js97
Senior Member
and you can buy quite the nice bike for the 1500 you have to drop on a metropass.
Plain and simply, it's another tax!
|
|
|
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
and you can buy quite the nice bike for the 1500 you have to drop on a metropass.
Plain and simply, it's another tax!
matix
New Member
Mandatory TTC Metro Pass for all new Condos
The City is now going to require all new condos, w/ 20 units or more to provide all units with a one year ttc metro pass as a condition of condominium approval.
I'm guessing my opinion might be in the minority, but I don't like this. Sure, I understand where they are coming from. how can promoting transit be a bad thing.. yes, i know in the grand scheme of things, this will be a fairly small, nominal charge passed on to the purchaser..
but in my view, a condition of approval like this goes beyone the provisions of the planning act.
I'm guess it will be appealed.. which is a good thing. this is an abuse of power.
for more info...
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-24384.pdf
PG33.8
ACTION
Amended
Ward: All
Provision of TTC Passes for Units in New Residential Condominium Buildings
Committee Recommendations
The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:
1. City Council endorse the provision of a TTC adult Metropass pass during the first year of occupancy for each new condominium unit as a condition of condominium approval in all buildings with 20 or more units located in the City’s targeted mixed use growth areas comprising the Downtown, the Central Waterfront, the Centres and the Avenues.
2. The policy be extended incrementally to targeted mixed growth areas and avenues as they evolve through the planning process.
3. The passes be provided on the basis that they will be at no cost to the purchaser.
4. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to evaluate and report on the policy after it has been fully operational for two years.
5. City Council forward the report for information to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Ontario), the Minister of Transportation (Canada), the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities), CUTA (Canadian Urban Transit Association) and APTA (American Public Transit Association).
The City is now going to require all new condos, w/ 20 units or more to provide all units with a one year ttc metro pass as a condition of condominium approval.
I'm guessing my opinion might be in the minority, but I don't like this. Sure, I understand where they are coming from. how can promoting transit be a bad thing.. yes, i know in the grand scheme of things, this will be a fairly small, nominal charge passed on to the purchaser..
but in my view, a condition of approval like this goes beyone the provisions of the planning act.
I'm guess it will be appealed.. which is a good thing. this is an abuse of power.
for more info...
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-24384.pdf
PG33.8
ACTION
Amended
Ward: All
Provision of TTC Passes for Units in New Residential Condominium Buildings
Committee Recommendations
The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:
1. City Council endorse the provision of a TTC adult Metropass pass during the first year of occupancy for each new condominium unit as a condition of condominium approval in all buildings with 20 or more units located in the City’s targeted mixed use growth areas comprising the Downtown, the Central Waterfront, the Centres and the Avenues.
2. The policy be extended incrementally to targeted mixed growth areas and avenues as they evolve through the planning process.
3. The passes be provided on the basis that they will be at no cost to the purchaser.
4. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to evaluate and report on the policy after it has been fully operational for two years.
5. City Council forward the report for information to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Ontario), the Minister of Transportation (Canada), the FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities), CUTA (Canadian Urban Transit Association) and APTA (American Public Transit Association).
matix
New Member
couldn't have said it better myself.
MuchoGrande
New Member
Can't figure out if this being done under the Planning Act, City of Toronto Act or something else.
How will this be enforced?
Seems half-baked and is likely a back-door tax.
How will this be enforced?
Seems half-baked and is likely a back-door tax.
matix
New Member
This is from the staff report
"Part 1 of the Planning Act prescribes areas of Provincial interest for which municipal
councils should have regard, including “the promotion of development that is designed to
be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented towards pedestrians†(clause
2(q)). The Provincial Policy Statement (2005), issued under section 3 of the Planning
Act, includes clauses 1.6.5.2 and 1.8.1(b) which refer, respectively, to the requirements to
make efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure, and to promote the use of
public transit and other alternative transportation modes."
more than a bit of a stretch is you ask me considering what the act considers to be appropriate conditions.. S51(25)
"Conditions
(25) The approval authority may impose such conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision, including a requirement,
(a) that land be dedicated or other requirements met for park or other public recreational purposes under section 51.1;
(b) that such highways, including pedestrian pathways, bicycle pathways and public transit rights of way, be dedicated as the approval authority considers necessary;
(b.1) that such land be dedicated for commuter parking lots, transit stations and related infrastructure for the use of the general public using highways, as the approval authority considers necessary;
(c) when the proposed subdivision abuts on an existing highway, that sufficient land, other than land occupied by buildings or structures, be dedicated to provide for the widening of the highway to such width as the approval authority considers necessary; and
(d) that the owner of the land proposed to be subdivided enter into one or more agreements with a municipality, or where the land is in territory without municipal organization, with any minister of the Crown in right of Ontario or planning board dealing with such matters as the approval authority may consider necessary, including the provision of municipal or other services. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2005, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 1; 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (5)."
"Part 1 of the Planning Act prescribes areas of Provincial interest for which municipal
councils should have regard, including “the promotion of development that is designed to
be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented towards pedestrians†(clause
2(q)). The Provincial Policy Statement (2005), issued under section 3 of the Planning
Act, includes clauses 1.6.5.2 and 1.8.1(b) which refer, respectively, to the requirements to
make efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure, and to promote the use of
public transit and other alternative transportation modes."
more than a bit of a stretch is you ask me considering what the act considers to be appropriate conditions.. S51(25)
"Conditions
(25) The approval authority may impose such conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision, including a requirement,
(a) that land be dedicated or other requirements met for park or other public recreational purposes under section 51.1;
(b) that such highways, including pedestrian pathways, bicycle pathways and public transit rights of way, be dedicated as the approval authority considers necessary;
(b.1) that such land be dedicated for commuter parking lots, transit stations and related infrastructure for the use of the general public using highways, as the approval authority considers necessary;
(c) when the proposed subdivision abuts on an existing highway, that sufficient land, other than land occupied by buildings or structures, be dedicated to provide for the widening of the highway to such width as the approval authority considers necessary; and
(d) that the owner of the land proposed to be subdivided enter into one or more agreements with a municipality, or where the land is in territory without municipal organization, with any minister of the Crown in right of Ontario or planning board dealing with such matters as the approval authority may consider necessary, including the provision of municipal or other services. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2005, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 1; 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (5)."
TOareaFan
Superstar
can't figure out why we need two threads to discuss it either:
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=10837
pilinha
New Member
Why would the city try to force people to take the transit when we all know the TTC can be inadequate?
I took the King Street car last week and waited for 3 full cars to pass before I was able to get on one. How about a subway line on King or Queen St? Just yesterday I waited 15 minutes in the freezing cold for a streetcar on the Queen line only for 3 to come in a row. There must have been 20 people waiting in the cold. It wasn't peak traffic times either.
Not a well thought out decision perhaps.
I took the King Street car last week and waited for 3 full cars to pass before I was able to get on one. How about a subway line on King or Queen St? Just yesterday I waited 15 minutes in the freezing cold for a streetcar on the Queen line only for 3 to come in a row. There must have been 20 people waiting in the cold. It wasn't peak traffic times either.
Not a well thought out decision perhaps.
Last edited:
matix
New Member
well excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.
JasonParis
Moderator
Merged.
tkip
Active Member
Oh, absolutely....
This is an abuse of power. The responsibility for buying a metropass lies in the hands of the individual. I think someone being forced to pick up the tab is just plain wrong.
This is an abuse of power. The responsibility for buying a metropass lies in the hands of the individual. I think someone being forced to pick up the tab is just plain wrong.
Dan416
Senior Member
I think this is a really good idea. In fact, I think every resident of the city should be forced to pay for a Metropass. Do that and then we could do away with fares altogether. We'd save tons of money from not having to have useless fare collectors.
Eug
Senior Member
Indeed. Ironically, this will just provide more fodder for any right-leaning candidates to campaign with.
Oh and out of the people I knew at my own condo:
1) I drove. I lived downtown but worked outside of the downtown core. Public transit would have taken me 2-3X as long.
2) My neighbours beside me walked. In fact, they specifically bought the place because they both could walk to work. One lived within 5 minutes walking distance. The other lived within 10 minutes walking distance.
3) My neighbour across from me walked. In fact, they specifically bought the place because the husband could walk to work, 5-10 minutes away. The wife drove, because she worked outside of the downtown core like me.
4) My neighbour below me walked. She owned a store about 10 minutes walking distance away. She also drove, as she needed a vehicle to transport stuff for her business.
Etc.
This idea is completely boneheaded.
Last edited:
tkip
Active Member
This is a joke, right?
I mean you aren't being serious about forcing people to pay for something they may never use or throwing out free will altogether and the freedom to excercise your right to take transit or not. We already pay for the TTC through fares of those who use the service and taxes collected in the city.
I'm going assume that this is an attempt at humour that I'm not getting because I can't see the person's facial expressions as they post this.
kettal
Banned
It's not a bad idea, but we're just not ready for it yet.
tkip
Active Member
No....
It's a terrible idea because someone is advocating for forcing unto other inviduals the costs of a personal means of transportation that should be their choice. Not the state interring and forcing down your throat the expenses to support a service already paid for.
This is bone-headed as someone else pointed out and just plain wrong. I cannot believe that I have to explain how wrong this approach would be.
We already pay taxes within this city that go toward public transit. Mind you, it may not be enough but why is my wallet being offered up? What's next? Passing laws that require people to foot the bills for the owners of bikes who need repairs? Where would this stop? The nanny state is out of control.
It's a terrible idea because someone is advocating for forcing unto other inviduals the costs of a personal means of transportation that should be their choice. Not the state interring and forcing down your throat the expenses to support a service already paid for.
This is bone-headed as someone else pointed out and just plain wrong. I cannot believe that I have to explain how wrong this approach would be.
We already pay taxes within this city that go toward public transit. Mind you, it may not be enough but why is my wallet being offered up? What's next? Passing laws that require people to foot the bills for the owners of bikes who need repairs? Where would this stop? The nanny state is out of control.
Last edited: