The following comment stayed up for most of the afternoon on Torontoist, but mysteriously disappeared later this evening:
I always appreciate the attention, even when it is initially accompanied by infringement of my copyrighted photograph and a defamatory headline (since redacted).
But do please note that I never mentioned churches (the only one on that stretch of Queen, the Woodgreen [United] Church, has closed). While I am indeed homosexual(ist) and vegan(ist), I did not claim to be outspoken. (Isn’t everyone who runs a Web site, even a foreign-owned one, “outspoken”?)
We have very few condos here, even if you consider the Carlaw loft conversions. I also doubt that a small site principally concerned with architectural reviews of social housing (which the Starbucks piece was not) had much to do with the addition of a Starbucks. I expect it had more to do with people deciding this is an interesting place to live based on the same evidence I used in order to arrive at that conclusion.
The Starbuckses in the Beach and on the Danforth don’t have the drug problems you refer to. Queen and John and Church and Alexander do, so we can’t rule it out, but based on my tenure here and the experience of nearby stores, I see it as unlikely. If it isn’t happening at the Bayman bars or at Tango Palace, it probably won’t happen at the Lesliebucks.
You might want to have a look at my piece about the Leslieville Cheese Market if you’re interested in comparing and contrasting.
And as for your closer: I do indeed know somebody who might object to blaming me, particularly for something I never did.