I'm not entirely clear that that is accurate; I'm not meaning to be pedantic, but I believe what's accepted is that they purchased 'air rights.'
What's not clear is whether the seller had anything to sell; and whether those rights are worth anything at all.
Clearly to build anything over the corridor will require structural supports through the corridor, or, in theory, on adjacent lands.
They don't own the corridor or the adjacent lands and have no legal agreements in place giving them access to build supports.
Nor do they have any zoning in place, nor do I perceive any statutory basis on which they could reasonably expect a zoning change of this type.
Hence the chasm between the City's best offer to date, and said 'rights owner'.
I suppose there is something of a grey area and it may yet be a legal one as much as anything else. But it seems to me the clear implication (from both sides) is that Craft thinks they purchased the rights and the City has been trying to give them some money so they can avoid expropriation. And they have not succeeded. What's clear, as you point out (I think), is that neither party really has the means to do this project because of what's around it and the larger context.
I would differ on the zoning/planning issues since the developers could argue it's a perfect place to intensify etc., so long as they're providing the right mix of uses, green space etc. It's not clear at all there is "no statutory basis," given all the policies about intensifying around transit corridors and so forth. There's arguments to be made either way. As it stands, the City had to file it's own Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to get permission for the park so what is reasonable can be subjective and can change.
Why not, city building and planning doesn't stop just because you don't have all the variables patted down. It doesn't have to happen right now, but plan for it, and do what's necessary to protect that possibility especially considering the amount of projected population growth in the core. Nothing untoward or irrational there.
When you're talking about a billion dollar project unlike anything else in the city and a dispute over land ownership, you're talking about more than a few little variables to be worked out. These are fundamental issues the City has largely glossed over because it's easy to sell "more parks!" to people.
As to whether that area can handle more people, Craft would have to make that case and maybe it's a case they can't make. On the other hand, the City and Metrolinx have been talking about "Union Station West," so it's hard to do that on the one hand and say, "No more people!" on the other. Lord knows, lack of infrastructure capacity hasn't stopped us before. it's almost the defining feature of the GTA, one might argue.
To be clear, I'm not AGAINST Raildeck Park - it's a lovely idea, on principle - I just think the City has been writing cheques it can't cash so far, and spinning it so people don't really notice. You can't just look at a map of Toronto and say, "There's not enough parks near Yonge and Eglinton so we're building a new Central Park on 500 acres between Yonge and Mt. Pleasant, south of Lawrence Avenue." Yeah - lovely idea. I'm sure the renderings would blow my mind. But how you're going to pay for it and how you're going to acquire the land from private landowners aren't "variables to be patted down." They're things to figure out before you start holding press conferences.
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2020/01/16/mayor-backs-city-push-to-expropriate-air-rights-for-rail-deck-park/_1_rdp_front_street_final_low_res.jpg)
www.thestar.com
