News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Besides, the area once known as Scarborough's done okay on transit. They've got three subway stations, their own rapid transit system, etc.

While Kipling Station is 2.5km from Toronto's western border, Kennedy is over 13km from the eastern border. 3 subway stations for a population of over 600,000 is not equitable to the rest of the city. And the SRT is hardly a "rapid transit system" but a cramped train with 6 stops that routes through a mostly industrial non-residential path.
 
Last edited:
Scarborough's been gone since the end of the last Century. If not now, at what point can we cease referring to an area by its former names?

Scarborough is still the official name for that area, so no one is wrong by still referring to it as Scarborough. Prior to 1850, it was a part of York County. In 1850 it became a Township, In 1953, it became a lower tier component of Metro. In 1967 it became a Borough. In 1983 it became a City (although that status had no difference from its Borough designation). In 1998, it became a Community Council.

So even in an official capacity, it's still called Scarborough.

It would be more accurate to say that York & East York no longer exist (since 2003), as they were combined with Etobicoke & Toronto respectively (although the names are in there).


Besides, the area that once was called Scarborough comprises vastly different demographics and economics for just one name to capture them all.

Well yea...but we could say that about "Toronto", or "Ontario", or "Canada"...or "Earth".


Besides, the area once known as Scarborough's done okay on transit. They've got three subway stations, their own rapid transit system, etc.

All of the former Boroughs do ok with higher order transit, considering minimum densities and ridership levels that justify putting them there. And they also enjoy a level of surface transit service that similar areas of other cities would never have.
 
A debate about whether or not we should be using the name Scarborough? Really?

Size is not the only difference, and you know it. Scarborough was a city, with it's own city hall, bureaucracy, civil service, fire department, etc., etc. For one example, Weston has NEVER been a city. It was a small town that was amalgamated with the City of York in 1967.
Size looks like the only difference to me. Small towns have all those things.

I don't get the controversy. Scarborough exists as a geographical concept whether there's a municipality with that name or not. And the fact that SCC is the major node of the east end will only ensure that the name will stick for a long time.
 
Then Rob Ford ask Doug what he would do regarding the scandal with the TCH. (this scandal the SUN has apparently uncovered with TCH and Pat McConnell (she bought a condo at market rate in a mixed use condo). She has the biggest condo. But if she paid market rate should not matter. But the fact that Rob Ford asked Doug what he would do if he were mayor. i could not believe my hears. And if Ford is so on top of things why were they not on top on the TCH after they got rid of Valentine.

A whole lot of hooey from Sue-Ann Levy, or something to be concerned about?

Suite deal in Regent Park
BY SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
FIRST POSTED: SUNDAY, MARCH 25, 2012 12:00 AM EDT

TORONTO - It was late April of 2009 when NDP councillor Pam McConnell joined a cast of prominent politicians and social housing providers to kick off the second phase of the $1-B Regent Park revitalization.

Flanked by then-mayor David Miller, Daniels Corp. president Mitch Cohen, MPP George Smitherman and former Toronto Community Housing Corp. (TCHC) CEO Derek Ballantyne, the 30-year politician was all smiles as Canada’s largest landlord announced that the first market condo in the rebuilt section of Regent Park —293-unit One Cole St. -- would go on sale within a matter of weeks.

No doubt they had reason to be ecstatic. The 15-year transformation of the city’s oldest social housing project -- the 50-year-old highly isolated Regent Park neighbourhood -- into a mixed-use community with its own bank and grocery store, 3,000 units in spanking new upscale market condos and a target of 2,783 affordable housing units had reached its first major milestone.

It didn’t hurt that nearly $200-million in public money had already been pledged for the revitalization – which was to include a new aquatic centre, a park and arts centre.

McConnell popped up again at the April 2010 official opening of four affordable buildings for low-income Regent Park residents (two of them located outside of the neighbourhood) effusively declaring that she was the local councillor, the vice-chairman of the city’s affordable housing committee and a new resident of the revitalized community.

“These new homes contribute greatly to improving Toronto’s economic and social well-being,” she said.

What she didn’t suggest at the time is that the development would also greatly improve the economic well-being of those who bought into it.

Nor did she mention that she, or any of the other condo buyers, would not actually be rubbing shoulders with the poor.

In this new ‘mixed-use’ socialist Utopia, the upwardly mobile would be living in gleaming high-rises in the middle of the action while the poor would be in separate quarters, some located at least 1.5 km away from the Regent Park footprint.


Never at any time while lobbying for the project in council or in any other public forum did the 30-year councillor declare she might have a pecuniary interest in the development either.

On May 26, 2010, McConnell and her husband James, closed on Unit 808 in One Cole St – a 1,200-square-foot two-bedroom condo with a full wrap-around balcony facing southwest.

She paid $418,464 for the Queen Pam unit – one of the largest and arguably best situated in the building.


McConnell, who has repeatedly claimed she doesn’t drive because of vision problems, made sure she got one of the closest parking spots to the elevators too.

But she wasn’t the only person charged with overseeing this massive revitalization who would snatch up the first and in many cases, the best, units in the adjoining One Cole and 25 Cole twin condo buildings.

Documents obtained by the Toronto Sun reveal that three members of the board of the Dundas & Parliament Development Corp. (D&PDC) – the 50-50 joint venture between TCHC and Daniels created to manage Phase 1 of the revitalization – bought units as did Derek Ballantyne, the now departed CEO of TCHC.

Ballantyne and Gordon Chu, who left the TCHC under a cloud in 2010, purchased similar units – both facing north and both 550-sq.-ft with balconies – for just over $200,000.

Ballantyne’s partner, Toronto Star editorial writer Kerry Gillespie, is named on the deed as a joint tenant while Chu’s wife, Cynthia, is a joint tenant on his purchase.

Daniels president Cohen, a board member of D&PDC owns two prime units in 25 Cole, both with southwest exposure and balconies.

He purchased his units through Lewis Properties, a company on which he serves as president and his wife Janice Lewis, as vice-president.

Daniels v-p Niall Haggart, who sits on the board of Daniels Eastside Corp. which presided over the commercial interests in Regent Park, also picked up a prime southeast-facing unit in 25 Cole St. through his company, Me-Three Investments.

Daniels v-p Martin Blake, the point person on Regent Park and another member of the D&PDC board, rents out his 900-sq.-foot penthouse unit facing southwest in 25 Cole St. for $1,950 a month.

In a recent interview, Blake said he sees the “tremendous value that’s coming” with Regent Park.

“Obviously I’m excited about being a part of something like that,” he said.

He bristled when asked about the other purchases by Daniels officials, saying the names of those who buy are strictly confidential.

Not so.

A review of the MPAC assessment rolls not only confirms the purchasers but shows Daniels Northtowne Corp. and the D&PDC own another 14 units in the twin 25-One Cole buildings and the third market condo at 260 Sackville St. (called One Park West).

Licensed private investigator, Bert O’Mara, who produced the report on the purchases, said the public servants who purchased the units appeared on paper to have a “laissez-faire attitude” about what they’d bought as there was no attempt to cover their tracks.

Ballantyne did not respond to my repeated requests for an interview. Chu could not be tracked down at any of the addresses provided on his tax or Land Registry documents.

Haggart and Cohen referred me back to Blake, who sent an e-mail late last week indicating that the twin Cole buildings went to market in May of 2009, in the midst of the “worst economic meltdown” since the Great Depression.

He added that senior execs from Daniels “expressed confidence” in the revitalization by purchasing suites “at full market value.” A legal source, who did not want to be named, said city officials were given advice not to buy into the development – that any purchase was fraught with potential problems which could come back to haunt them.

Coun. Mike Del Grande said he’s concerned about any possible conflict of interest on the part of any councillor or TCHC officials.


“It certainly needs to be further investigated,” he said.

But McConnell – refusing to acknowledge the optics of her ongoing influential role advocating for the development -- was quite taken aback when asked whether she ever declared a conflict of interest at council while Regent Park was being discussed.

“I don’t have a conflict,” she said earlier this past week. “I don’t know what you’re talking about … this is very typical of you.”

She claimed she didn’t purchase in an affordable housing development – that she bought into a “housing condominium” like any other housing condominium.


McConnell also threatened to sue me for daring to ask about a potential conflict of interest.

A review of real estate sales information for the two buildings show more than 10% of the units flipped in the first year after the twin condo buildings were sold out and occupied.

In fact, Blake is proud to say all four buildings erected to date have sold out 100%.

Currently many of the condos in the development are going for resale at up to 20% higher than the original purchase price. Some have sold in the past few months above list.

Blake admitted that their new units are being sold at higher price points.

“There has been an increase in the value to the community from the work that has gone on Phase 1 and 2,“ he said. “People are looking at the park and aquatic centre and saying it is a great place to call home.”

Sue-ann.levy@sunmedia.ca

Tomorrow: The new Regent Park: The new Utopia for the poor or a haven for the upwardly mobile? Where exactly have all the poor people gone?

From what it sounds like: Pam McConnell bought a suite in the new Regent Park condos for $400,000 (market value?). Several other from the TCHC and Daniels also bought into the condos. Isn't the new Regent Park split into subsidized housing and market-value units anyways? Until Sue-Ann can prove that O'Connell paid way below market value and got preferential treatment from the developer- no scandal yet.

Sue-Ann angle- they bought into Regent Park knowing that the revitalization is going to make their units more valuable. Conspiracy!

Other angle- A Councillor simply bought a condo at Regent Park because she wanted to live there.
 
Other angle- A Councillor simply bought a condo at Regent Park because she wanted to live there.
The only way this could possibly be potentially improper would be if Daniel Corp. put aside one of its top units so that only Pam could buy it, as some sort of nudge, nudge, thanks for your support of the project.

IIRC, it's not uncommon for developers in Toronto to put aside some top units for favoured and often off-shore inventors who buy multiple units.
 
Last edited:
Beez:

Indeed. In fact, putting 400K of one's own money into a unit is probably the closest thing to putting words where one's mouth is re: revitalization.

jje:

Sue-Ann angle- they bought into Regent Park knowing that the revitalization is going to make their units more valuable. Conspiracy!

It's not like revitalization of Regent Park is a shady under the table deal - it's been discussed out in the open for years. Perhaps Sue Ann should pick up a place at Alexandra Park or Lawrence Heights - and be 1.5 km (!!) away from other RGI units? I don't have the faintest clue where that one came from, considering social housing buildings are practically right next door at One Cole.

AoD
 
Last edited:
What she didn’t suggest at the time is that the development would also greatly improve the economic well-being of those who bought into it.

Yes, because real estate as a good investment is a secret held only by the ancient Aztecs and the Illuminati.

Not that I would call buying condos in Regent Park either "upscale" or the best real estate investment in terms of re-sale potential.

Leave it to the SUN to invent a conflict of interest story and present it as a "scandal" on the front page. Meanwhile they ignore or defend actual potential conflicts of interest or scandals for their pet politicians. A law suit would look good on SAL.

Indeed. In fact, putting 400K of one's own money into a unit is probably the closest thing to putting words where one's mouth is re: revitalization.

Perhaps she was inspired by our mayor's "Walk a mile in someone's shoes" philosophy? ha ha
 
Last edited:
Beez:

Indeed. In fact, putting 400K of one's own money into a unit is probably the closest thing to putting words where one's mouth is re: revitalization.

Pam McConnell wants to live in her own ward? Blasphemy! She needs to take a page from the Ford's and live outside their wards.
 
And later Rob Ford is soliciting for the public to run as a councilor and states you can;t decide 3 months beforehand and then gives out his number. He then starts giving out requirements.....over 18 years old, a citizen, etc. I could not believe it,

Here is an article with some quotes from the Twinmayor(s) regarding what you were talking about.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1151706--mayor-rob-ford-seeks-slate-in-next-election#article

Some gems from the article...

“We have to get rid of these other 24 councillors.â€

There eight or nine councillors that won by only a few hundred votes, and those eight or nine councillors are left-wing councillors that are dictating the way we have transportation, the way we’re spending the money,â€

“You’re on our side or against us. You’re on the taxpayer’s side or against them. There’s no mushy middle. It’s left or right down there.â€

“You should have said you’re for streetcars, and guess what? We would have ended up withsubways.â€
 
Power's clearly gone over their heads. They'd probably set their offices on fire following a defeat in 2014 and before saner heads move in a month later.

It's also funny they're playing the same "for us or against us" card as per Bush or Toews but even the latter two aren't this pig headed to constantly ramble on and on about a make believe mandate.
 
It's unfortunate that Rob Ford has become the posterboy for Subways and the whole thing has become so political.

I can see how eglinton, east of Laird and to Birchmount can easily be justified for LRTs if the stops are seperate enough (not much except for Strip Plazas and industrial areas) but Sheppard Ave is becoming very 'urban' and dense, and yes there is more than enough ridership to support the line (has anyone ever taken it during rush hour?) especially by the time it's built (2020?)

A well.. chalk one up to political position instead of better planning.
 
Did anyone else catch this tweet from Ford's official Twitter account this morning?

Very busy day today - the weekly weigh in has been cancelled for today. #CutTheWaist #Toronto

What's that, two weigh ins canceled this month?

This guy can barely control his own PR stunt.
 
but Sheppard Ave is becoming very 'urban' and dense, and yes there is more than enough ridership to support the line (has anyone ever taken it during rush hour?) especially by the time it's built (2020?)

Well, no it doesn't have the ridership, nor is it projected to in 2020. But that really isn't the problem. It isn't a case of wanting or not wanting to extend the Sheppard line...there's no viable plan to build it.

The added problem is building feeder lines to Yonge that can't handle it before building a DRL. So if we want a full Sheppard line from Downsview to STC, then first we must build a DRL line.
 
if we want a full Sheppard line from Downsview to STC, then first we must build a DRL line.

And I'd be delighted if Ford was willing to sequence things this way. I'd be willing to put up with whatever harebrained funding scheme for Sheppard he could devise if we'd first get a properly-funded DRL out of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top