ksun
Senior Member
You said the "city" wants a new park, not the condo residents. So why ask the condo to pay for that?
Plus, the lake is there and the ship is IN the lake. I don't see how removing the ship will provide any more public spaces.
|
|
|
Captain John's Restaurant (1975-2012)
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
You said the "city" wants a new park, not the condo residents. So why ask the condo to pay for that?
Plus, the lake is there and the ship is IN the lake. I don't see how removing the ship will provide any more public spaces.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
It's very common for developers to contribute to a city council pet project in exchange for approval of building code violations. For example, the Trump tower developers helped pay for the Regent Park Aquatic Centre in exchange for city approval of additional height for the Trump tower.
In short, the developer gets something and the city gets something. I'm suggesting making removal of the ship as a condition of future city allowance of building code violations, such as height for condos. No one is forcing condo developers who follow city building codes to pay for anything. the city would only be offering the exchange to any interested developers who want to violate code.
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
The city is the government. We pool our resources to have a powerful agent whose job it is to ensure that the city is livable. With the condo not yet built, there are no residents on that property. But people tend to need parks, police, transit, sewers and schools in their community. People who live in the condo will demand all of those things because they make for a livable community.
The developer is building housing for the opportunity to make money. It's reasonable to charge the developer to cover the city's additional burden of providing more public spaces.
Parks flanked by garbage like abandoned ships are less likely to be used compared to parks with clean surroundings. Parks that few people use aren't good achievements on the part of the government for the public good. Removing the ship is part of making a good park at the foot of Yonge Street that people will use.
The developer is building housing for the opportunity to make money. It's reasonable to charge the developer to cover the city's additional burden of providing more public spaces.
Parks flanked by garbage like abandoned ships are less likely to be used compared to parks with clean surroundings. Parks that few people use aren't good achievements on the part of the government for the public good. Removing the ship is part of making a good park at the foot of Yonge Street that people will use.
justindw
New Member
Are you suggesting that Section 37 fees are for "building code violations"?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Yes, not in all cases, but they certainly have been used as such.
http://o.canada.com/entertainment/c...-helps-buy-toronto-a-new-public-swimming-pool
"Section 37 of the Ontario Planing Act was designed to encourage developers to offer community benefits in exchange for increased height and density — a concept that Mayor Rob Ford has opposed. But the $2 million grant toward the $14.8 million cost of the aquatic centre is likely to be seen as one of its success stories."
justindw
New Member
I thought height and density was spelled out in the official plan, not in the building code. I had no idea it was in the building codes.
Hunh. Oddly, this site
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=e7c14b1c296c0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
Seems to say that height and density are controlled by zoning bylaws, as opposed to building codes. Do you mean "Section 37 funds are used in accordance with the zoning by laws"?
Hunh. Oddly, this site
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=e7c14b1c296c0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
Seems to say that height and density are controlled by zoning bylaws, as opposed to building codes. Do you mean "Section 37 funds are used in accordance with the zoning by laws"?
Last edited:
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 16,452
- Reaction score
- 18,882
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
You are correct and the Admiral is off course.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
That's the one, thanks for clarifying that for me. I defer to your knowledge of muncipal affairs.
So, could the city make removal of the ship part of an exchange with a developer for contravening the official plan and/or regulations? If we have leverage, let's consider using it.
maestro
Senior Member
I'd hate to see section 37 funds used to dispose of the ship. Just don't see it as a good use of limited funds.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
It's not my top choice either. I'd rather just have the city (idealy with TPA support) pay for removal from general revenue and be done with it.
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
And the longer this goes on the more likely that the city will have to pay via general revenue.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 16,452
- Reaction score
- 18,882
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
The owner of the water is, I think, the TPA and this is why they are dealing with the sale. If (or when) it needs to be moved THEY will be the ones paying. The City is owed $$ for water/tax etc and this is obviously not going to be paid but I think they are not responsible for actually removing the hulk.
Lamport Davenport
Active Member
I say Rob Ford oughta buy it for a dowlah more than Sbrolla's bid, get it towed to a private slip at the foot of, say, Kipling Ave, and re-open the Cap'n as a party boat. No fancy culinary (unless the Steak Queen boys want a new offshore location), just lots of hooch 'n' holla.
The decrepit interior can't be any worse than some of the bars in that neighborhood, so renovations optional. Ditto for the Health Dept code violations.
The Star may call it a "hulk". I say "Hulkamania"! Better yet "Rob Ford's Hulkamania -- the place to party hearty!"
Where you gonna get something like that for $33 grand + towing charges? A two-four of craft beer almost costs that. Great location for the next Ford Fest.
The decrepit interior can't be any worse than some of the bars in that neighborhood, so renovations optional. Ditto for the Health Dept code violations.
The Star may call it a "hulk". I say "Hulkamania"! Better yet "Rob Ford's Hulkamania -- the place to party hearty!"
Where you gonna get something like that for $33 grand + towing charges? A two-four of craft beer almost costs that. Great location for the next Ford Fest.
Last edited:
Edward
Senior Member
CityPlaceN1
Senior Member
Why wouldn't the TPA be on the hook for water and tax?