[Northern Light]

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?

 

[Richard White]

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..

 

[W. K. Lis]

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.

 

[Towered]

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!

 

[W. K. Lis]

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.

 

[DSC]

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.

 

[W. K. Lis]

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).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Looks like Adam Giambone is in touch with Toronto, even if working in Saudi Arabia. Wonder if he is checking out the TTC CEO position?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1691546242302558208

 

[zang]

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.

 

[goreckm]

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.

 

[Northern Light]

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.

Causing a Disturbance

If you engage in disorderly conduct such as fighting, screaming, insulting people or using obscene language, you could be charged with causing a disturbance

www.criminalcodehelp.ca

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'.

 

[rbt]

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.

Yep. I'm uncertain about gifts to government, but conditions on donations to non-profits last forever. They may return the donation if the conditions are too onerous: this is common if, for example, the donation was for a specific program which they've phased out or didn't reach a funding threshold to implement it. The donation is a contract and the conditions are a part of it.

If they city went against the conditions of the donation then his great-great grandkids may have a valid claim to the land. If it was a donation to a not-for-profit (like the Bruce Trail Conservancy) they definitely would have a claim to it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1691847780464034064

See link.

A simple public service announcement from the City of Toronto promoting the use of public garbage bins has backfired spectacularly, earning the City a good ribbing on social media.

 

[afransen]

If the City is relying on people reporting bins being full, they could create a 311 app.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Stephen Holyday's Ward 2. Will he even improve transit in his ward?
View attachment 499414

There’s a lot of discussion in the Crosstown west extension thread about the underground station designs, which are in an early design phase and all located in this ward (excluding the terminus at Renforth).

Do we think he could have any influence over this or would that be out of his jurisdiction?

For context, the biggest issue around the stations is the single point of entry at very busy intersections that are dangerous for pedestrians.