So everyone is pissed because they're proposing to demolish a designated heritage structure... But they're keeping the facade? Isn't that how things are done around here?

Come on, how much Section 37 cash does a guy need to knock down some heritage?
 
The OMB is not a rubber stamp.

Meanwhile, this part of Queen Street is a Heritage Conservation District, so it has a tougher shell to crack

42.
 
They rarely go against the developer, it seems.

And this building along Queen is not a particularly noteworthy heritage structure. I'd say it's expendable.
 
Towered said:
They rarely go against the developer, it seems.

And this building along Queen is not a particularly noteworthy heritage structure. I'd say it's expendable.
Click to expand...

The OMB rarely goes against a developer because a developer will only take their case to the board if they have a strong legal and planning rationale for the project, including a positive staff report. On the other hand, council often turns down projects based on petty neighbourhood politics.

The OMB is needed to protect toronto from it's politicians.
 
Pic taken July 3, 2013


TOrpPOW.jpg
 
HDLtd said:
The OMB is needed to protect toronto from it's politicians.
Click to expand...

Somewhat.

The OMB is a tribunal that renders decisions based on provincial and municipal planning legislation.

The alternative would likely be to have council make decisions that can only be set aside by an administrative court. Wich may sound fine until you realize that developers regularly lobby and make donations to municipal politicians. Sans OMB, I suspect that practice would increase exponentially.

Neighbourhoods would prrobably end up having much less say than they do now, and the cost of any litigation would be astronomical. There's also the issue of the costs rule, which would probably bankrupt the vast majority of losing parties.

Right now, a politician can side with NIMBYs knowing they'll lose at the OMB, without paying the price that Ann Johnston did. There's also little incentive for developers to get carried away with lobbying.

If you want to change the trend of OMB decisions, simply change the planning instruments that underpin its decisions.
 
Northern Magus said:
Wich may sound fine until you realize that developers regularly lobby and make donations to municipal politicians.
Click to expand...

The Municipal Elections Act sets a very low limit on how much developers are permitted to give for councillors' campaign financing, so the argument that developers can effectively "buy" the support of pro-development councillors is not a particularly strong one. Although as Aaron Moore notes in his recent book 'The Politics of Urban Development in Toronto' developers do strategically give money to pro-growth councillors, these donations are extremely modest compared campaign financing in most other large North American cities.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top