[ProjectEnd]

Oh I’m sure that Kallan is no fool. Yes, he could have asked anyone to design a hotel, so why didn’t he? Of the thousands of architects in New York and Toronto, why Maragna? Remember, we’re talking about a no-name architect who by his own admission hasn’t come within a 100 miles of a hotel job since the mid 1970s.

I understand your concern regarding the Maragna's sourcing but I still have to ask, is the final product any less compelling because of his inexperience?

 

[Blovertis]

The quality of the building is not the point. It looks pretty good to me, but even if it were a masterpiece, evidence of kickbacks should stop it in its tracks.

 

[Tewder]

True, and how can we trust the quality of the ultimate outcome or the integrity of the renderings if the whole process is *possibly* tainted to start with. In other words dangling a sexy tower in front of urbanites is a little too easy a trick isn't it?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually, most of the "grand" urban spaces and projects in other cities we often wax-poetic about on UT are often implemented through sheer force of personality and rates really poorly on the process and fairness front - that's not to say it's right, but it's reality. Just something to keep in mind.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

The naivete of some of the posters here is stunning: “Nope, not a whiff of corruption here, folks. Just move on, shut up and let these good folks build us a skyscraper.†Having witnessed the MFP scandal a few years ago, don’t you have any idea how this city works?

So, because we don't think there is a scandal here we are naive? That sentence, by implication means there is definitely a scandal and some of us just don't see it! I prefer to say that I do not think there is a scandal at all.....just because I (and some others) disagree with you means I am naive....I could, in the end, be wrong but so could those that think there is a scandal, no?

I’m not saying it proves anyone is guilty of wrongdoing, but at the very least, the Star articles raise some valid questions:

• Does anyone believe that Rocco Maragna would have had a snowball’s chance of winning this commission if he wasn’t sitting on the CNE board? Did he win it because of his brilliance, his personality or for some other reason?

• 
  
  No, he probably wouldn't have landed this gig if he was not on the board....but that is why a lot of proffessional people join boards....partly to advance the cause of the board and partly to advance their own careers. So he is on the board, meets the people building the hotel....perhaps they are impressed by "his brilliance, his personality or for some other reason" and they say "hey, we don't have a local architect, lets talk".
  
  That, to me, is not scandalous.
  
  
  
  

  [*]Would Maragna be sitting on the CNE Board, if he wasn’t Joe Pantalone’s friend?

  
  Are all of the other board members friends of Panatalone? If the answer is no, then the answer to your question is maybe. If the answer is yes then the answer to your question is no and that is where the scandal probably is....but I don't know.
  
  

  [*]Doesn’t anybody here have a problem with Pantalone refusing to release the details of the lease?

Again, what is normal practice? Do we know the payments being made on the other leased properties at the CNE? (presumably all the other private businesses there......Liberty Grand, BMO Field/TFC, those jousting knights, etc.) pay rent....is it normal practice that we know the details...if so, we should probably know them in this case....if not then......

 

[ProjectEnd]

Good to see a trusty, city-bound fellow like Moron-Wong spearheading this effort...

The Star

The Globe

As an aside, the losing developer Fred Braida is responsible for those faceless towers on Chestnut, behind City Hall. (Link). Personally, I'd like to see his comparably 'low rise,' Zeidler-infused proposal. Perhaps as part of this witch-hunt 'investigation,' they might release some of the renders?

 

[Irishmonk]

Regardless of the merits of the "winning" design the optics on this deal are brutal and need to be addressed in a public manner. If the bidding process is shown to have been above board then the project can proceed without the tint of scandal. Frankly, I'm surprised and a little bit disappointed that Miller doesn't seem to get this.

 

[Torontovibe]

I still say, if this is the way business is done at City Hall, not only does it look bad but it's just wrong. Laws need to be changed, there is just too much of a possibility of abuse.

 

[TOareaFan]

I still say, if this is the way business is done at City Hall, not only does it look bad but it's just wrong. Laws need to be changed, there is just too much of a possibility of abuse.

Not sure what kind of law you would be looking for? Care to explain?

Would it be "If you are sitting on a board of a city agency, you are forever forbidden from accepting a contract, or employment, with any company who, in the future, does business with the city or the city agency for which you served on the board"?

Such a law would be, both, very hard to enforce and would likely discourage any future board membership from anyone of any quality or ambition (IMO).

 

[Tewder]

Why, isn't Mayor Mccallion in Mississauga sort of going through something similar? Transparancy is extremely important when it comes to city projects.

 

[TOareaFan]

Why, isn't Mayor Mccallion in Mississauga sort of going through something similar? Transparancy is extremely important when it comes to city projects.

I think the two are totally different situations.

In one, an elected official appears (I say appears 'cause it is still under review) to have a) sat in on meetings regarding a development proposal that her son was going to make money on and then b) influenced the doctoring of minutes to make it seem like nothing was done wrong.

In the other, a board member (volunteer and appointed) met someone during the course of their board work that went on to hire them and, as soon as that happened, declared a conflict of interest.

I view them as different....substantially so.

 

[Torontovibe]

How about a law or regulation that does not allow people on a board of directors to profit from doing business with anything involving the board, while sitting on the board, and for 5 years afterward. Not only that but how are these people chosen to be on the CNE board? Should politicians be allowed to appoint their friends? It looks like that is what happened in this case. What I see here is pure and simple nepotism and a guy profiting from his position on the board of a publicly own entity. If you guys think it's fine for a member of the CNE board to be chosen to design the hotel, then that's your business but I don't agree with that at all. If that's the way business is done in Toronto, it explains why there are so many times when I think WTF is wrong with this town.

 

[Torontovibe]

Not sure what kind of law you would be looking for? Care to explain?

Would it be "If you are sitting on a board of a city agency, you are forever forbidden from accepting a contract, or employment, with any company who, in the future, does business with the city or the city agency for which you served on the board"?

Such a law would be, both, very hard to enforce and would likely discourage any future board membership from anyone of any quality or ambition (IMO).

So what are you saying here, people only join these boards to find ways to profit from them? That in itself is wrong. People have been using your excuse forever and I don't think it holds up. Isn't that the same excuse politicians use to give themselves raises? lol Even with restrictions, they would still find plenty of qualified people eager, to do the job.

If people are looking to make big $$$, it shouldn't be from profiting by sitting on a public board. It's just a situation waiting to be abused, as I'm sure it is. I don't know, it may be quite legal and all but I still say it's not ethical. You should not join a public board looking to profit from it or land a new job. I guess we have different standards of ethics here.

 

[TOareaFan]

So what are you saying here, people only join these boards to find ways to profit from them?

Not even close to what I meant....nor, I think, what I said.

People tend to join boards where they have some expertise and opportunities do arise from that.

Your proposed 5 year forbidance on making money from anything connected to your board work would make any practising professional seriously re-consider stepping forward to sit on these boards.

That in itself is wrong. People have been using your excuse forever and I don't think it holds up. Isn't that the same excuse politicians use to give themselves raises? lol

Not an excuse that I have heard but I am someone who thinks, in general, that we underpay politicians (I think we have too many of them but those we have are underpaid)....on a daily basis I meet really bright people who I often think would be great for us if they were in public service....then I realize that the pay cut would be too steep for them to take.

Even with restrictions, they would still find plenty of qualified people eager, to do the job.

If that is so, roll out the restrictions......I just don't think it is so!

If people are looking to make big $$$, it shouldn't be from profiting by sitting on a public board. It's just a situation waiting to be abused, as I'm sure it is. I don't know, it may be quite legal and all but I still say it's not ethical. You should not join a public board looking to profit from it or land a new job. I guess we have different standards of ethics here.

Again, I did not say (nor mean to imply) that he sat on the board for that purpose but situations do arise. He was offered a job, he took it and he declared a conflict of interest. How is that unethical?

In the case of the EX (with heritage buildings to maintain and a reinvigoration plan to implement) I think it is very necessary that professions such as architect are represented on the board.........I firmly believe your proposed restrictions would make it difficult for an architect to step forward and be on the board.

 

[maestro]

think it is very necessary that professions such as architect are represented on the board

I don't see the necessity of having architects on the board. Most that I know are rather provincial and belligerent towards other people's work. It not as if the city doesn't employ planners and others to develop and implement a cohesive revitalization plan.