Since you keep missing the obvious, allow me to debunk each of your fatuous assertions point by point.
Toronto Hydro offered to accommodate them, now it turns out they can't.
Wrong. According to TRHA, TH didn't merely offer to "accommodate" them:
prima facie, assurances were made that were far more substantive.
The relevent section from the TRHA webpage is this:
Due to the heritage and cultural significance of the site, meetings were held with the TRHA, the City of Toronto and Toronto Hydro to ensure that the site would not be adversely affected by the project.* Fully aware of the position and intent of the City of Toronto and the TRHA, Toronto Hydro stated that the transformer station would be an unmanned, underground station with the Machine Shop made available to the City of Toronto for museum purposes: indeed, Toronto Hydro maintained that the station would be built below grade until early 2011.
Clearly then, in the view of TRHA, assurances were given for an "unmanned, underground station" with no above ground part.
That's not what's happening, now is it?
Toronto Hydro's mandate is to provide infrastructure, not museums. They had nine other proposed sites shot down and this is what they're left with.
Irrelevant on both counts. The point being made is that, according to TRHA, assurances were given that (they feel) were misleading and potentially given in bad faith.
This isn't bad faith negotiating because it was never negotiating in the first place.
Oh really?
Prima facie they were making representations about the subject-matter of a potential long-term lease (i.e. the space to be made available) with parties who at that time either had an interest in or were virtually certain to be their future tenant.
A requirement for good faith would appear to me to be beyond dispute.
the museum people have never had a claim on it.
Irrelevant -- no one is contesting the title to the land or the existence of a formal lease. But what's fascinating is how you keep willingly overlooking both the conduct and the assurances alleged to have been made by the other party.
Or are you living in some kind of a fantasy world where really wanting something entails some sort of moral or legal desert?
Awwwww is wittle baby getting squawky? He sure is! And he sure seems like he's too caught up in his own "arts/cultural groups are thankless, whiny, unsatisfiable pinkos" meme to pay attention to what's really being discussed.
And you seem to be confusing my differing degrees of expectation for your differing categories of expectation.
Yawn. Y'know, equivocation is the
weakest refuge for those in the wrong. But by all means, go knock yourself out.