News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

junctionist said:
A growing local population means more and better public spaces are necessary. Land is limited in the area. The city wants a new park at the foot of Yonge Street and the removal of the abandoned ship for quality public space. A new condo contributes to the growing population and need for more and better public spaces. Therefore, it's reasonable to charge the developer a fee to remove the ship as part of the public space improvements the city has to undertake.
Click to expand...

You said the "city" wants a new park, not the condo residents. So why ask the condo to pay for that?
Plus, the lake is there and the ship is IN the lake. I don't see how removing the ship will provide any more public spaces.
 
Conrad Black said:
Why should a condo nearby have to pay for this? New owners now responsible for this boat? Its a city issue and if they can't find a buyer, and if the original owner can't do it then the city must pay. That means both you and me.
Click to expand...

It's very common for developers to contribute to a city council pet project in exchange for approval of building code violations. For example, the Trump tower developers helped pay for the Regent Park Aquatic Centre in exchange for city approval of additional height for the Trump tower.

In short, the developer gets something and the city gets something. I'm suggesting making removal of the ship as a condition of future city allowance of building code violations, such as height for condos. No one is forcing condo developers who follow city building codes to pay for anything. the city would only be offering the exchange to any interested developers who want to violate code.
 
Last edited:
The city is the government. We pool our resources to have a powerful agent whose job it is to ensure that the city is livable. With the condo not yet built, there are no residents on that property. But people tend to need parks, police, transit, sewers and schools in their community. People who live in the condo will demand all of those things because they make for a livable community.

The developer is building housing for the opportunity to make money. It's reasonable to charge the developer to cover the city's additional burden of providing more public spaces.

Parks flanked by garbage like abandoned ships are less likely to be used compared to parks with clean surroundings. Parks that few people use aren't good achievements on the part of the government for the public good. Removing the ship is part of making a good park at the foot of Yonge Street that people will use.
 
Admiral Beez said:
It's very common for developers to contribute to a city council pet project in exchange for approval of building code violations. For example, the Trump tower developers helped pay for the Regent Park Aquatic Centre in exchange for city approval of additional height for the Trump tower.

In short, the developer gets something and the city gets something. I'm suggesting making removal of the ship as a condition of future city allowance of building code violations, such as height for condos. No one is forcing condo developers who follow city building codes to pay for anything. the city would only be offering the exchange to any interested developers who want to violate code.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Section 37 fees are for "building code violations"?
 
justindw said:
Are you suggesting that Section 37 fees are for "building code violations"?
Click to expand...
Yes, not in all cases, but they certainly have been used as such.

http://o.canada.com/entertainment/c...-helps-buy-toronto-a-new-public-swimming-pool

"Section 37 of the Ontario Planing Act was designed to encourage developers to offer community benefits in exchange for increased height and density — a concept that Mayor Rob Ford has opposed. But the $2 million grant toward the $14.8 million cost of the aquatic centre is likely to be seen as one of its success stories."
 
I thought height and density was spelled out in the official plan, not in the building code. I had no idea it was in the building codes.

Hunh. Oddly, this site

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=e7c14b1c296c0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Seems to say that height and density are controlled by zoning bylaws, as opposed to building codes. Do you mean "Section 37 funds are used in accordance with the zoning by laws"?
 
Last edited:
justindw said:
I thought height and density was spelled out in the official plan, not in the building code. I had no idea it was in the building codes.

Hunh. Oddly, this site

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=e7c14b1c296c0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Seems to say that height and density are controlled by zoning bylaws, as opposed to building codes. Do you mean "Section 37 funds are used in accordance with the zoning by laws"?
Click to expand...
You are correct and the Admiral is off course.
 
justindw said:
Seems to say that height and density are controlled by zoning bylaws, as opposed to building codes. Do you mean "Section 37 funds are used in accordance with the zoning by laws"?
Click to expand...
That's the one, thanks for clarifying that for me. I defer to your knowledge of muncipal affairs.

So, could the city make removal of the ship part of an exchange with a developer for contravening the official plan and/or regulations? If we have leverage, let's consider using it.
 
I'd hate to see section 37 funds used to dispose of the ship. Just don't see it as a good use of limited funds.
 
Uncle Teddy said:
And the longer this goes on the more likely that the city will have to pay via general revenue.
Click to expand...
The owner of the water is, I think, the TPA and this is why they are dealing with the sale. If (or when) it needs to be moved THEY will be the ones paying. The City is owed $$ for water/tax etc and this is obviously not going to be paid but I think they are not responsible for actually removing the hulk.
 
I say Rob Ford oughta buy it for a dowlah more than Sbrolla's bid, get it towed to a private slip at the foot of, say, Kipling Ave, and re-open the Cap'n as a party boat. No fancy culinary (unless the Steak Queen boys want a new offshore location), just lots of hooch 'n' holla.

The decrepit interior can't be any worse than some of the bars in that neighborhood, so renovations optional. Ditto for the Health Dept code violations.

The Star may call it a "hulk". I say "Hulkamania"! Better yet "Rob Ford's Hulkamania -- the place to party hearty!"

Where you gonna get something like that for $33 grand + towing charges? A two-four of craft beer almost costs that. Great location for the next Ford Fest.
 
Last edited:
DSC said:
The owner of the water is, I think, the TPA and this is why they are dealing with the sale. If (or when) it needs to be moved THEY will be the ones paying. The City is owed $$ for water/tax etc and this is obviously not going to be paid but I think they are not responsible for actually removing the hulk.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that. Thanks for clarifying.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top