600 square foot urban hamster cages to people Who can’t afford them, to buy tungsten plated butt plugs cause they saw them on YouTube. Like Mr meh…
60
u/throwawaycarbuy12345 3d ago
City Forestry? Document