- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Here, enjoy a freshly-squeezed ORNGE
Hahaha, well if that is the case in the Toronto planning/approval process.... Cheers to the OMB for getting the leftover change
valkoholic
Active Member
Sooooo, by putting all of the power in the hands of a single city councillor corruption would go down?? Honestly, stop trashing the OMB unless you have a better solution.
Peepers
Banned
While I would not be surprised to learn about corruption in the OMB process - look at all the corruption under McGuinty, e.g., Ornge, E-Health, Greed Energy (all "fathered" by Slitherman) lets not forget that the municipal approval process is hardly pure either.
A former downtown NDP councilor, who I will not name (he is infamous for spending $12,000 in taxpayer money to throw himself a going away party) seemed to be in the back-pocket of developers when he was in office.
So what is he doing today?
He opened up a "consulting" business advising developers on how to get their projects through the approval process.
I do not understand exactly how the approval process works but it has been my observation that the individual local councilor wields a great deal of influence and power when it comes to approving what gets built. There seems to be way too much power in one persons hand for my liking.
A former downtown NDP councilor, who I will not name (he is infamous for spending $12,000 in taxpayer money to throw himself a going away party) seemed to be in the back-pocket of developers when he was in office.
So what is he doing today?
He opened up a "consulting" business advising developers on how to get their projects through the approval process.
I do not understand exactly how the approval process works but it has been my observation that the individual local councilor wields a great deal of influence and power when it comes to approving what gets built. There seems to be way too much power in one persons hand for my liking.
Last edited:
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Diamondcorp has revised the proposal and resubmitted. I will look at it tomorrow and you let you all know.
The site is too small to support a tower, so I'm not sure what they'll propose.
The site is too small to support a tower, so I'm not sure what they'll propose.
ThomasJ
Active Member
those of you who believe that the revised proposal will not simply be a slightly smaller tower are kidding yourselves....but let us know when you see it, Roy G.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Of course it will be a tower. I expect to see the same proposal with an added shurb here and there.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
By ensuring it remains, no?
How is this evidence of 'corruption' or some like-skullduggery? Are you implying that witness testimony should be completely pro-bono? Or that witnesses should not be called at all? Your notion seems to suggest a misunderstanding of how civil litigation works.
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
I can't speak for him of course but my impression was that he was referring to the inherent conflict of interest in the developer paying experts to give their opinion on the developer's project. You're not likely to be impartial, as you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. There are plenty of other experts that would take that cheque to say what is desired.
(I personally don't know that much about the process).
(I personally don't know that much about the process).
ProjectEnd
Superstar
It's true that there would be a conflict of interest if the expert in question were paid to present a preconceived conclusion (which is what I assume gristle was implying), but that's an incorrect take on the mechanics of how an OMB hearing works. 'Experts' (generally firms, not individuals) are paid to conduct studies (traffic studies, arborist reports, waste and sewage studies, etc.), the results of which (if positive) are used to support the development in question in court. The developer therefore isn't paying the expert for their personal opinion but for their (or their firm's) professional assessment of the project. This is no different than a lawyer paying a photo expert, audio engineer or private investigator to conduct a study of a piece of evidence and report on their findings in a civil or criminal trial.
gristle
Senior Member
Let me answer your question with a question: did you see a direct statement that I was equating paid witnesses with corruption? If not, you can relax and assume correctly that I was making a statement. Yes, developers will hire "experts" who will speak on what amounts to subjective qualities of a proposal, and by virtue of their assumed expertise, attempt to lend credibility to a building project. This is usually done as a means to undermining city planning documents.
If anything, your confusion with the OMB being like civil court lies at the heart of the problem with the OMB making development decisions. People are not being sworn in to tell the truth as evidence, but paid and sworn in to say something like "as a designer, I think the density of this building is fine and that the city guidelines diminish its aesthetic qualities."
valkoholic
Active Member
All parties to the hearing are allowed to bring forward expert witnesses. The City always has them on hand (they employ many qualified planners and engineers). If two witnesses state opposite views, the member decides which one has more credibility. It's basically the same as court.
It's pretty common for developers to get advice that their proposals either can't be supported technically or the case for supporting them is weak. These conversations happen prior to an application being submitted and help reduce risk of losing at the OMB. Applications are frequently changed prior to submission based on advice from the developers consultants.
And City planners and engineers are influenced in their review of applications based on the political winds at the time. So to say the developers witnesses are biased is, well, biased.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
So the "revised" application is pretty much the same as the original application. They chopped 3 floors off the tower, leaving it at 35 stories. Unfortunately for them, they are still at an unacceptable 21X allowable density. As per the Tall Building Downtown Guidelines, the site is too small for a tower. The traffic study for this project seems like a steaming pile of bs. Somehow a 35 story tower on this busy intersection will only add 10-15 cars/hour during peak periods.
In the end, either they will acquire the property South, or this one is going to the OMB.
I should also mention, that for some reason, the tiny stretch of Wellesley from Homeweood to Sherbourne had its designation changed to a "High Street", appropriate for towers. This is the only East/West street in Toronto that had its designation upgraded, well many others had their designations downgraded. We are supposed to believe that this change was independent of the fact that there is a development application in for 159 Wellesley. While Sherbourne, from Wellesley to Bloor is seen as a high street, City Staff confirmed that South down Sherbourne, we'll never see towers.
In the end, either they will acquire the property South, or this one is going to the OMB.
I should also mention, that for some reason, the tiny stretch of Wellesley from Homeweood to Sherbourne had its designation changed to a "High Street", appropriate for towers. This is the only East/West street in Toronto that had its designation upgraded, well many others had their designations downgraded. We are supposed to believe that this change was independent of the fact that there is a development application in for 159 Wellesley. While Sherbourne, from Wellesley to Bloor is seen as a high street, City Staff confirmed that South down Sherbourne, we'll never see towers.
Last edited:
whatever
Senior Member
I wonder why it only applies from Sherbourne-Homewood. I could see the Petro-Canada at Jarvis/Wellesley going high-rise eventually, and I also wouldn't be surprised if those old rentals (Coral Gables?) got redeveloped sooner or later
ProjectEnd
Superstar
There's no confusion as I never equated the OMB with a civil court (it's an adjudicative tribunal as we both know), but instead stated that the way it operates is not dissimilar from the way a normal civil trial would. It seems it's all semantics though, as your definition of 'the truth as evidence' is basically what I would argue is 'the truth according to my (or our firm's) findings.'
A 'designer' (it would more likely be a lawyer, planner or engineer, but hey...) would not therefore testify that 'they' (as an individual) 'thought' the density / design / whatever was 'fine,' but that 'our firm has conducted a study [which adheres to the codes and statues which the province or city has agreed will govern such studies] and we've found that the proposed [building] is 'fine' and does not quantitatively diminish the [whatever].
Moreover, what makes the codes and zoning by-laws (some of which were written over fifty years ago) etc. upon which you base your consistent anti-OMB bent so permanent and inelastic that they can never be challenged and/or rewritten? The ossified system for which you seem to argue fails to accurately capture where the city is at a certain point in time and certainly does not project where it's going; a situation which often leads to the sorts of disputes we see going to the OMB.
Why, for that matter, is such a straightjacketed view of planning and development a good thing? Would it not be better to write into policy recommendations which emphasize design excellence, heritage preservation and innovation as opposed to clumsily attempting to fix the exterior dimensions of future structures? I think that that sort of coding is representative of the difference between planning by administration (of which Toronto is too-often guilty) and planning by vision (which we should be moving towards).
valkoholic also addresses some of the other issues regarding changing applications pre-hearing to better a developer's chance of a positive outcome etc. quite nicely.