Mongo said:
Do you know how dictatorships operate? They basically make everything illegal, and then selectively enforce the laws. If you are a "good citizen" and don't make waves, the government will leave you alone (usually). But if you start to make trouble, they will come down on you like a ton of bricks and charge you with a wide range of "crimes" that are on the books, but which are usually not enforced.

I see much the same dynamic in the City's planning reports. There are a huge number of regulations that are on the books, that every development is supposed to follow. Many of them are arbitrary and subjective, it's up to the City planner to determine if the plan is being followed or not. Of course the developer can usually get away with most infringement by handing over a big pile-o-cash for "civic improvements" in the neighbourhood, in exchange for leniency on whatever regulations the City claims that they are breaking. In this case, I suspect that the developer's cash payment was not big enough for the planning department, so they are recommending rejection (which just means that it will be taken to the OMB, who will almost certainly find in favour of the developer).
Click to expand...

Automation Gallery said:
LOL:D... What, you think everything is 'perfectly legitimate' in the planning process, and no Monkey Business
Click to expand...

These assertions are absurd. Even if you don't like the results, Toronto's planning process is quite transparent.

Just what sort of 'under-the-table' shenanigans are you two implying exist? S. 37 benefits are quantified in the provincial Planning Act and are not just some arbitrary number decided on a project by project basis. Suggesting otherwise only discredits yourself.
 
ProjectEnd said:
These assertions are absurd. Even if you don't like the results, Toronto's planning process is quite transparent.

Just what sort of 'under-the-table' shenanigans are you two implying exist? S. 37 benefits are quantified in the provincial Planning Act and are not just some arbitrary number decided on a project by project basis. Suggesting otherwise only discredits yourself.
Click to expand...

Ahh come-on, I can think of a couple similar proposed developments that were rejected by city planning, and mysteriously were approved before heading to the OMB...also look at the RCMI fiasco, where parking spots were an issue until deals were struck....
Im not saying corruption..but like it or not, deals are made...
Construction in Toronto is a multi-billion-dollar a year industry, and anyone would be nuts to think that wheelin and dealin is not part of the game.
 
Last edited:
Mysteriously approved? Do you even understand what you are saying?

The whole point of the process is to reach an agreement between the city and the developer. The OMB provides arbitration within the planning policy should the two parties not reach an agreement. If anything, it's your favourite board that constantly oversteps outside of its jurisdiction and may, just may be wheeling and dealing under the table.

All the planners I know work impossible hours and do not drive Ferraris. Same goes with the councillors
 
Last edited:
I think neither the OMB or the city is getting "paid off". The city operates as some have said in a very open and transparent way. There would be scandals easily discouvered by the media and it would be all over the news if this were happening on a constant basis. The OMB isn't getting paid off either they are just quite permissive as this has become their philosophy in recent years, may have to do something with spurring the economy through rougher times? Im not sure.
 
Automation Gallery said:
LOL:D... What, you think everything is 'perfectly legitimate' in the planning process, and no Monkey Business
Click to expand...

Ignoring the ridiculous assertion that planning policy is simply whatever a planner thinks it to be, the logic of mongo's statement doesn't even make sense. How many dictatorships have a quasi-judicial body that can overrule them?
 
mckarisma said:
I think neither the OMB or the city is getting "paid off". The city operates as some have said in a very open and transparent way. There would be scandals easily discouvered by the media and it would be all over the news if this were happening on a constant basis. The OMB isn't getting paid off either they are just quite permissive as this has become their philosophy in recent years, may have to do something with spurring the economy through rougher times? Im not sure.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that this project will eventually get approved pretty much as is, with the main change being more money being "donated" to the local community? What I have been saying is that the City uses its power to approve or reject a given proposal, in order to squeeze as much money from the developer as they will tolerate without going to the OMB, said money to be spent on the local neighbourhood. At no point did I say that the City employees were corrupt or taking part of the money for themselves, but they ARE using their legal authority to extract as much money as possible from the developers for the community, using morally dubious techniques such as withholding approvals until the developer caves and agrees to additional donations beyond the required section 37 payments. And given the multitude of restrictive bylaws and requirements that any development must legally follow -- the regulations are so restrictive than most major developments will inevitably break them -- it is quite easy for the City planners to produce a list of violations sufficient to disallow the project, unless the developer agrees to pay additional money to the community in compensation for the City ignoring the violations.

As I said, classic dictatorship techniques: create a long list of regulations that most people would inevitably be forced to break as part of daily life, and then selectively enforce those regulations in order to get what they want (obedience to the government for a dictatorship, additional money for community improvements for the City).
 
Last edited:
I used to work for a development company and I remember a time we applied for approval to build a plaza on a great piece of land on a major roadway (no specifics). The city initially liked the proposal and also agreed with our request for a signalized access point – provided, of course, that we pay for everything even remotely related to this improvement. We were okay with this, but then the city demanded that we allow the adjacent plaza access over and through our proposed development to the adjacent plaza to provide them with better access. This would have doubled the traffic crossing our site, allow our neighbours to cannibalize our parking and added substantially to the size and cost of this improvement – but with no contribution from the adjacent plaza owners – who, as it turned out, was a very good friend of the then mayor. We objected to the proposed changes and swiftly found our project rejected for reasons that came out of the blue and had no basis in the zoning or OPA requirements (yes you can appeal to the OMB but the cost of lawyers, engineers and planners as well as the year long delay is greater than the cost of the “requested” chnges). Coincidentally, two of our other projects were suddenly stricken with “city hall flu” and were being refused as well. This of course caused (read “forced”) us to reconsider and adjust our plans to accommodate our neighbours and suddenly our projects proceeded quite smoothly.

The moral is, never underestimate the power of city hall to get what they want whether it be supported by zoning provisions or good planning principals or padding the pockets of those in control of said processes.

I believe in good sound planning principals, but far too often they are simply used as an “extraction” tool.
 
Mongo said:
they ARE using their legal authority to extract as much money as possible from the developers for the community, using morally dubious techniques such as withholding approvals until the developer caves and agrees to additional donations beyond the required section 37 payments.
Click to expand...

Again, confusion of facts and shady logic. Section 37 of the Planning Act does not establish a particular absolute or relative dollar amount that must be contributed, thus it is not possible to negotiate additional donations beyond the required section 37 payments. Furthermore, assuming that section 37 did stipulate precisely an absolute or relative dollar amount that must be contributed, any contribution demanded beyond this limit would be outside the law and therefore subject to litigation by the developer and thus would likely be contested in divisional court.
 
^^ Using sophistry again, I see. But you do not dispute the actual point I was making, that the City is using "aggressive negotiation", using the planning bylaws as a hammer, to extract as much money as possible from the developer, without the developer going to the OMB.
 
fouronesix said:
Again, confusion of facts and shady logic. Section 37 of the Planning Act does not establish a particular absolute or relative dollar amount that must be contributed, thus it is not possible to negotiate additional donations beyond the required section 37 payments. Furthermore, assuming that section 37 did stipulate precisely an absolute or relative dollar amount that must be contributed, any contribution demanded beyond this limit would be outside the law and therefore subject to litigation by the developer and thus would likely be contested in divisional court.
Click to expand...


If you believe this it is likely because you have never been involved with the process. The process in reality is very different than the perceived process. Contributions of all kinds are not "demanded", they are "suggested". And if you don't know what that means, you haven’t been at the table.
 
Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean that I'm arguing in a sophistical manner. If anything, your analogy of planning as a dictatorship is sophistical in that it fundamentally ignores the power relationships between actors in the planning process. For planning to be a dictatorship, planners would have to be final arbiters of development proposals. Planners are not decision makers - politicians, the OMB, and in rare instances divisional court are. Your persepective on the planning process also fundamentally ignores the relative power of developers who have both multiple avenues of influence as well as relatively deep resources.
 
fouronesix said:
Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean that I'm arguing in a sophistical manner. If anything, your analogy of planning as a dictatorship is sophistical in that it fundamentally ignores the power relationships between actors in the planning process. For planning to be a dictatorship, planners would have to be final arbiters of development proposals. Planners are not decision makers - politicians, the OMB, and in rare instances divisional court are. Your persepective on the planning process also fundamentally ignores the relative power of developers who have both multiple avenues of influence as well as relatively deep resources.
Click to expand...


I’m not contending that planning is a dictatorship; I’m arguing that it is often used as a tool, perhaps by other dictatorships. Yes, you can say no, but in reality the cost of refusing a “suggestion” – whether through litigation or the OMB - is very high and they know this.

Conversely, the benefits of complying can be very gratifying – often finding ways to help circumvent other “issues” that were problematic.

How did they build Skydome downtown without a parking lot? They found dozens and dozens of parking lots in the area that provided the parking required by “law”. Incidentally, those same parking lots are now home to many of our favourite condo towers. There’s always a convenient way to interpret “requirements” – it just depends on the required outcome.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top