TJ O'Pootertoot said:
ORCA at least seems to have a leg up on the city but what it all adds up to remains clear as mud.
Click to expand...

Don't think the first half of this sentence is necessarily true, because ORCA knows that it can't develop the land without the city's approval (in rough terms), but the second half certainly remains the case, mostly because we don't know the full assumptions underpinning each party's bargaining position.

My best guess as to the city's gambit is that it believes it can go the expropriation route at a feasible total acquisition cost because it believes any court would recognize the limited development value of the lands that ORCA says it owns (the city may not even ever need or want to challenge the ownership in any real way), thereby keeping down the value the purported owners can extract therefrom.

So, fast-forward to an unknown date in the future on which the court has ruled or the parties have settled, and we're in a situation where the city finally knows the full land acquisition costs for the project and ORCA has extracted what is for all intents and purposes the maximum value for their assembly, and you're done (or, if you're the city, ready (if not able) to build a multi-billion dollar park).
 
innsertnamehere said:
The city doesn't really care if they expropriate from TTR or ORCA.

The fight is of course going to be expropriation value - which I believe is going to be less than ORCA want's people to think. The amount of infrastructure spending to make this "land" developable as an asset is so expensive that the base land value is likely next to nothing. The whole point of ORCA's OPA application is to try and make the site look like an absolutely prime development spot. It's not.
Click to expand...
ADRM said:
Don't think the first half of this sentence is necessarily true, because ORCA knows that it can't develop the land without the city's approval (in rough terms), but the second half certainly remains the case, mostly because we don't know the full assumptions underpinning each party's bargaining position.

My best guess as to the city's gambit is that it believes it can go the expropriation route at a feasible total acquisition cost because it believes any court would recognize the limited development value of the lands that ORCA says it owns (the city may not even ever need or want to challenge the ownership in any real way), thereby keeping down the value the purported owners can extract therefrom.

So, fast-forward to an unknown date in the future on which the court has ruled or the parties have settled, and we're in a situation where the city finally knows the full land acquisition costs for the project and ORCA has extracted what is for all intents and purposes the maximum value for their assembly, and you're done (or, if you're the city, ready (if not able) to build a multi-billion dollar park).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the value be further diminished if the city zoned it as open space through their OPA, aka there is NO development potential? I don't think the city has any responsibility to compensate land owners for zoning changes, do they?

It's why I haven't been too interested in the ownership either, and I think it's why Craft/PITS are fighting it: as soon as that zoning is finalized (through the OPA, or subsequent court challenges), the value of the air rights tanks, and they lose money on their poorly-timed and risky investment.
 
Does existing zoning actually factor into the value? That seems unlikely, especially given how often Toronto's zoning is out of sync with higher level plans.
It doesn't magically lose its value because of a zoning bylaw which is subject to appeal and overrule.

It's a piece of "land" perfectly capable of being decked over and developed, at least to an extent. Also, it's several acres in the middle of downtown Toronto and when I look at semi-similar projects (like Hudson and Atlantic Yards, in New York City), I think arguing "this land isn't worth very much because after they filed a development application, we zoned it for a park," isn't going to get you far.

The importance of the ownership, at minimum, goes to show that the ORCA people were actually working on assembling the "land" and putting together a proper development application (which further goes to supporting their story the city blindsided them, by coming up with the RailDeck park plan, knowing that was underway). I know we're not the United States where land rights are more sacrosant, but it still seems to me there is a big difference, at least in the narrative, between developers assembling land and proposing a development the city shoots down vs. the city proposing a development on land they know they do not own, which is not only not "up for grabs" or which has unclear ownership (as they certainly implied) for which an application is pending, and for which they have no known acquisition cost (certainly not one that's been made public). So, it's not a checkmate by any means but I think the ownership is far from irrelevant
 
Not to distract from my prior posts in terms of federally regulated corridors, but the City can zone all they want up the Yazoo and back, they can't zone federally regulated land, let alone the airspace above and *adjacent to it*.

Present delectable case in point?

GTAA and Mississauga.

Here's latest on that: (and this is just the tip of the iceberg)
[...]
“If the GTAA plans to use this land for their transit hub, I would expect they will go through the same development process as all other lands in Mississauga,” noted Mayor Bonnie Crombie.

The GTAA has remained guarded on its purchase of the International Centre.

Natalie Moncur, senior adviser, external communications with the GTAA said details of the land acquisition would be made available in year-end documentation.

However, the retail transaction summary confirms the transaction took place on December 15, 2017.

“Funny how they can buy multimillion-dollar buildings but can’t pay their DCs (development charges) or stormwater charges,” said Ward 5 Coun. Carolyn Parrish.

In December, Parrish moved a motion at council to halt negotiations between the city and the GTAA on the proposed transit hub until a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is reached addressing a number of outstanding issues.

The two parties have been locked in bitter disputes over payment of development charges, stormwater fees, the value of payments-in-lieu-of-taxes and the GTAA’s alleged noncompliance with the city’s development processes.

The GTAA has committed to hammering out an MOU with the city sometime this year.

"Knowing that transit is one of the biggest priorities for residents, we will continue to push ahead with other municipalities and levels of government to move the transit agenda forward," said GTAA spokesperson Beverly McDonald.

Parrish is also concerned about the potential loss of property taxes if the GTAA opts to transfer the International Centre lands to the crown.

The facility ownership paid $675,910 in property taxes in 2017. With federally owned lands exempt from paying municipal taxes, the city and the Region of Peel could be hit with a substantial loss.

“Before anything is constructed on those lands — be it a transit hub or any other building — there is a lot of consultation that the GTAA must do with the city, the region, and residents,” stressed Crombie. “It is our goal to reach an MOU with the GTAA so that we will be consulted on any development plans they may have.”
Click to expand...
https://www.mississauga.com/news-st...ity-buys-international-centre-in-mississauga/

This is not a direct allegory, but indicative of how Toronto Council has been and is badly playing their hand on this whole affair.

And how did Metrolinx manage to get wound up in this charade too? The USRC is *still* fully regulated by Transport Canada, even though Metrolinx is provincially incorporated.
 
Last edited:
salsa said:
Following staff advice, council has rejected the development proposal without debate.
Click to expand...

That's odd - there are usually a few malcontents on council that would seize this sort of thing to make grand statements about waste, downtown elites, private sector rules, etc - especially considering how active OCRA was on the airwaves.

AoD
 
Interjecting as a reminder: the City also claims ownership of continuous strips of land along the south side of Front and along the north side of Iceboat Terrace which, should the City refuse to allow right-of-way across them, would make the air right properties much tougher to connect to the city around it.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Interjecting as a reminder: the City also claims ownership of continuous strips of land along the south side of Front and along the north side of Iceboat Terrace which, should the City refuse to allow right-of-way across them, would make the air right properties much tougher to connect to the city around it.

42
Click to expand...
That's consistent with part of the Esplanade Tripartite Agreement:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=esplanade+tripartite+agreement&source=bl&ots=1r3QCh3GQQ&sig=m3aC8FL30UEVJTw4obMrIh0Q7no&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ5MnChIPZAhUH7IMKHTnmCYQQ6AEITjAF#v=onepage&q=esplanade tripartite agreement&f=false

Earlier claims by the City (roughly a year ago) didn't show that. Interesting, what with the Council decision that Alvin commented on (I'm digging to find it, anyone have a link to it?) one wonders if there aren't 'new' deed research results now available?
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
That's consistent with part of the Esplanade Tripartite Agreement:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=esplanade+tripartite+agreement&source=bl&ots=1r3QCh3GQQ&sig=m3aC8FL30UEVJTw4obMrIh0Q7no&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ5MnChIPZAhUH7IMKHTnmCYQQ6AEITjAF#v=onepage&q=esplanade tripartite agreement&f=false

Earlier claims by the City (roughly a year ago) didn't show that. Interesting, what with the Council decision that Alvin commented on (I'm digging to find it, anyone have a link to it?) one wonders if there isn't 'new' deed research results now available?
Click to expand...

upload_2018-1-31_15-41-9.png


Literally adopted what was approved at the TEYCC.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.TE29.15

AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-1-31_15-41-9.png
    upload_2018-1-31_15-41-9.png
    6.9 KB · Views: 1,118
AlvinofDiaspar said:
View attachment 133763

Literally adopted what was approved at the TEYCC.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.TE29.15

AoD
Click to expand...
Thanks for link. I'll scour through that later, but glanced through it now, and find historical titles and reference to Federal and Provincial Acts and Statutes absent, unless they're attached in a section I've yet to read.

e.g:
The Official Plan recognizes the vital role of Utility Corridors in the City as corridors for the transmission of energy, communication and the movement of people and goods. Utility Corridors consist mainly of rail and hydro rights-of-ways. The Plan recognizes that these linear corridors are defining elements of the landscape fabric of the City and many of these corridors also serve important local functions as parkland, sports fields, pedestrian and cycling trails and transit facilities. The Plan places a high priority on the protection of corridors for future public use as transit routes and linear parks and trails. The Plan states that when corridors are declared surplus every effort should be made to secure Utility Corridors for a variety of public uses.
Click to expand...
Report goes on to detail Railway Lands, much of which *is* privately held, or by Metrolinx. Much of that was outside of the terms of the Esplanade Agreement, albeit alluded to in it and subsequent SCC judgements.

But perhaps I've lost track here, as the ORCA proposal was mostly, if not entirely, for the lands in the USRC 'claimed to be owned' by TTR and CN Rail, the very corridor, by and large, as described by Statutes and SCC ruling judgements as owned by the City "hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada" and "with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada".

The only reference I can find in the local council report, albeit in a cursory read, is deference to provincial acts and agencies.

How can mention of "Utility Corridors", for instance, be made without the regulating and enabling agencies and levels of government having no mention? (Although in Canada, electricity is mostly a provincial competence)

I continue to be baffled...
 
Last edited:
Holy Moly!

How many times does this case have to be re-tried? This boggles the mind, unless it's an aspect that the SCC hasn't examined before, because if it's anything to do with 'who owns the corridor' there's only one Court of Law and one Governing Body that can rule on it:
The SCC and the Parliament of Canada:
Supreme Court of Canada

Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto, (1910) 42 S.C.R. 613

Date: 1910-02-15

The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company Appellants;

and

The City of Toronto Respondent.

(Toronto Viaduct Case.)

1909: November 29, 30; 1910: February 15.
[...]
Click to expand...
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do

The full original SCC ruling is linked prior in this string along with other pertinent statutes and acts, including the Tripartite and Esplanade Agreements and subsequent SCC rulings which not only quoted them, but examined them.

Clarification: Ontario jurisdictions and courts can only interpret what the SCC has previously ruled.

See:
A Short Treatise on Canadian Constitutional Law

https://books.google.ca/books?id=pYc43S0cjFIC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=Grand+Trunk+Railway+Co.+v.+City+of+Toronto+parliament+of+canada+good&source=bl&ots=wIMad3Ycg6&sig=eMhe6XMVh3AenHWGbGqsNYHoYWk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjctayjjOHWAhVi4oMKHTUwBIoQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto parliament of canada good&f=false

And: Esplanade Agreement

https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=tripartite+esplanade+agreement&source=bl&ots=1qbQAg7IRO&sig=xrCm86LZdztd3X932QRoPf0Omgo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcjvuJ_LbUAhUm9YMKHWMrBS8Q6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q=tripartite esplanade agreement&f=false

[...]
The Dominion statute could not give capacity to the City of Toronto. This was done by the Ontario statute. The Dominion statute was necessary to make the scheme agreed topermanent and final until otherwise provided for by Parliament.

Section 1 enacts that

all works done or to be done in order to give effect to the agreement hereinafter mentioned, as well as those affected by it, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

They cannot, therefore, be considered as private works of railway companies. They are to all intents and purposes federal works remaining under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, under section 92, par. 10, of the British North America Act.
[...]
Click to expand...

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do
 
Last edited:
The one… and the other:

DSC08545.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC08545.jpg
    DSC08545.jpg
    428 KB · Views: 1,144
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top