News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.6K     0 

Compare with Central Park in New York City, they have restaurants that serve the dreadful alcohol, carts that serve a "variety" of products, and picnics with alcohol. In Toronto, they create rules and menus that need to be approved, that all have to follow because of the bureaucrats enjoy the authority that it brings them. We can't have an outdoor tavern by a pond or park lake.

See link.

I agree w/the gist of the above; but worth saying, Toronto does have licensed restaurants in parks, in both the Eastern Beaches and the Western Beaches.

Neither is particularly good, and the one in the east was particularly controversial for its lease terms and the nature of same being issued. (one company has a monopoly on concessions in the Eastern Beaches)

But again, that does speak to a bureaucracy not functioning particularly well.
 
Last edited:
Having posted signs is a way to make us all feel 'something is being done' when it really isn't.
And if that convinces the Karen across from the park that they don't need to call 311 or 911 to report people in these pilot parks, then good on them.
 
I agree w/the gist of the above; but worth saying, Toronto does licensed restaurants in parks, in both the Eastern Beaches and the Western Beaches.

Neither is particularly good, and the one in the east was particularly controversial for its lease terms and the nature of same being issued. (one company has a monopoly on concessions in the Eastern Beaches)

But again, that does speak to a bureaucracy not functioning particularly well.
and High Park, I think.
 
and High Park, I think.

Nope.

Grenadier is not licensed.

John Howard, the donor of the first 170 acres that became High Park forbade alcohol in the park.

I imagine that condition would not be legally applicable to the 230 acres the City later purchased..........

But I think Grenadier is part of the original donation.

***

I wonder if a covenant like that would actually be upheld by a Court today?
 
Nope.

Grenadier is not licensed.

John Howard, the donor of the first 170 acres that became High Park forbade alcohol in the park.

I imagine that condition would not be legally applicable to the 230 acres the City later purchased..........

But I think Grenadier is part of the original donation.

***

I wonder if a covenant like that would actually be upheld by a Court today?
To quote the Simpsons..

 
and High Park, I think.
The Gardiner Restaurant does not have a LCBO license. That's because John Howard stipulated that no alcohol in "his" park. However, only 165 rural acres were his (120 acres originally and 45 acres on his death). To the east, the city added 172 acres from Percival Ridou, and west 71 acres from the Chapman estate, formerly Ellis of the original lands. Later, two more acres were added via the amalgamation of the Village of Swansea; 18 acres were removed for the construction of the Queensway. The city could have a restaurant that has a LCBO license on the non-John Howard lands.

If you can zoom this image out, you'll see the rectangle that John Howard owned. The current Gardiner Restaurant is located within his property. From link.
1875-Howard-HighPark-1970_222_19G_HP_map.jpg
 
Nope.

Grenadier is not licensed.

John Howard, the donor of the first 170 acres that became High Park forbade alcohol in the park.

I imagine that condition would not be legally applicable to the 230 acres the City later purchased..........

But I think Grenadier is part of the original donation.

***

I wonder if a covenant like that would actually be upheld by a Court today?
LOL! If he donated the land to the city, it's no longer his to enforce personal rules and morality on others. Such a piece of nonsense!
 
Last edited:
LOL! If he donated the land to the city, it's no longer his to enforce personal rules and morality on others. Such a piece of nonsense!
When the southern 18 acres of High Park were removed for the construction of the Queensway, it was in contravention of stipulations by original High Park owner John Howard that the lands be used for parkland only. Metro officials searched for descendants of Howard to obtain their consent, back in Great Britain. May have to do the same for alcohol in John Howard's section of High Park.
 
LOL! If he donated the land to the city, it's no longer his to enforce personal rules and morality on others. Such a piece of nonsense!
I may disagree with his prohibition but if someone donates something they probably have every right to put conditions on the gift - as long, as course, if they do not conflict any laws. (i.e. saying no Catholics allowed to get a scholarship or live in a house would be illegal under current laws.) It is not against any law I know of to prohibit alcohol.
 
I may disagree with his prohibition but if someone donates something they probably have every right to put conditions on the gift - as long, as course, if they do not conflict any laws. (i.e. saying no Catholics allowed to get a scholarship or live in a house would be illegal under current laws.) It is not against any law I know of to prohibit alcohol.
The City of West Toronto, before it was annexed by the City of Toronto, prohibited alcohol sales within its boundaries. See link.

The Township of Etobicoke (not the City of Etobicoke) prohibited clothes lines (umbrella clothes lines were okay).
 
Its just easier to default to not reading your stuff.
Moving along.
You’re the one who brought up my name in this thread.

So turn that ignore function back on and actually use it then, and refrain from using me as some kind of metric against which you compare others?

it all might seem less petulant then.
 
The signs are crude and I am not surprised. I have never followed those alcohol restrictions. Twenty years ago, when I had a picnic at the Bluffs Park, no one came to smell the contents of my wine-filled thermos. But we did have to suffer the disapproval of a lone seagull cawing at us at maximum volume for the entire duration of our meal.
 
The signs are crude and I am not surprised. I have never followed those alcohol restrictions. Twenty years ago, when I had a picnic at the Bluffs Park, no one came to smell the contents of my wine-filled thermos. But we did have to suffer the disapproval of a lone seagull cawing at us at maximum volume for the entire duration of our meal.
It's because the true purpose of keeping these arcane restrictions over the years is to give plausible deniability to the city when they wanted to remove some "undesirable" from the park. That's usually the case whenever you have rules that are selectively applied.
 
It's because the true purpose of keeping these arcane restrictions over the years is to give plausible deniability to the city when they wanted to remove some "undesirable" from the park. That's usually the case whenever you have rules that are selectively applied.

While I concur w/that assessment; the signage/rules aren't needed as they already exist both federally and provincially.

Provincially, public intoxication is a ticket-based offense carrying a set fine of $65.

Federally, if you're behavior is a problem, one could charge 'causing a disturbance; which expressly includes public drunkeness, and that could, in theory, carry a penalty of up to $5,000 and 2 years less a day in jail.


Between those two, and with a sweeping range of options available from the 'gentle smack' to arrest, detention and serious punishment.....we got this covered.

Any further rules are 'clutter'.
 

Back
Top