[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Where do you draw your 'closed door' line in the sand?

First off - simply meeting and discussing ideas is not the same as making backroom deals. I agree with you that Mr. Campbell's answers were largely professional and well reasoned, but the following quote concerns me:

Again - having discussions with developers is not doing deals behind closed doors. It's the responsibility of WT to have these discussions and if something viable becomes possible, you bring the discussion to the other stakeholders and put the actual deal together in an open, inclusive manner. That they have been spurning developers while at the same time saying they have no means to get things done means that they have been at least someone disingenuous in their responsibilities to the stakeholders. It's not unlike the Fords rejecting the Olympic bid without first gaining consensus from council, which also should not have happened the way it did.

IMHO, if Ford wanted to talk with Westfield(sp?), he should have made it public that he was having talks with a developer. He had a architect draw up plans, changed the mandate of a city corporation, and changed the way the City and Mayor deal with the tripartite organization that was put in charge of the Port Lands. If that isn't 'behind closed doors', what is it? John Campbell should NEVER have been surprised by ANY of this, if it wasn't 'behind closed doors'.

And, as for your casting aspersions on WT -- how in hell do they get reputable developers for East Bayfront and Parliament Quay? Obviously, by talking to them. But talking to them in an OPEN and RESPONSIBLE manner.

Marko, you're killing me trying to defend this end-around by the Fords...

 

[Marko]

And, as for your casting aspersions on WT -- how in hell do they get reputable developers for East Bayfront and Parliament Quay? Obviously, by talking to them. But talking to them in an OPEN and RESPONSIBLE manner.

That's just it - he admitted that they are refusing to talk to specific developers. They coudl and should be talking to Westfield in the open manner you're suggesting, but are spurning them instead. Why?

Marko, you're killing me trying to defend this end-around by the Fords...

I agree it's an end-around, I never said it wasn't. I have said that I am more concerned with the end result than the political particulars since local politicians come and go and they're by and large less than inspiring regardless of what your leanings are. If the Fords can produce results with or without WT then I can live with them stepping on some toes or getting people's noses out of joint. All mayors do it to varying extents.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Waterfront Toronto has very strict policies on where and when they can meet with developers. They've met with and made deals with several developers in the East Bayfront and West Don Lands neighbourhood, but it would verge on unethical to meet with developers regarding the Port Lands and Lower Don Lands until the EA is approved by the province, the business plan is adopted by the board, etc.

The process is important to avoid allegations that private developers are influencing decisions regarding the public realm.

 

[jje1000]

I agree it's an end-around, I never said it wasn't. I have said that I am more concerned with the end result than the political particulars since local politicians come and go and they're by and large less than inspiring regardless of what your leanings are. If the Fords can produce results with or without WT then I can live with them stepping on some toes or getting people's noses out of joint. All mayors do it to varying extents.

I am more concerned about the 'result' they are trying to bring about than their actual process.

 

[Tulse]

I am more concerned about the 'result' they are trying to bring about than their actual process.

But the quality of the results are often correlated with the process in politics. A secret, crony-fied approach rarely produces results good for the general populace.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

That's just it - he admitted that they are refusing to talk to specific developers. They could and should be talking to Westfield in the open manner you're suggesting, but are spurning them instead. Why?

That's NOT what he said! He said he doesn't talk to developers who cold call him, he talks to them WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED RULES. Now, one of the things he's said is that they're rolling things out one project at a time, in order to have the cash to improve the next piece to be done. That process might not be your (or Ford's) process, but it's not that he's not talking to developers -- he's talking to them within the context of WT's plan. If Westfield comes to WT and says, we want to buy the Port Lands now, no questions asked, $200M, WT would say -- I can't sell that yet, I don't have a berm in place to keep it from flooding and that's not going to happen until I have the cash in hand from selling the condos after the Pan Ams are over. Call me around 2017. THAT'S NOT SPURNING -- that's FOLLOWING HIS PLAN.

Did Westfield submit a proposal for the East Bayfront RFP? That would have been their opportunity to talk extensively with WT (even if they really had their eyes on LDL or the Port Lands.) I doubt it, because what they want to do is build a mall, not residential/commercial mixed use communities.

 

[EnviroTO]

First off - simply meeting and discussing ideas is not the same as making backroom deals. I agree with you that Mr. Campbell's answers were largely professional and well reasoned, but the following quote concerns me:

In the Globe Story, Mr. Campbell said that he often turns away such advances from international developers because, “We cannot do deals behind closed doors.†The story also pegged infrastructure costs for the Ford plan at $270-million.

Again - having discussions with developers is not doing deals behind closed doors. It's the responsibility of WT to have these discussions and if something viable becomes possible, you bring the discussion to the other stakeholders and put the actual deal together in an open, inclusive manner. That they have been spurning developers while at the same time saying they have no means to get things done means that they have been at least someone disingenuous in their responsibilities to the stakeholders. It's not unlike the Fords rejecting the Olympic bid without first gaining consensus from council, which also should not have happened the way it did.

You cannot have discussions with developers behind closed doors. It is anti-competitive, unfair, and prone to corruption. You can only answer the phone and answer what is public knowledge. Why should one developer know about the Ford plan for the waterfront before all other developers and the taxpayers? The government is expected to publicly announce opportunities and have a public RFI when requesting any amount of information behind doors so other players have an equal opportunity to present their perspectives and interest.

It is not at all like the Ford's Olympic decision which, while not entirely democratic, was kept within the government until released publicly. It is more like giving details of a publicly traded company's balance sheet to someone outside the company before the public release.

Interesting that the Ford noses are bent out of shape on the comments made because he didn't actually talk about what the city did, he only re-iterated what Waterfront Toronto is able to do. Seems like they feel stung by that.

 

[MetroMan]

The Fordlands Plan are DOA:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1054059--council-rebellion-could-halt-ford-revolution

But what may have tipped the balance, fatally, is a waterfront plan he and his councillor brother, Doug, dreamed up in secret to deliver a mega-mall, giant Ferris wheel and monorail to private developers on Toronto’s most valuable real estate asset.

Rookie Councillor Jaye Robinson, a member of the mayor’s hand-picked executive committee, says she can’t in good conscience support the mayor’s plan to displace waterfront plans developed after years of public consultation.

Robinson and other rookie councillors have sought out their own briefings of the existing waterfront plan after the mayor hired consultants to concoct a vastly different scheme than the one city council approved last year.

Countering their move, the Ford administration strong-armed the councillors and failed to heel Robinson. Other non-aligned councillors — part of the so-called “mushy middle” — have become critical of the new plan as public opposition mounts.

Now, there is little hope of the plan fronted by Doug Ford getting council support.

“Yes there is egg on our faces for allowing this,” admitted Councillor Peter Milczyn, a Ford ally who is busy seeking a face-saving compromise before the issue gets to council next Wednesday.

“What blew up in our faces was the distraction of the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC) going out and doing a visionary exercise,” he said Wednesday. Now, the Ford administration is trying to craft an innocuous-sounding motion that limits the meddling to a staff “review” of the options presented in the current Waterfront Toronto plan.

 

[jje1000]

The Fordlands Plan are DOA:

Not yet. It still needs to go through council first, and goodness knows what might happen there.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What blew up in our faces was the distraction of the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC) going out and doing a visionary exercise,” he said Wednesday. Now, the Ford administration is trying to craft an innocuous-sounding motion that limits the meddling to a staff “review” of the options presented in the current Waterfront Toronto plan.

Now TPLC is going to be the scapegoat for DF and RF's folly. Blame the arm's length agency, right.

Again - having discussions with developers is not doing deals behind closed doors. It's the responsibility of WT to have these discussions and if something viable becomes possible, you bring the discussion to the other stakeholders and put the actual deal together in an open, inclusive manner. That they have been spurning developers while at the same time saying they have no means to get things done means that they have been at least someone disingenuous in their responsibilities to the stakeholders. It's not unlike the Fords rejecting the Olympic bid without first gaining consensus from council, which also should not have happened the way it did.

Actually no -the transparent process would be engaging in discussions AFTER there has been an RFI, with clearly established terms.

AoD

 

[Thanos]

Is it just me or had we made an Olympic bid and won then the Portlands just might have moved faster. No?

 

[Jonny5]

Is it just me or had we made an Olympic bid and won then the Portlands just might have moved faster. No?

You raised another question in my mind. Once we build out The Portlands, with whatever plan we ultimately settle on, Toronto is losing a big Olympic-bid asset: a giant unused space right in the centre of the city, already owned by the government and available immediately for Olympic sized development.

EDIT: Is this why Ford didn't support the 2020 bid? Because he would have to reveal he already had plans for the Portlands?

What are the options for locating an Olympic stadium and athlete's housing in future bids?

 

[MetroMan]

Is it just me or had we made an Olympic bid and won then the Portlands just might have moved faster. No?

Correct. They would have been built by 2008. We'd be 3 years out of the Olympics, converting the Portlands from an Olympic site into neighborhoods.

Yet, while I would have loved to have hosted the Olympics, something tells me that this long deliberate process will turn out better than a rush job to play into the hands of the IOC and tourists.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

OT but re: Olympics - I can imagine it'd fit into Downsview Park with some work. UT Scarborough or "industrial" South Etobicoke might work too.

AoD

 

[Tulse]

Once we build out The Portlands, with whatever plan we ultimately settle on, Toronto is losing a big Olympic-bid asset: a giant unused space right in the centre of the city, already owned by the government and available immediately for Olympic sized development.

Usually the argument given for the tangible benefits of hosting the Olympics is that it will help develop undeveloped areas by bringing in money. Suggesting that we need to leave an area fallow for a possible Olympic bid is exactly backwards. If we already have the money to develop the Portlands, why should we care that the area can't be used for the Olympics?