[steveintoronto]

I get you, but when replying to someone saying "these days", it's not ideal to use an example of expropriation that happened in the 1970s.

That reference was to this:

crs1026 said: ↑
Federal authority is seldom exercised unilaterally these days

It was just this year that the following was finally resolved, IIRC. Pardon the length, but I see a real opening for the Feds to do much the same with the air-rights over the USRC:

Rouge Park is now twice its size. Will Pickering airport plans ever take off?

Published on Jul 23, 2015
by John Michael McGrath

The federal government is more than doubling its commitment to Rouge Park.
Rouge Park is about to get bigger. A lot bigger. Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the federal government was more than doubling the area of the park’s federal lands, from 5,000 acres to 10,200 acres.

Like the initial federal lands that were used to create the park, the new additions will come out of the lands in Pickering originally expropriated in the 1960s for the purpose of building a second major airport in the GTA to complement Pearson International in Mississauga.

The original land commitment has been gradually sliced away and given to parkland, and political rhetoric has been dialed back from gung-ho bombast to a more cautious evaluation of “economic potential,” which raises the question: Is an airport in Pickering still a realistic proposal?

Mathematically and geographically, the answer is yes. While the feds have given up more than half of the land they’ve held for decades, the remaining 9,600 acres are more than double the area of Pearson International Airport (4,600 acres) with plenty of room left over for related “economic development” areas associated with a large airport. Additionally, the feds have made sure the land they’re hanging on to is closest to the highway and rail links nearby, a must for any future airport.

Land severances haven’t closed any doors, but activists who’ve spent decades opposing a new airport in Durham Region say recent moves by the government give them a stronger hand.

“What they did say, and we’re going to hold them to it, is there has to be a sound business case for an airport. We’ve said all along there is no sound business case,” says Mary Delaney of Land Over Landings. “If there was one, there’d be an airport here.”

Following Stephen Harper’s announcement, Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt announced the government would appoint an independent advisor to consult with interest groups in and around the GTA on the economic potential of the Pickering lands, including (but not only) a future airport.

The original commitment in 1972 was a total of 18,600 acres, though today government land managers place the estimate closer to 19,800 acres. Raitt’s office confirmed that the current plan is to retain 9,600 acres “for economic development, including a potential future airport” but adds “no decision has been made on the type or timing of an airport.”

That’s a far cry from the language used by the late Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who in 2013 declared an airport was finally going to be built in lands that had been in planning limbo since 1972.

“I’m here to confirm that the uncertainty ends today,” Flaherty said two years ago. “The Harper government is moving forward with a responsible and balanced plan for the development and preservation of the Pickering lands.”

The argument for a new, large airport rests largely on the prospect of air travel growing enough to overwhelm the capacity that exists at Pearson and other regional airports. The Greater Toronto Airport Authority estimated in a 2010 report that with baseline assumptions about the growth of air travel, even substantial expansions at Pearson, Waterloo and Hamilton airports would leave the region’s airports at capacity by 2033. More pessimistic assumptions about travel growth push that deadline into the future, to about 2041.

Other groups are willing to settle for something more modest. Since the privately-run Buttonville airport announced its impending closure in 2010 (it’s now expected to stay open until late next year) small aircraft pilots have been looking for a replacement. Land Over Landings also argues against a replacement for Buttonville, saying the volume of air traffic doesn’t justify it.

Mark Brooks, a partner with Pickering Air Park which is proposing to build a privately-funded airport in the Pickering lands, disagrees.

“We could put a grass strip down on that land tomorrow and start making money,” Brooks says.

However, a small airport to replace Buttonville would still only amount to about five per cent of the remnant the federal government is hanging on to. Even if it were built it would be a dramatically smaller vision for the airport lands than what was first proposed in the 1970s.

Which isn’t to say a small airport can’t grow into a bigger one. That’s the plan behind the Pickering Air Park – to start small with a better chance of being profitable, and potentially grow into something larger.

Brooks says federal taxpayers paid for the Pickering lands with the expectation of getting a new airport for their money. “That was the purpose of the Pickering lands, to build infrastructure for generations to come. Not as hobby farms.”

Map by Michael Lehan

http://tvo.org/article/current-affa...ze-will-pickering-airport-plans-ever-take-off

The present Trudeau regime could play the USRC air-rights to immense PR benefit if they play their cards right on it. A *National Park* right in Toronto!

I'll provide supporting legal reference later. Edit to Add: It would most likely take a motion through Parliament to amend an existing Act to do it, but they have the majority to do it.

Then let the developers take it to court...phhhhhh....

 

[steveintoronto]

How is it possible that CN and TTR do not know whether they have sold the air rights to that developer?

It's a very good question, and I've been thinking about this all day while away from the computer: First off: Define "air rights".

Secondly: They still have their legal eagles trying to define at least what that term means in respect to whether they have the basis to sell it on or not. It may not be theirs, and may have never been to begin with.

Thirdly: Are some of the claims now being bantered about *options* on 'air-rights' and not terms of sale? In which case, there's going to be a lot of disappointed jump-ups trying to make a quick buck off of this. I think some of them had best hire better attorneys to check the actual titles to the properties.

And Fourth: The Feds, Queen's Park, TTR and CN are in deep discussions behind the scenes to see what can be best for all concerned in this situation. Whether the City is in on those discussions is a good question. You certainly wouldn't think so from what's leaking out in the press now...

Edit to Add: Just had a chance to catch up on the latest news. Today's vote at City Hall...took a while for this to sink in:

It was *unanimous* (apologies to others who've already pointed that out). That tells me something was brought to their attention that the press hasn't been told yet. I could have believed almost unanimous with what's in the public domain right now, but not unanimous.

Something swung the die-hards over. Could someone have made them "an offer you can't refuse"?

 

[Palma]

It's a very good question, and I've been thinking about this all day while away from the computer: First off: Define "air rights".

Secondly: They still have their legal eagles trying to define at least what that term means in respect to whether they have the basis to sell it on or not. It may not be theirs, and may have never been to begin with.

Thirdly: Are some of the claims now being bantered about *options* on 'air-rights' and not terms of sale? In which case, there's going to be a lot of disappointed jump-ups trying to make a quick buck off of this. I think some of them had best hire better attorneys to check the actual titles to the properties.

And Fourth: The Feds, Queen's Park, TTR and CN are in deep discussions behind the scenes to see what can be best for all concerned in this situation. Whether the City is in on those discussions is a good question. You certainly wouldn't think so from what's leaking out in the press now...

Edit to Add: Just had a chance to catch up on the latest news. Today's vote at City Hall...took a while for this to sink in:

It was *unanimous* (apologies to others who've already pointed that out). That tells me something was brought to their attention that the press hasn't been told yet. I could have believed almost unanimous with what's in the public domain right now, but not unanimous.

Something swung the die-hards over. Could someone have made them "an offer you can't refuse"?

like what kind of offer?

 

[Palma]

I

That reference was to this:

It was just this year that the following was finally resolved, IIRC. Pardon the length, but I see a real opening for the Feds to do much the same with the air-rights over the USRC:


http://tvo.org/article/current-affa...ze-will-pickering-airport-plans-ever-take-off

The present Trudeau regime could play the USRC air-rights to immense PR benefit if they play their cards right on it. A *National Park* right in Toronto!

I'll provide supporting legal reference later. Edit to Add: It would most likely take a motion through Parliament to amend an existing Act to do it, but they have the majority to do it.

Then let the developers take it to court...phhhhhh....

I thought Downsview Park was a National park. Look what happened to that idea

 

[steveintoronto]

I

I thought Downsview Park was a National park. Look what happened to that idea

The last regime doomed it:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...te-of-torontos-downsview-park/article6117677/ not to mention it wasn't managed very well. I had a girl friend who left me once. Look what happens to marriage.

The City will still be on the hook for a large sum, if the Feds cede the air-rights to the City, they're not going to wipe bums too. The City is going to have to be responsible for establishing the form and maintaining it. If the Feds cede rights, it will appear as a magnanimous gift from them, at no real cost to the federal taxpayer. As mentioned, it might yet take an amendment to one of the Acts, or even a new one to do this. It would have to be closely vetted by federal lawyers to determine that.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I

I thought Downsview Park was a National park. Look what happened to that idea

The suburban councillors didn't do much with Downsview Park. Isn't Downsview Park outside of downtown? The crowds visiting it must be enormous... not.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The last regime doomed it:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...te-of-torontos-downsview-park/article6117677/ not to mention it wasn't managed very well. I had a girl friend who left me once. Look what happens to marriage.

The City will still be on the hook for a large sum, if the Feds cede the air-rights to the City, they're not going to wipe bums too. The City is going to have to be responsible for establishing the form and maintaining it. If the Feds cede rights, it will appear as a magnanimous gift from them, at no real cost to the federal taxpayer. As mentioned, it might yet take an amendment to one of the Acts, or even a new one to do this. It would have to be closely vetted by federal lawyers to determine that.

Not quite - the main "issue" with PDP is that it has to be self-funded - i.e. from leasing revenues and proceeds from land development - and that is the stance of the Liberal government at the time. The Conservatives only furthered it.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Not quite - the main "issue" with PDP is that it has to be self-funded - i.e. from leasing revenues and proceeds from land development - and that is the stance of the Liberal government at the time. The Conservatives only furthered it.

AoD

Fair enough. I haven't delved into where it went off the rails, so to speak, if it ever was on them (adjacent rail line besides), but it was born an orphan. There's no comparison to Rail Deck Park, which if ceded the air-rights, will be a healthy birth. It's still going to cost the City a bundle, but it will be off to an excellent start once land title is made clear.

 

[mdrejhon]

Unamious vote!

On many divisive issues (including this or others), it often means some people know something big that we don't (yet).

Still, I like the Rail Deck, even as a 25 year step by step plan -- planned well with RER and upgraded USRC 30mph/45mph switching capability (Today, it's a pathetic max 15mph for several minutes).

If that 15mph is solved or preplanned-solvable too, bring on Rail Deck. #yesRailDeck

If Rail Deck pillars permanently locks 15mph till the 22nd century, BLASPHEMY. #noRailDeck.

 

[steveintoronto]

Unamious vote!

On many divisive issues (including this or others), it often means some people know something big that we don't (yet).

Still, I like the Rail Deck, even as a 25 year step by step plan -- planned well with RER and upgraded USRC 30mph/45mph switching capability (Today, it's a pathetic max 15mph for several minutes).

If that 15mph is solved too, bring on Rail Deck. #yesRailDeck

If Rail Deck pillars permanently locks 15mph till the 22nd century, BLASPHEMY. #noRailDeck.

Agreed on all points, and I'd quote what I wrote prior on the unanimous vote, save that you've liked my post. It's beyond peculiar that it was unanimous. A number of councillors went into that meeting vowing to vote against the motion.
*Something* changed their minds, and it wasn't the cushy story the press is touting on 'more attention given to all parks'. It was an offer they couldn't turn down. It remains to be seen as to what that is. They must have been privately briefed before the vote. Frankly, I would have voted 'no' with what was generally known at the time. Given some Gift from God, I too would change my vote.

[If that 15mph is solved too, bring on Rail Deck.]
I think it's got to be a second deck around the south side of the shed. I had originally touted four tracks, close examination shows space for only three with two centre platforms, or perhaps just two tracks. But for *through running trains*, that might be sufficient for RER. The park can then be built over the raised rail deck as a hump, or perhaps the tracks could run as a surface Metro on the same level as the park with only sections of the park humping over it. What is absolutely clear is that the mandate for the USRC and legislation enabling it is transportation, so a park, even with ceded rights from the Feds, would still have to accommodate that priority, and if anything, done right, it would *accentuate* the visual interest of the park. What looks unlikely is tunneling. It would be wonderful, but extremely expensive and perhaps not practicably possible with a deck over top. A flyover (upper level of two tracks) could be easily included in park decking.

 

[steveintoronto]

Establishing ownership of the Rail Lands is difficult, let alone the air rights, and the Staff Report alludes to exactly that. Report claims it will take a year to find out. Some precedents *appear* to have been set, but finding the legal basis to sell federally regulated transportation corridors remains elusive. Note the following date, it addresses the later news stories before they even hit the press as per Craft and 'already had a "binding and enforceable" deal on owning air-rights'. Note the use of the word "controlled" in the latter section quoted, it hedges the term "owned" right before it.

EX17.1
STAFF REPORT
ACTION REQUIRED
Rail Deck Park: Work Plan for Official Plan
Amendments and an Implementation Strategy
September 15, 2016

[...]
Ivanhoe Cambridge / Metrolinx development at 45 and 141 Bay Street, Toronto
Ivanhoe Cambridge purchased air rights from Canadian National Railway
and Toronto Terminals Railway for approximately 4 acres above the rail corridor east of Union Station bounded by Bay Street to the west, Yonge Street to the east and the properties
known as 45 Bay to the south and 141 Bay Street to the north.
The proposed development at 45 and 141 Bay Street includes two office towers that are
connected by a publicly-accessible open space that spans the rail corridor. Ivanhoe
Cambridge is developing the proposed development with Metrolinx. The proposal
involves the relocation of the existing GO bus terminal located at 141 Bay Street to a new
indoor facility as part of the 45 Bay Street development.
As a part of this development, Ivanhoe Cambridge will invest $50 million towards the
provision of a privately-owned, publicly-accessible open space above the rail corridor.
[...]
Real Estate & Property Ownership Matters
Property ownership and interest within and adjacent to the project area is complex.
Different elements of the rail corridor, including the rail lines and stratified air rights, are
owned or controlled by various entities including Canadian National Railway (CN),
Toronto Terminals Railway (TTR), Metrolinx, the City of Toronto and, potentially,
other parties.
Extensive research will be required to assess the various interests attached to the properties.
Title to the various parcels, including the adjacent lands is multi-layered.
This research will inform options to move forward the agreements and/or permissions
necessary to advance this initiative.

Legal Services and Real Estate Services will prioritize this work in order to determine
how best to advance discussions around securing an interest in these lands and/or
obtaining permissions to construct over the rail corridor. This information will be
clarified and included in the report back to City Council in 2017.

A private developer has met with City Planning staff for some initial pre-application
discussions concerning potential mixed used development in the rail corridor and
indicated they had secured property interests in the area. Staff advised them that a City
initiated planning process should guide future land use considerations in the area. City
staff have also yet to be provided with any documentation confirming what these
property interests may be.
[...]

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-96269.pdf

No further documentation supplied regarding Craft has been announced in the media that I'm aware of.

 

[steveintoronto]

Copied from the Union Station Reno string:

Further to the previous post, continued digging on the matter of ownership of the USRC as that pertains to air-rights, Union Station and shed land ownership and other matters, it's difficult slogging, a lot shows, but interpreting it and not having more recent court decisions and/or precedents hinders knowing the present legal status, but just found this:
[...]
...the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the use of portions of the bed of the harbour on which they had laid their tracks across the prolongations of the streets mentioned, a grant was made to that company by the Dominion Government of the "use for railway purposes" on and over the filled-in areas included within the lines formed by the production of the sides of the streets. At a later date the Dominion Government granted these areas to the city in trust to be used as public highways, subject to an agreement respecting the railways, known as the "Old Windmill Line Agreement," and excepting therefrom strips of land 66 feet in width between the southerly ends of the areas and the harbour, reserved as and for "an allowance for a public highway." In June, 1909, the Board of Railway Commissioners, on application by the city, made an order directing that the railway companies should elevate their tracks on and adjoining the "Esplanade" and construct a viaduct there. Held, Girouard and Duff, JJ. dissenting, that the Board had jurisdiction to make -such order; that the street prolongations mentioned were highways within the meaning of the "Railway Act"; that the Act of Parliament validating the agreement made in 1892 was not a "special Act" within the meaning of "The Railway Act" and did not alter the character of the agreement as a private contract affecting only the parties thereto, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, having acquired only a limited right or easement in the filled-in land, had not such a title thereto as would deprive the public of the right to pass over the same as a means of communication between the streets and the harbour.
[...]
I'll add more in quotation: (Note: This is a dissenting opinion)

[...]
Here the applicant is not the Attorney-General claiming a jus publicum over certain railways, but the Railway Commission first ex proprio motu, and later on, on the special application of the City of Toronto, has taken cognizance of the situation and has ordered certain works to be done for the "protection, safety and convenience of the public," crossing over certain railways. Extraordinary powers, far exceeding any existing in the Railway Acts of any other country, are given to the Railway Board, and it might be possible that the Board had jurisdiction to issue the order given to build a viaduct and other works specified in the Order No. 7,200, dated 9th June, 1909, unless prohibited by some statute from so doing.

The reasons advanced by the Commissioners for giving this order may be unreasonable, and the work to be done even absurd; this court has nothing to do with any such possibilities, and unless it can be shewn that the Board has no jurisdiction or acted contrary to the Railway Act, this court cannot interfere, for the Board can do almost anything in relation to railways, except when prohibited by Parliament. As we held in a recent case, In re Canadian Northern

[Page 620]

Railway Co.[2],the Board cannot change the "Railway Act" of the Parliament of Canada; and I have arrived at the conclusion that, in this instance, they have violated that Act, because the subject matter of the order given by them has already been provided for by the parties and the legislatures interested, not exactly in the same manner and by the same kind of works, that is a viaduct, but by other works which had been found satisfactory to all intents and purposes and must stand until otherwise ordered by Parliament.

There is no doubt that the two railway companies all along, from the very first day they obtained possession of their lands in front of the City of Toronto for the purposes of their railways, knew that the cross streets abutting on the Esplanade might one day be prolonged to the water's edge, so as to afford public access to the front lots and to the bay or lake, in a convenient and safe manner, due regard being given to the growth of a progressive commercial city. All the plans and documents produced shew the possible prolongation of these cross streets. The two railway companies soon realized the situation and finally came to an arrangement with the City of Toronto to secure this end. On the 26th July, 1892, they came to an agreement called the Esplanade or Tripartite Agreement, which was confirmed by the Ontario Legislature, 55 Vict. ch. 90, and also by the Parliament of Canada, 56 Vict. ch. 48. Expensive works were executed, for instance overhead traffic bridges with approaches for vehicles and foot passengers, the closing of certain streets, the deviation of others, the acquisition, abandonment

[Page 621]

and exchange of lands, the raising and removal of tracks, including the erection of a vast Union Station, etc. The construction of these heavy works involved the expenditure of large sums of money amounting to several millions, the Union Station alone having cost the railways $1,370,000, and was approved of by the Parliament of Canada by Vict. ch. 48. It must be observed with reference to the opinion of the learned chairman of the Board that this agreement entirely excluded forever the proposition of a viaduct. I find in his opinion a fair recapitulation of these works, comprehensive enough to give some idea of their magnitude. He says:—

On July 26th, 1892, the city, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the latter representing also the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway Company, the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company and all its other leased lines, entered into what is called the "Esplanade Tri-partite Agreement" in which appear most elaborate provisions relating to the rights of the railway companies upon the Esplanade and for the construction of the Union Station. I deal with only a few of its provisions: Par. 4 provided for the erection of private overhead bridges, (5) The city agreed to prevent the public crossing the tracks on the Esplanade between Yonge and York Streets, except at Bay Street, and the Grand Trunk Railway Co. waived its contention that it was not liable to contribute to the cost of making or protecting level crossings at Church, Yonge and Bay Streets. (7) Provided for the construction of the York Street bridge and declared it to be a public highway. (9) Provided for deviating York Street, closing a portion of it and the Esplanade. (10) The Grand Trunk agreed to construct the John Street bridge. (11) Provision was made for closing Esplanade from York Street to Brock Street and portions of Simcoe, Peter, and John Streets. (15) The railway companies agreed to pay $15,000.00 to the city for conveyance of the portions of streets agreed to be closed. (17) The city consented to the Grand Trunk Railway Co. obtaining a patent from the Crown of the prolongation of Peter Street and the companies consented to the city obtaining a patent of the prolongation of Simcoe and York Streets, all to the Old Windmill Line.

It is alleged that the Dominion statute, 56 Vict. ch. 48, merely recognized the capacity of the parties

[Page 622]

to enter into such an agreement. The Dominion statute could not give capacity to the City of Toronto. This was done by the Ontario statute. The Dominion statute was necessary to make the scheme agreed topermanent and final until otherwise provided for by Parliament.

Section 1 enacts that [...continues at length...]

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do?r=AAAAAQAKUGVyc29ubmUgYgE

At a first glance, this appears more than profound! Haven't even begun to read this in detail, but it offers the City an interpretation of "bridging" the USRC for Rail Deck Park. I realize the point is relevant to more than just Union Station, but unless some of these earlier judgements were rendered moot or not-pertinent in later rulings, things are about to get very interesting as the City digs on ownership of the USRC and adjacent properties. (Edit: Note use of the term "possession" and "easement" not "ownership" in many references to the railways' RoW)

Edit to Add: Can't quote due to copy-block, but the "Tripartite Agreement" (also referred to as "Esplanade Agreement") described at: https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=Esplanade+or+Tripartite+Agreement&source=bl&ots=1q9Pyh4ENJ&sig=B_54nS2NfC0ZCshhgm5qZje8RhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzrZ2slM7PAhWo34MKHRFMD7cQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=Esplanade or Tripartite Agreement&f=false

I'm by no means a lawyer, albeit been involved in some very serious civil cases, and had to learn very fast to swim (I uncovered a slew of legal rulings and unpublished reports), but from a cursory glance, and lacking later rulings overturning the above, it *appears* that the City alone can use court precedents, agreements and statutes to lay claim to the "air-rights" (a nebulous term) over the USRC. I invite other readers to delve on this and offer considered opinions. More digging will reveal even more rulings and agreements.

Edit: See also: https://archive.org/stream/insupremecourtof00gran/insupremecourtof00gran_djvu.txt

 

[steveintoronto]

Edit to Add: Page 197 (link above), para 12, defines "Union Station" as including:

"[at the least]...all the tracks therein and leading thereto, between Yonge Street and Peter Street".

https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=Esplanade+or+Tripartite+Agreement&source=bl&ots=1q9Pyh4ENJ&sig=B_54nS2NfC0ZCshhgm5qZje8RhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzrZ2slM7PAhWo34MKHRFMD7cQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=Esplanade or Tripartite Agreement&f=false

The operating context of that may dilute the pertinence to Rail Deck Park, but it might also make the City's ownership of Union Station completely inclusive of proceeding with that stretch of decking without hindrance from affected parties, or if contested, relatively simple court rulings to proceed.

Edit Monday 10 Oct:
See page 192, paragraph 4 'Esplanade Agreement' linked above. This is very interesting, as it allows (gist) 'any private landowner, or tenant with property on the north side of the Esplanade but south side of the new CPR alignment in whole or in part opposite to bridge at their own expense subject to the conditions of the Railway Act'.

A term showing throughout this Agreement is "conveyance", as The Esplanade is a "highway" and the use by the railway companies is contingent on same ceding land they occupy or own in replacement to the City (and public use) for a new parallel road. At no time does the City cede ownership of The Esplanade, and that's made clear in paragraph 2, page 191, where access to that land (gist) "reserving all existing rights....(for) construction, reconstruction, inspection or repair of sewers and water mains along or under said portion of street". The term "leasehold" also appears, esp relating to the York St diversion to the Esplanade.

The Esplanade later fell under the jurisdiction of the City/Federal Harbour Trust: (But note, not the Tripartite Agreement which affected only railway use)

[...]
The Harbour Trust was also given authority over the Esplanade plan. The original 1817 plan intended to build a public walk and garden along the waterfront, just south of Front Street. The province's plan was largely ignored and the City allowed the use of the shore line to be used for wharves and docking. In 1837, a new plan was developed for the Esplanade. In this plan, the Esplanade would be built just south of Front, and the waterfront extended south to the "Windmill Line", some 100 yards south. The new lands would be used for port uses.[2] The Esplanade itself would become mostly railway lands.

The intrusion of the railways into the waterfront in the 1850s to 1890s period started to crowd out recreational uses. In 1892, a legal agreement solidified the railways usage of the waterfront. In 1893, a new plan was developed to extend landfill another 600 feet (180 m) south, and a new Lake Street (today's Lake Shore Boulevard) established along the then current waterfront edge.[3] The problem of silting, and the increasing amount of sewage being dumped in the harbour, required ongoing dredging efforts. Other works by the Harbour Trust including a breakwater at the Don River and a breakwater at the Queen's Wharf to protect the entrance to the harbour.[4]
[...]



Map of Toronto Harbour in 1906 before the infilling of Ashbridge's Bay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Harbour_Commission#cite_note-wickson27-2

 

[rbt]

If Nunziata is onboard with the downtown park this thing might be more practical (politically) than I expected.

"Nunziata says that when the downtown rail deck park proposal was being discussed at city council, she didn’t make a speech. “But I did say to the mayor, ‘You know we have one up in Weston. No one seems to talk about it.’” She acknowledges the downtown project is a bigger, more ambitious idea."​

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...pen-because-it-happened-in-weston-keenan.html

 

[steveintoronto]

...https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...pen-because-it-happened-in-weston-keenan.html

It was a good article, but based on a false premise, that being that what was done and why in Weston is the same as what could/should be done for Rail Deck Park. But there's a huge difference: The rail RoW going through Weston is owned by the railway (Metrolinx' purchase of CN's title to that).

In the Esplanade Corridor, the City never sold the land. By various mechanisms (leasehold, conveyance, easement, etc) the railways gained access, not ownership. Keenan is usually pretty sharp on these matters, on this point, he (and in all fairness, most others writing on this) misses the massive legal might the City has to lay claim to the air-rights: They own the land to begin with.

If and when my contention becomes more manifest in the press and the halls of City Hall and Queen's Park, some of the recent deals (perhaps even 45 Bay St) are going to present a problem for the lawyers. I'm sure in the instance of the latter, some ownership shuffle will be accorded, but a number of other recent deals might/will come under a new scrutiny. The Skydome, for instance, has a section of property over the USRC.

Edit to Add: Let me flip this issue over as to who owns the Esplanade Corridor as addressed in the Supreme Court case decisions linked prior, and the Tripartite Agreement, as I've gone cold on the details and the drift of the voluminous amount of information to read:

I've yet to find reference *in the corridor contained and defined in the Agreement* listed above of the railways owning the land ceded to them for their *use*. If someone contests my claim (and I'm still reading on this) then by all means, please post a reference to where any part of the Esplanade Corridor is owned, by deed and title, by anyone other than the City.

I'm not stating that such isn't possible, just that everything I've read in the documents linked prior indicates non-ownership by anyone save the City (the Province might have title to some sections, as the Agreement was by Federal Statute between the Feds and the Province, the latter acting on behalf of the City).