[W. K. Lis]

Why wasn't "High Park" named after John Howard?

Smythe Park was named after Conn Smythe (founder of the Toronto Maple Leafs), who had a sand and gravel pit at Jane & Alliance. See link. Smythe donated the park in 1954.

See link.

 

[Palma]

Its too bad they have never done such planning fro Downsview Park. I know its federal but Toronto could lobby to have it under their control in terms of how to develop the park

 

[steveintoronto]

There's still another massive shoe yet to drop on the USRC (Esplanade Corridor), and that's from the Feds. *Even if* 'ownership to air-rights' is claimed, whether proven or not (I contend that private ownership never was legally possible due to Statutes) the Feds still have *unique control* of the air-space above any federally regulated transportation corridor. If someone claims 'air-rights' above a federally regulated corridor (and the USRC certainly is federally regulated), *using* that claimed air-right can only pertain to what is no longer in use or *projected to be needed to use* for the purposes under any Federal Act, and that certainly includes the Railway Act, Transportation Act, Relocations Act, and others. And if for some reason, the Fed's claim on regulatory power comes into question (I don't see how), the Feds have the Power of Parliament, even just through the Minister, to assert claim (to regulate, if not regain ownership title) to any space or corridor deemed necessary for various Acts to be applied.

What's curious is how the Feds have yet to comment on this. Methinks it might be for political purposes to use that ammunition once the shooting starts by the locals. The Feds could/would be waiting to see how far the City gets before intervening. It might also be legally much 'cleaner' to intervene in an action started at the local level. "OMB"? lol....the Feds could shut down any motion with a letter of notice, let alone a solicitor appearing before a hearing.

Btw: On reflection, even QP could intervene, since the Statute(s) pertaining to the Esplanade Corridor were provincial, since the Feds couldn't constitutionally act directly with the City, and did so via the province, who then in turn granted statutory ownership of the Corridor to the City.

If the Province doesn't jump in, the Feds must and will.

Edit to Add: Here's an example of how this becomes complicated legally, and the Feds and QP may well be wishing to not intervene directly until (pardon the phrase) 'a line has been crossed', that being the interests and powers of provincial and federal legislation being ignored and not applied.

The City has made many mistakes over the years in not observing what is 'still on the books', and if that affects just the City's where-with-all, so be it, what the Feds especially will do is intervene where they currently retain *exclusive jurisdiction to regulate*, and that's certainly the Acts mentioned prior.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-95512.pdf

The City would pimp and sell their Grandmother given the chance....

They should be selling *leaseholds* not freeholds. Whatever, the City has frittered away their own title (subject to a massive court case no-one wants, it would mean digging up the dead), the Feds won't let them do it on a corridor still used for transportation and granted on the condition of it (gist) "being for the good of the people of Canada". (As determined in interpretation by the SCC as per the Esplanade Corridor).(Grand Trunk Rlwy Co. v. The City of Toronto https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do ) (Edit to clarify: This is termed a "work for the benefit of Canada" in many judgements, including "declared a work for the benefit of Canada" - https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14902/index.do pg 320 and found in many other references)

If the Feds, for whatever reason, don't intercede (an almost unbelievable scenario, the Feds are avid in protecting their turf), legal orgs will on behalf of the "Dominion" or the Crown.

 

[steveintoronto]

Addendum to previous post: Just searching for exact reference to the 'Toronto Viaduct Case' above, and tripped across a new reference that details the Parliament's supreme power over federally regulated Railways and Rights of Way.

A Short Treatise on Canadian Constitutional Law

...etc....

https://books.google.ca/books?id=pYc43S0cjFIC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=Grand+Trunk+Railway+Co.+v.+City+of+Toronto+parliament+of+canada+good&source=bl&ots=wIMad3Ycg6&sig=eMhe6XMVh3AenHWGbGqsNYHoYWk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjctayjjOHWAhVi4oMKHTUwBIoQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto parliament of canada good&f=false

That "massive shoe yet to drop" just got bigger...

Btw: Scroll back from the link provided, much more relevant detail supplied prior to rather than after what's displayed above. I'm still digesting it, and will more directly link/reference sections later.

Late Addendum: Curiously, Metrolinx chose to incorporate GO Rail under Federal Jurisdiction, not Provincial. This might be for reasons of interoperability on Class One railways (CN, and CP) which are federally regulated. By doing so, however, and Metrolinx now having ownership of the track RoW upon 'The Esplanade' corridor, the Feds retain complete regulatory jurisdiction of that corridor. I'm not fully aware of all the implications, save for one that's beyond doubt:
The OMB has absolutely no power over the corridor, neither does the Province in any manner or form save for what might have been acceded them in later Federal Acts.

Oct 11 Addendum to clarify:

GO Transit might not have incorporated under Federal jurisdiction as I earlier claimed, it was 'created' under its own provincial act, but federal regulatory jurisdiction still applies on certain aspects, and as SCC judgments from a century ago show (many listed above) unless the railway is legally abandoned under the Transport Act, it cannot be 'transfered' to provincial regulation.

It appears that GO Transit itself is provincially regulated operation, but since the trackage through the USRC was federally regulated, it remains so, even if ownership of it changes.

Just reviewing cases on it now, and note the ruling Act that CN quotes in this instance:
Letter Decision No. LET-R-178-2006
July 5, 2006
[...][CN states that to acquire the attributes of a federal railway company, such an undertaking must operate an international, interprovincial railway or railway line or have been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada under subsection 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.). According to CN, none of these apply to AMT. While CN acknowledges that AMT's equipment is operated by CN under operating agreements, this is not sufficient to make MRI the operator of a federal railway.
A railway will be deemed to be within the legislative authority of Parliament in the following ways if: ][...]
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/let-r-178-2006

CTA themselves state in a related decision:
Decision No. 273-R-2001
May 24, 2001
[...][The Constitution Act, 1867 and the CTA therefore provide for three ways in which a railway work or undertaking may be brought within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. First, a railway work or undertaking will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada if the work or undertaking connects, or crosses the borders of, a province (paragraph 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867). Second, even if a railway work operates only within the boundaries of a province, it will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada if the work is declared to be for the general advantage of Canada (paragraph 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867). Third, paragraph 88(2)(b) of the CTA makes a railway work or undertaking that is owned, controlled, leased or operated by a person who operates a railway within the legislative authority of Parliament, even if it operates only within the boundaries of a province, subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

• the railway work and undertaking connects, or crosses the borders of a province (paragraph 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867);
• a company operates a railway across international borders (paragraph 88(2)(b) of the CTA);
• the work is declared to be for the general Advantage of Canada (paragraph 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867);
• the railway is owned, controlled, leased or operated by a person who operates a railway within the legislative authority of Parliament (paragraph 88(2)(b) of the CTA); or
• the railway is an integral part of an existing federal undertaking.
• [...]

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/273-r-2001

The SCC has deemed/ruled in many instances referenced prior that the Esplanade Corridor (Viaduct) is "for the general advantage of Canada ".

 

[dowlingm]

Here’s an alternative possibility - the Feds will do absolutely nothing because this project is nonsense. With its chief cheerleader no longer in post I expect this to quietly moulder and then officially die at 5pm on a long weekend because THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THIS. Emptying the parks piggybank for the entire city and maybe 0.75bn on top of that plus the required ongoing cost of the ventilation and drainage sandwich is money we should be spending in the Portlands and on Queens Quay rather than trying to repair at massive expense the overdevelopment of central downtown with the only idea that Planning seems to have come up with.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here’s an alternative possibility - the Feds will do absolutely nothing because this project is nonsense. With its chief cheerleader no longer in post I expect this to quietly moulder and then officially die at 5pm on a long weekend because THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THIS. Emptying the parks piggybank for the entire city and maybe 0.75bn on top of that plus the required ongoing cost of the ventilation and drainage sandwich is money we should be spending in the Portlands and on Queens Quay rather than trying to repair at massive expense the overdevelopment of central downtown with the only idea that Planning seems to have come up with.

It is absurd, make no mistake. If Council doesn't have the where-with-all to pursue the legality of ownership, then why in hell were they biting this off in the first place?

I think Rail Deck Park can be done, just not by Toronto City Council. And you're absolutely right on the Portlands, another flight of fancy, but it at least has a basis in necessity: stopping the flooding. The severe pollution is another reason, but at least it's somewhat stable...until disturbed.

The City's budget cupboards are bare. The term "abjectly overextended" comes to mind.

There is a ray of hope on this though...and it's cruel to even suggest that, since I can't divulge it, but it's not from the City, but someone who may return to City Hall, perhaps even to run for Mayor. Although other than a triumphant return, I can't see why he/she would do it. God only knows how you'd clean-up City Hall...

But yes, the present Council doesn't just talk of fantasy. They live there...

 

[BMO]

Here’s an alternative possibility - the Feds will do absolutely nothing because this project is nonsense. With its chief cheerleader no longer in post I expect this to quietly moulder and then officially die at 5pm on a long weekend because THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THIS. Emptying the parks piggybank for the entire city and maybe 0.75bn on top of that plus the required ongoing cost of the ventilation and drainage sandwich is money we should be spending in the Portlands and on Queens Quay rather than trying to repair at massive expense the overdevelopment of central downtown with the only idea that Planning seems to have come up with.

I mean, it's a great idea. The rail corridor is a blight and a barrier in this area that isolates CityPlace. Ask any urban planner and they'll tell you that neighbourhood is going to end up being a slum unless we do something about it. So it's not completely a bad idea. It just feels like Jennifer Keesmaat woke up one day and decided this was going to be a project without even an ounce of a funding plan. Not to mention this wasn't even done like a municipal class EA identifying the needs and opportunities throughout the entire TOCore area. Politics gonna politic man....

 

[steveintoronto]

Ask any urban planner and they'll tell you that neighbourhood is going to end up being a slum unless we do something about it. So it's not completely a bad idea.

I'm resolved to the corridor being blocked from development. I'm very positive that is going to be blocked. Building a park, however, is a whole other matter.

It just feels like Jennifer Keesmaat woke up one day and decided this was going to be a project without even an ounce of a funding plan.

I wanted to defend her on this, thinking it was Tory's idea, but yikes, she sure became a cheerleader:

[Toronto chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat told the panel she thinks raising funds to build rail deck park downtown, where property values are among the highest in Canada and where neighbouring projects are generating big development charges for the city, will be the project’s “easiest part.”]

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...roposal-a-golden-opportunity-experts-say.html

I won't search any further on the degree of her enthusiasm for it. Btw, I think ascertaining *the right of regulation* will be the easiest part. And it will come, if need be, in the form of an official letter from federal solicitors, if not a minister. That's the easy part. The hard part is finding the mound of cash necessary, and the football field size space to store it on.

 

[pstogios]

I totally agree with the recent sentiments. Rail Deck Park would be an epic transformation for this area of the city. It could be amazing.

But nobody had done a serious analysis of the funding necessary to pull this off, yet Tory and Cressy keep talking as if this is a done deal. I don’t expect fiscal sanity from a NDPer like Cressy, who isn’t capable of finding any government largesse he would say is beyond our fiscal capacity, but I expected Tory to have more sense.

The fact that these guys are pretty much staking their political careers on this (at least Cressy is) pretty much tells you everything you need to know about this idea. It’s all about political grandstanding totally unfounded in sound fiscal planning.

 

[steveintoronto]

It’s all about political grandstanding totally unfounded in sound fiscal planning.

And to make matters worse, it actually invites scorn on what should be small 'c' conservative and balanced planning. The effort should have gone (and should still go) into working with higher levels of Gov't to not only make title clear on it, but to make sure that public domain is protected.

That's unsexy...and that, for today's e-politicians, is not good electability fodder. You've got to plan and plant the orchard before boasting about the harvest.

My supposition? The Feds grant the right ("air-rights" is a bit of a nebulous term, legally and realistically) for the City to build above "Esplanade Corridor" as it is legally defined by Act and Statute, but it's up to the Province and City to finance the building of the structure, and the sizable upkeep cost.

And that's where the 'deed' might have to be written by the relevant federal department and approved by Parliament, as it will be necessary to sell *leaseholds* on/under/over sections of the deck to finance the greater whole of the project. Note "leaseholds"...not "freeholds". Almost all of False Creek in Vancouver is done this way, for better or worse.

Leasehold: Method of owning property (usually a flat) for a fixed term but not the land on which it stands. Possession of the property will be subject to the payment of an annual ground rent. When the lease expires, ownership of the property reverts back to the freeholder. Nearly all flats in London are leasehold.

Freehold: Outright ownership of the property and land on which it stands. A freehold estate in land (as opposed to a leasehold) is where the owner of the land has no time limit to his period of ownership.

• Lease lengths vary and most common are 99, 125 (in the case of ex local authority) 500 and 999.
• Mortgage lenders like there to be at least 50 years left at the end of a mortgage term (i.e. 75 years in total).
• The lease includes enforcement covenants, rights of way and access, repairing and maintaining covenants, details of ground rent.
• The lease length may be extended by agreement with the Freeholder at a specified cost.
• A service charge is usual but is not essential; some blocks have a separate managing agent employed by the Freeholder.
• Share of Freehold is when the Freeholder divides up his responsibility and the leaseholders become directors of their leasehold company.

https://www.ludlowthompson.com/prop...-difference-between-freehold-and-leasehold-28

 

[Kitsune]

So that other company that claims to have the rights are now running a Commercial that bashes the city over the plans and then has "look at our proposal and support it" at the end.

 

[steveintoronto]

From the Union Station Shed string: Note that where GO doesn't own the air-rights above their tracks, the City does according to the docs linked:

Re: Union Train Shed Replacement & $600 million in GO up

^ adding to the above.

www.toronto.ca/union_stat.../intro.pdf

Components and ownership of the Station complex
The Station complex is composed of the following major elements:
• the station building (or Head House) at both ground and concourse levels;
• the moats along Front Street, turning south along both Bay and York Streets to the start of the teamways at the viaducts;
• the teamways running south from the moats along both Bay and York Streets;
• the trainshed, its platforms and tracks;
• the VIA concourse;
• the east GO concourse and planned west GO concourse; and
• the service areas directly beneath the arrival/departure hall currently used for storage, mechanical uses, parking and loading docks.

The City of Toronto owns all the lands and the building south of Front Street between York and Bay Streets north of the Canadian National Railway’s High Line, plus the York West Teamway. GO Transit owns the rail corridor roughly stretching between the Don River and Strachan Avenue, and the former CP Express site across Bay Street, including the Bay East Teamway. Between York and Bay Streets, GO Transit owns
a 27 foot high three-dimensional stratum or envelope through the City of Toronto’s property which houses the trainshed, tracks and platforms. The City of Toronto owns the building below and the air space above the GO envelope.

Several other entities have leasehold or other contractual rights to space in the Station and neighbouring properties enjoy rights of access through the block for pedestrian routes.

----

So, it appears GO owns the train shed, tracks and platform, but not the space above that, or the building (via waiting area) below.

 

[mdrejhon]

While this is not the main big rail deck park, this is the cross sections of the fully funded mini-rail-deck park connecting the new bus terminal to Union station and PATH, as a park over Bay Street.

(From CIBC raik deck park plans, 1acre)
It could be a small taster of the big one to come. As it is truly the first downtown rail deck park of any size in Toronto, to perhaps inspire the eventual bigger rail deck project.

 

[PMT]

City-initiated Official Plan Amendment Final Report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-108621.pdf

 

[M II A II R II K]

The DRL first phase should terminate at the new Cityplace GO station to further relieve Union from the west side when transferring to the subway system and to relieve Line 1.