^It all sounds like "Bribe" money or "Payola" to me. Is the city planning department really run like a 1930's Chicago crime syndicate?

"Yo! You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours... Or else you'll be sleepin' wit da fishes!"

Seriously, in order to get an increase in density all you have to do is pay off the planning committee? Then why go through the guise that there are height restrictions at all? Isn't the committee (with its pretense of high standards and vision for the future) in essence just saying that basically "We are people that can be bought off. Regardless of what the people in the community actually want." ?
 
Absolutely irresponsible and baseless accusations.

If you have any shred of evidence to back up your cowardly vague claim, spill it, or delete your own post.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Absolutely irresponsible and baseless accusations.

If you have any shred of evidence to back up your cowardly vague claim, spill it, or delete your own post.

42
Click to expand...

What?

I am going on the fact that, as posted before me, the committee reluctantly added the height increase, despite the locals' reluctance, because they were given extra money for community building. Was that not clear?

Besides... I was asking a question as well as stating my opinion... Not stating a FACT, so I don't need evidence or proof. Since when did this forum become a court of law?
 
Last edited:
Your use of "Bribe money" and "Payola" indicate that you believe that the planning department members are being paid off, and that's a ridiculous accusation.

There were no locals that opposed the increase. The only reluctance was on the part of committee members who believed that any increase beyond two floors was beyond minor, and as this was a request for a minor variance, the committee did not want to grant anything more than something minor.

The $350,000 payment towards public housing and improvements to Roundhouse Park is a device used by the City the reap some benefits for the public when developers are granted density and/or height increases. It is used all the time and is completely above board.

42
 
I think you are too close to the situation to see it as an objective observer.

To aliens from another planet, they would see this as:

A group of people who have set a limit, but with appropriate compensation they are willing to make a compromise. In my opinion that is a pay off.

I'm not saying the individuals are benefiting monetarily. That is the way your mind works. I was speaking to their ethics and belief in their morals as a group. If you have a limit and believe in it then stick to it. Money for the community should not sway this belief. It still means the rich developers get what they want because they are able to "pay off" the community.

Just sayiin'
 
Last edited:
^ Well its either the community pays more taxes or you build a public-private partnership.

You want to develop in our community or city? Fine. But you need to pay for something WE want if you want to get what you want.

Simple business.
 
What would be even more unscrupulous in my opinion is if they (The committee) have higher limits as allowable but purposely make the restriction lower, in order to coerce more money for the community. Knowing full-well the developers will cough it up in order to increase their project. This is tantamount to blackmail and deceitful behaviour. Not very forthright and upstanding.

And to intimate that this kind of unscrupulous behaviour happens in politics, is hardly a new idea that I just came up with. History is rife with scandals and pay offs.
 
Traynor:

Actually, if you want to look at the flip side of the coin, how about developers putting forth proposals that are significantly different from what the OP and/or ZBL allow, with the expectation that if the city isn't willing to compromise in their favour the OMB appeal is always in the works - and at the same time putting these projects in the sales phase even before the legal dust settles. How's that for "unscrupulous"? Are you telling me that in light of this kind of dynamic, the city shouldn't attempt to extract maximum benefits for the community?

And yes, there is also that little episode on St. Mary St. that you can look up in P&C.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I think we should respect all the views in this forum. Does any one know where they will add these floors?, is at at the base or top? what structural changes accounts for additional increase in height beside two additional floors on both the building?. Are they increasing the height of podium?.
 
Traynor said:
I'm not saying the individuals are benefiting monetarily. That is the way your mind works.'
Click to expand...

That was the obvious assumption behind your initial statement, which could not have been interpreted in any other way. If that is not what you meant, then you should not have said it!
 
From today...
20100814103.jpg


20100814104.jpg


20100814107.jpg


20100814108.jpg
 
With the additional height, Ice will be incredibly imposing from the lake.... probably taller than the traditional peak formed by FCP. This project will effectively re-define Toronto's skyline.
 
Ramako said:
With the additional height, Ice will be incredibly imposing from the lake.... probably taller than the traditional peak formed by FCP. This project will effectively re-define Toronto's skyline.
Click to expand...

Most likely in the future there will be taller to come for that area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top