[Amare]

Many of you may (or may not) be surprised, but there are quite a few locations along this project where Metrolinx is offering a "fair market value" of $1 to property owners. I wont name the sites as the proceedings are in progress, but yeah I wouldnt trust Metrolinx and their "fair market value" claims.

 

[nfitz]

There's an extensive piece in Today's Star. It's the main story on the front page, and also covers half of Page 6. But I can't see it on their website yet.

We'll see if Metrolinx changes their tune, now a lawyer is involved. I'd think they'd be liable for some good damages for the recently heavily-renovated daycare that opened a couple of weeks ago, after years of being told that it wouldn't be taken.

 

[Allandale25]

^ it's now online

Her husband’s dying wish was that she stay forever in the house they built. Now she’s being pushed out by the Ontario Line

Dozens of Pape Avenue residents are experiencing shock and frustration after learning their homes will be expropriated for the 15.6-kilometre Ontario subway line.

www.thestar.com

 

[crs1026]

If indeed ML only just decided that the expropriation is necessary, then it’s a not insignificant hit on the project budget. Within contingency, no doubt…. But a project can only take so many of these hits and stay “on budget”.
I do wonder what was said by whom two years ago, and was any of it in writing. That would indeed make an interesting court case.
I have no problem with a deal that would let the owners buy their properties back when construction is over, at the price they were paid to vacate. In theory, letting ML reap a profit is good for the taxpayer, but it seems a bit harsh in this set of facts. And frankly, I don’t trust ML to play fair in any respect.

- Paul

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

If indeed ML only just decided that the expropriation is necessary, then it’s a not insignificant hit on the project budget

Depending on the "market value" being offered, it's barely even a rounding error in the overall project budget.

 

[evandyk]

It seems like if Metrolinx doesn't actually need the land for their construction and is just concerned about potential structural damage, there should be a compromise position found eventually? I get that ML doesn't want to bear the risk of a house collapsing and killing someone, but there is probably a solution that is cheaper and less disruptive than expropriating the entire block.

But no, "my husband had a dying wish" is not a good reason not to do that. In fact, it's completely irrelevant to whether they should expropriate that land.

 

[crs1026]

But no, "my husband had a dying wish" is not a good reason not to do that. In fact, it's completely irrelevant to whether they should expropriate that land.

The Star excells at “sad person” stories where something significant happens and what gets reported is how somebody lost their cat.
This situation will be cost-neutral to ML if they reaell the properties, but the reversal in ML position and the idea that “we expropriated your house, but then we sold to the highest bidder” does not sit well.

- Paul

 

[christiesplits]

I definitely have sympathy for the residents of the stretch of Pape. You assumed that you didn't have to give up your property to Metrolinx, and now on top of all the construction going on in your front yard, Metrolinx comes back and says "whoops, yea, we need you to give up your property." I also read that a recently established daycare centre will be forced to close and/or relocate, in an area with a big shortage of childcare spaces.

What are the odds that residents will take Metrolinx to the courts?