Gave the PDF a quick scan and saw our little multi-$billion waterfront project that is underway (Lower Don Lands)... was mentioned as little more than a (behind schedule) footnote.

Because .... "But much remains to be done". Gimme a break.
 
Pay a person well enough and they'll more likely say great things about you. News at 6:00!
 
Ontario Place 4 All has lost its battle in Divisional Court to have the West Island plan subject to an EA.

www.thestar.com

Group fighting Ontario Place spa dealt legal blow in fight against Doug Ford government

The Austria-based company Therme plans to create a $350-million water spa on the West Island.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

From the above:

1718143424674.png

1718143443174.png
 
Northern Light said:
Ontario Place 4 All has lost its battle in Divisional Court to have the West Island plan subject to an EA.

www.thestar.com

Group fighting Ontario Place spa dealt legal blow in fight against Doug Ford government

The Austria-based company Therme plans to create a $350-million water spa on the West Island.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

From the above:

View attachment 571552
View attachment 571553
Click to expand...
Not a surprise to me at all, there was virtually no chance of it being subjected to an EA.

Things are even more fun when Ford directly controls and hand picked the individuals who appoint judges in the province.
 
evandyk said:
Therme commissioned Richard Florida to write a report. And not surprisingly, Richard Florida thinks Therme is great! Just what we need to become a world-class city, in fact!

Click to expand...
I took a deep dive. Honestly not impressed by this guy. He's coming off way too "think about the economy" here. To be fair that is the opinion of most of the general population. but he proudly says he supported google sidewalk labs LOL I dunno man.

That said, he's pretty much echoing what I've been saying all along, the whole 100% park idea is centered around the idea that local residents want a park more than people from USA want something to do while they're here. Again, from a centrist-like capitalist stance.

Opposition to the redevelopment of Ontario Place has been largely based on the alternative idea of returning the area to its natural state. Such a park would be lovely, but like all passive parks, by design and definition, it would mainly serve nearby residents. The debate about a passive park versus a destination attraction is not unique to Toronto; similar arguments have occurred in many communities. Such debates typically reflect a schism between nearby residents and homeowners, who prefer a quiet, less-utilized park that brings in fewer tourists and “outsiders,” versus a much larger group of regional residents who would be attracted to and be much more likely to frequent signature destinations and attractions. The reality, of course, is that Ontario Place was developed as a provincial attraction literally from the get go.
Click to expand...

Thats not to say he has to be wrong since he brings the stats to back it up to say that tourists are in fact more important than residents.

Toronto’s and most other cities’ central business districts can no longer depend on commuters and residents alone for their economic health. Fortunately, they also serve people from the surrounding region as well as from more distant parts of the world. Tourism and business travel provides critically important revenue. According to a study of 26 American downtowns that I mentioned earlier, such visitors account for approximately two thirds—(61.7 percent) of downtown activity (see Figure 3), significantly more than residents, who account for about 10 percent of activity (11.2 percent), and office workers, who account for a little over a quarter of activity (27.1 percent).30 The cities that have recovered the most, the study concludes, are those that had “the highest share of daily visitors downtown in 2019.
Click to expand...

It brings a question thats not really talked about more. Who are downtowns for? Residents? Office workers? Tourists? All of the above? How do you do that? Do you build more hotels than condos/appartments? Do you build less hotels and more residential? If you do, is your city sustainable?
 
Amare said:
Not a surprise to me at all, there was virtually no chance of it being subjected to an EA.

Things are even more fun when Ford directly controls and hand picked the individuals who appoint judges in the province.
Click to expand...
OOOH that's a new one I haven't heard before. Judges are biased.
 
generalcanada said:
OOOH that's a new one I haven't heard before. Judges are biased.
Click to expand...
Of course they are everyone has their biases, judges are no exception. It's common to hear of "left-leaning" judges and "right-leaning" judges even when they are supposed to have impartiality when making judgements.
 
Amare said:
Of course they are everyone has their biases, judges are no exception. It's common to hear of "left-leaning" judges and "right-leaning" judges even when they are supposed to have impartiality when making judgements.
Click to expand...

This is a dangerous line of conspiracy, as it undermines confidence in the judiciary without any real evidence of bias.

First, there is a difference between provincial court judges (who conduct bail hearings, hear matters relating to provincial offences under the Highway Traffic Act, Fire Code, etc., and hear some criminal matters) and superior court judges, who hear all civil matters and most criminal matters. Only provincial court judges are appointed by the province. This case was not heard by a provincial court judge.

Unlike the United States, superior court judges in Canada are not elected; but appointed by the federal government. Prospective judges are recommended by an independent commission that focuses mostly on the person's professional qualifications.

I am a lawyer and I have appeared before dozens of superior court judges at numerous levels of court. I have also read hundreds, if not thousands, of court decisions on all subject matters. I have never come across overt political bias. In fact, I think the Canadian judiciary is remarkably good at setting aside their personal biases and remaining apolitical.

Here, the province passed a statute that specifically exempts the project from environmental assessment. The judge reached the only conclusion available to them at law.

In fact, had they found differently, it would have been evidence of bias against the government instead of neutrality.
 
Amare said:
Things are even more fun when Ford directly controls and hand picked the individuals who appoint judges in the province.
Click to expand...
Justin Trudeau picks the judges for the Ontario Superior Court. Ford appoints members of the advisory committee for Ontario provincial court judges, but they don't sit on the Divisional Court.
 
I just checked, and two of the judges were appointed by Trudeau and one by Harper. Which any lawyer (as pointed out by Snoot above) knows does not matter in the Canadian context as judges are well regarded as being independent of politics in their decision-making.
 
Dr. Snoot said:
This is a dangerous line of conspiracy, as it undermines confidence in the judiciary without any real evidence of bias.

First, there is a difference between provincial court judges (who conduct bail hearings, hear matters relating to provincial offences under the Highway Traffic Act, Fire Code, etc., and hear some criminal matters) and superior court judges, who hear all civil matters and most criminal matters. Only provincial court judges are appointed by the province. This case was not heard by a provincial court judge.

Unlike the United States, superior court judges in Canada are not elected; but appointed by the federal government. Prospective judges are recommended by an independent commission that focuses mostly on the person's professional qualifications.

I am a lawyer and I have appeared before dozens of superior court judges at numerous levels of court. I have also read hundreds, if not thousands, of court decisions on all subject matters. I have never come across overt political bias. In fact, I think the Canadian judiciary is remarkably good at setting aside their personal biases and remaining apolitical.

Here, the province passed a statute that specifically exempts the project from environmental assessment. The judge reached the only conclusion available to them at law.

In fact, had they found differently, it would have been evidence of bias against the government instead of neutrality.
Click to expand...
Or the tl,dr: The judges are held over a barrel when it comes neutrality for good or bad here, so they can't really be faulted for doing their jobs. I guess if we want change with the laws on this, then we have put pressure on the legislature via our constituency offices and/or at the polls on election day instead. And for what that is worth.
 
Ontario awarded nearly $1 million in contracts to various companies to write a business case on moving the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place on Toronto's waterfront, The Canadian Press has learned.

A report in December from the auditor general found that a proposal in the spring of 2023 to government decision makers to relocate the science centre, including the business case, noted that a "site-wide parking solution" was needed to meet Ontario's lease obligations with Therme. It proposed that new parking be integrated with the new science centre building "in order to dispel public/stakeholder concerns relating to cost and impact on the environment," the auditor wrote.

The business case itself was "incomplete," the auditor general said, including not factoring in financing or incremental parking costs.

https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-a...iness-case-on-moving-science-centre-1.6926580
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top