DtTO said:
Supposedly, the school was paid compensation for 4S's shadow. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain councillor was paid too. She opposed this building specifically due to the shadow, and now it's all fine and dandy.
Click to expand...


oh zing!
 
DtTO said:
Supposedly, the school was paid compensation for 4S's shadow. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain councillor was paid too. She opposed this building specifically due to the shadow, and now it's all fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

Ahha interesting.

innsertnamehere said:
yes, they will be adding structure all around it and redoing the facade, but the building will remain.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing the eastern portion of the site will be demolished and replaced with a foundation, while the actual Holts on the western half remains open? I'm pretty excited to see the improvements to this and how it's going to be implemented around the existing store.
 
DtTO said:
Supposedly, the school was paid compensation for 4S's shadow. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain councillor was paid too. She opposed this building specifically due to the shadow, and now it's all fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

For what its worth, 4S was in the pipeline long before KWT came along. That development or s37 benefits had nothing to do with her.
 
DtTO said:
Supposedly, the school was paid compensation for 4S's shadow. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain councillor was paid too. She opposed this building specifically due to the shadow, and now it's all fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

Making accusations of corruption towards a public official regarding a development application is a pretty bold accusation. In what was a very public and well documented planning process with a number of very reputable companies that have a long-term stake in the city of toronto (i.e. Not the types that would toss away reputations & future opportunities to do business in the city to end up in criminal court) I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to make such an accusation or somehow be able to bring new evidence to the table when the entire process was very open, transparent and public.

DtTO - Who are you even talking about? Do you even know anything at all about the 4S development or the history of the application & OMB case? The local councillor Kyle Rae ( a "he" BTW - you've suggested a "she" was opposed to the building due to the shadow ) was vocally supportive of the application from day one - even to the point he practically ridiculed the opponents to the development with his public comments.

I don't mean to be an ass, But since you are making rather bold public accusations towards Menkes, Lifetime Homes, Four Seasons and a "she" public official of engaging in corruption, perhaps you could use a short history lesson. First of all Kyle Rae was the councillor when Bay-Yorkville Development Ltd submitted their application in July 2005. Subsequently an open house was held and Councilor Rae proposed establishing a working group consisting of various reps in the Yorkville community with the applicant & city staff (all a very public process). The local business & condo residents generally supported the application, while SYHA, the ABC Residents Assocaition & parents' council from Jesse Ketchum were not supportive. Again, all public info from the minutes of the meetings. The TDSB did not oppose the application initially, but later decided shadowing was a concern (much of the concern was alleviated through a $2 million sec 37 agreement to rebuild a playground outside shadow area). Following the working group process, City Planning staff recommended approval of an amended application to city council - with local councilor Rae as well as the Mayor (Miller) and most of council in support, council enacted two by-laws approving the development in April 2006.

Following Council approval a number of the remaining opponents (SAVE Yorkville Heritage Assoc & ABC Residents Assoc & Jesse Ketchum Parents' Council) filed appeals to the OMB. Two other local residents associations chose not to appeal the decision. Prior to the second OMB pre-hearing the ABC & parents' council settled with the city & developer involving a height increase to the taller tower and reduction in size of the shorter tower. The SYHA continued in opposition, but the OMB dismissed the appeals (partially due to SYHA's lack of providing any expert planning evidence to make their case) & the OMB authorized the settlement between the city, the developer & other appellants....

I don't post often at UT anymore, but nothing bothers me more then completely false accusations made against mystery targets (who is the all important "she" that opposed this specifically due to the shadow?) based on either, at best a misinformed opinion or at worst, deliberately misleading UT readers with false information in an attempt to scapegoat someone or make a completely false point.
 
Last edited:
Yeah DtTO, I have to say that your accusation is beyond petty, ridiculously stupid, and totally cowardly. Take the high road next time: be specific about your accusation, and publish names, including your own.

42
 
DtTO: Despite the veil of e-anonymity, a less carefully worded version of that statement could have qualified as libel. People read these posts, and even with your nondescript screen name, you could/should be squatted like a fly for making such outlandish claims.
 
someMidTowner said:
DtTO: Despite the veil of e-anonymity, a less carefully worded version of that statement could have qualified as libel. People read these posts, and even with your nondescript screen name, you could/should be squatted like a fly for making such outlandish claims.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any *claim* contained in DtTO's post. All I saw was an expression of an *opinion* "I wouldn't be surprised if....".

If DtTO had actually claimed that "Councillor "X" received a kick-back from Company "B" that could be considered libelous (if it were not true) but everything else is just an expression of opinion.

Why do some people on this forum feel the need to rush to the defense of a politician against whom suspicions have been raised? This is the nature of politics. It is natural for voters to question the motives of their elected officials. Any politician who cannot handle such level of scrutiny needs to remember Harry Truman's famous words "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"
 
We prefer to deal with information, not insinuations. If you want the latter, try the National Inquirer. Besides, just because it maybe an opinion doesn't meant that it is acceptable. The standards of the forum duffer from the standards of the law - to suggest otherwise is conflating the two realms.

AoD
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to see how everyone assumed that I was making an accusation when I clearly said that I "wouldn't be surprised if..." not "I know for a fact that..." For those reasons, I didn't specifically mention any names either. This was not meant to be an accusation.

The tidbit about Jesse Ketchum PS getting paid for the shadowing caused by 4S wasn't something I made up either. I read it in that last link posted in this thread. Someone in the comments section on blogto mentioned it, and that's why I prefaced it with "apparently..."

greenleaf said:
For what its worth, 4S was in the pipeline long before KWT came along. That development or s37 benefits had nothing to do with her.
Click to expand...

The two statements were unrelated. The first involves 4S, while the second involves 50 Bloor. As I already stated though, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Everyone needs to tone it down a notch and stop misinterpreting what I wrote. Take it at face value. Oh, and by the way, I'm not exactly familiar with how companies interact with councillors, but I was under the impression that "gifts" are not considered bribes, since city officials regularly give "gifts" to other officials to sway their decisions somewhat. A good example of this is the Olympics committee.

Peepers said:
I didn't see any *claim* contained in DtTO's post. All I saw was an expression of an *opinion* "I wouldn't be surprised if....".

If DtTO had actually claimed that "Councillor "X" received a kick-back from Company "B" that could be considered libelous (if it were not true) but everything else is just an expression of opinion.

Why do some people on this forum feel the need to rush to the defense of a politician against whom suspicions have been raised? This is the nature of politics. It is natural for voters to question the motives of their elected officials. Any politician who cannot handle such level of scrutiny needs to remember Harry Truman's famous words "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"
Click to expand...

For a second there, I thought everybody would agree that I needed to be "squatted like a fly." Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Though it would have been better if DtTO had been a bit more specific I'll have to agree with Peepers. Politicians are politicians for a reason, and (especially the ones in this city) have a bad track record. Though this doesn't mean you can throw out blatant accusations, it would be better to let DtTO to be more specific. He was stating a comment or an opinion. Such a Councillor isn't going to be hurt by one comment on a forum that she may not have even heard of. Amazing how people can jump against another citizen to hold the backs of those that we then complain about come decision time.
 
Critique:

UT ain't Fox News - credibility matters. Besides, equating a position that wasn't supported by any evidence and elevating it to the level of actual positions taken by an elected representative cheapens the political discourse, and it is certainly not something the forum is compelled to entertain.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top