Clearly I am a firm believer against the notion of "accidents", short term incompetence or lack of awareness in politics (unless your name is the-one-who-shall-not-be-named).
Well, there is a case to be made that particular politicians may habitually jump into the fray without having sussed out enough of the details.
Negotiations happen in confidence, and one can't draw adverse inferences if they begin or stay there. That's where they belong.
The question is, what mandate does a Mayor or City Staff have to advance and advocate a proposal, and at what point are they required to declare their involvement in discussions, as a matter of transparency and integrity. And how much of the history and origin of this proposal ought to be on the public record.
It would not surprise me if one or more developers had their eye on this tract of air with an eye to its development potential. CN/TTR may have been quietly biding their time and letting potential suitors make their case, watching for the "right time and price" without having made any commitment. That's how development works.
It's also possible that the City became aware of a deal getting close to being made, realised that this was the last downtown tract there would ever be, and did some quick study on how to redirect it towards a public use. It's possible that one or more of these "suitors" may have seen their courtship-in-progress going down the tube because of the City's sudden competing interest in this tract.... and put their competing foot forward. Whether a transfer of rights had been executed, or handshakes exchanged, or just meetings concluded positively, doesn't change the dynamics here....it may just change the price.
If what we have seen is just the City (political or staff) putting it to the floor to get in ahead of another proposal, then good on them. The park is a good idea and I hope it prevails. However, as others have noted, it's not going to be inexpensive, and haste and desperation make for a poor bargaining position. Public and Council oversight is critical so that prudence prevails. The City can't afford this "at all costs".
On the other hand, if this began as a developer's proposal with the developer seeking some hefty variances from the Official Plan, and the Park is just a smokescreen to mitigate what would otherwise be controversial planning decisions, then we have been misled and I would cry foul. None of the press reports I have read make any mention of partial development on this land - the inference has always been that this is a cash deal that gets the City the air rights and a park is all that emerges. There is a much greater need for politicians and City staff to clarify immediately if this kind of discussion is happening, and to explain what deals or concessions they are making to move this forward.
- Paul
