Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[W. K. Lis]

The owners of the rails own the air rights. Quick google search shows the air rights were purchased in 2013. Pearson is owned by the Feds. The comparison isn't correct.

Tribunal quashes dreams of Toronto's future Rail Deck Park | Urbanized

Rail Deck Park likely won't come to fruition in Toronto after a provincial tribunal sided with a developer looking to build on the space.

dailyhive.com

They also own underneath down to the Earth's core.

 

[crs1026]

^”Not having air rights over railroad property” didn’t apply at the Railway Lands, or Liberty Village. Or downtown Montreal.

What’s so special about this particular right of way?

- Paul

 

[TRONto]

How is it possible for private developers to buy air rights over rail corridors? Unless the public explicitly supports this, it makes no sense that this was somehow an option for private developers. Rail corridors are like ports. Something not right about this. I don’t trust the rulings on this. Should all be appealed or the province, feds, and city simply need to legislate away this ridiculous possibility. If the Province could do it with the Greenbelt, it should be much easier over a rail corridor, which should be public agency/authority run, not unlike ports and airports. C’mon! Scrap LPAT. It’s just a creation of the provincial government.

Rail corridors are private property of the rail lines. Just as any other private entity could sell the air rights over their land, so can the railway companies.

 

[gibsonm]

^”Not having air rights over railroad property” didn’t apply at the Railway Lands, or Liberty Village. Or downtown Montreal.

What’s so special about this particular right of way?

- Paul

In that case why don’t CN and CP rip up the tracks and make billions building towers up the entire rail network? I thought railways were considered public goods, so countries and sub-national jurisdictions set aside land for them. I thought when governments set up the first railways, they were purpose-built as railways. I never knew CN and CP were commercial and residential real estate developers. Learn something new every day. I hope government expropriates it all for a buck, Mr. Burns style.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

In that case why don’t CN and CP rip up the tracks and make billions building towers up the entire rail network? I thought railways were considered public goods, so countries and sub-national jurisdictions set aside land for them. I thought when governments set up the first railways, they were purpose-built as railways. I never knew CN and CP were commercial and residential real estate developers. Learn something new every day. I hope government expropriates it all for a buck, Mr. Burns style.

This is a strange turn this thread is taking!
1) They're not ripping the rails up up because they need them. For trains.
But isn't it smart to keep running trains AND make money by letting someone build above them, in the air they don't need?

2) You were wrong about the "public good" thing. It's a surprisingly common misconception. These are massive, powerful corporations operating in a capitalist society, doing what they do: make money for their shareholders. You are free up to buy CN stock right now, if you're impressed with their innovation and business acumen.

3) They are not developers. They are rail companies. But they own the land they own, as well as the rights to what is below and above and it is their right to sell access to it, be it for a city to build a park or a developer to build a building. In lieu of that, the City could have expropriated air rights at "fair market value," just like old fashioned land.

(and Mr. Burns, a private businessman, did not expropriate anything. That's what governments can do, but which the city definitely won't, because they don't have the $ it'd cost.)

Admittedly, air rights are a relatively new thing around here. But the city has really taken advantage of how little people understand the fundamental legal issues at play.

 

[gibsonm]

This is a strange turn this thread is taking!
1) They're not ripping the rails up up because they need them. For trains.
But isn't it smart to keep running trains AND make money by letting someone build above them, in the air they don't need?

2) You were wrong about the "public good" thing. It's a surprisingly common misconception. These are massive, powerful corporations operating in a capitalist society, doing what they do: make money for their shareholders. You are free up to buy CN stock right now, if you're impressed with their innovation and business acumen.

3) They are not developers. They are rail companies. But they own the land they own, as well as the rights to what is below and above and it is their right to sell access to it, be it for a city to build a park or a developer to build a building. In lieu of that, the City could have expropriated air rights at "fair market value," just like old fashioned land.

(and Mr. Burns, a private businessman, did not expropriate anything. That's what governments can do, but which the city definitely won't, because they don't have the $ it'd cost.)

Admittedly, air rights are a relatively new thing around here. But the city has really taken advantage of how little people understand the fundamental legal issues at play.

I understand all of that much more than you know. I’m trying to make a point about government being accountable to the people they serve and making a distinction between land uses. I don’t buy the assumption that having the title to own and operate a rail line in a purpose-built rail corridor that should come under government regulation specifically for railway use automatically entities the owners of those lines to have the right to build or sell the right to build non-railway development above it.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I don’t buy the assumption that having the title to own and operate a rail line in a purpose-built rail corridor that should come under government regulation specifically for railway use automatically entities the owners of those lines to have the right to build or sell the right to build non-railway development above it.

It's not an assumption. It's a legal fact.
Air rights are a legal form of stratified ownership and you seem to be arguing that they shouldn't apply equally to rail corridors.

I know I'm opening a can of worms but... Why not? It's privately owned land and that comes with rights. The way we zone land by use also accounts for this. They obviously can't run trains in mid-air and they can't build a house in the middle of the train tracks, but they can build a house in mid-air. If the operation of the railway (again, a private interest completely unlike a public highway) is unaffected (and CN are VERY protective of their operations) , what business is it of yours or mine?

 

[gibsonm]

It's not an assumption. It's a legal fact.
Air rights are a legal form of stratified ownership and you seem to be arguing that they shouldn't apply equally to rail corridors.

I know I'm opening a can of worms but... Why not? It's privately owned land and that comes with rights. The way we zone land by use also accounts for this. They obviously can't run trains in mid-air and they can't build a house in the middle of the train tracks, but they can build a house in mid-air. If the operation of the railway (again, a private interest completely unlike a public highway) is unaffected (and CN are VERY protective of their operations) , what business is it of yours or mine?

I’d say it’s entirely our business because all development is subject to permit and approval. I can’t even build a balcony in parts of my area, let alone a skyscraper on stilts. I think we need to reassert the interests of the commons. I don’t care what happens in the Netherlands or Japan. We set the terms for what kind of development is acceptable and where. No, this LPAT nonsense is against the public interest full stop. You can’t ascribe a market value to air that hasn’t been approved for development. So don’t approve any development over the corridor and no compensation for expropriation is required.

Don’t get me wrong, the operators and owners of those lines should get compensated for disruption and the various pilings and digs, etc., but there should be no compensation for development that the city (and upon appeal the Province) should not approve in the first place. Any OMB/LPAT body of appeal that would rule so clearly against the public interest is NOT in the public interest. If this can’t be appealed, then no approvals of development plans should be given. If the province will back the people once the developers appeal their development plans, then this development proposal won’t be approved. At that point start talks with the railway owners about the Rail Deck Park. Start from a position of strength.

 

[TRONto]

In that case why don’t CN and CP rip up the tracks and make billions building towers up the entire rail network? I thought railways were considered public goods, so countries and sub-national jurisdictions set aside land for them. I thought when governments set up the first railways, they were purpose-built as railways. I never knew CN and CP were commercial and residential real estate developers. Learn something new every day. I hope government expropriates it all for a buck, Mr. Burns style.

"CN also divested itself in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s of several non-rail transportation activities such as trucking subsidiaries, a hotel chain (sold to CPR), real estate, and telecommunications companies."

They did real estate. Just not anymore.

 

[gibsonm]

"CN also divested itself in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s of several non-rail transportation activities such as trucking subsidiaries, a hotel chain (sold to CPR), real estate, and telecommunications companies."

They did real estate. Just not anymore.

True. CP hotels, now owned by Fairmont.

 

[EnviroTO]

There are two things being talked about here.

First is ownership. Ownership belongs to the land owner who can then sell of parts of the property or rights to the property. This is not specific to rail corridors... this is for all land. There are some regulations around rail line abandonment to protect the transportation network but the railway isn't abandoning anything here.

Second there is zoning which indicates if something can be built. I'm not sure what city zoning is for these lands, nor if this has ministers special zoning order, nor if this has gone to the Ontario Land Tribunal for appeal.

Assuming that the ownership is set and the city is unwilling to pay for expropriation, and the zoning allows (or has been overruled at a provincial level) then there is nothing the city can do.

 

[crs1026]

^Land ownership and zoning are both working as our laws are intended to..

The foible in this case was the City thinking that it could lower the purchase price of a very valuable piece of property (air rights are just a form of property) by zoning it as parkland. That was an end run to the normal and very legal process where the City can expropriate property, but must do so at full market value.

I think this park is a great idea…. but why the City would think they can build it for peanuts is another thing. It may be unaffordable.

- Paul

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

There are two things being talked about here.

First is ownership. Ownership belongs to the land owner who can then sell of parts of the property or rights to the property. This is not specific to rail corridors... this is for all land. There are some regulations around rail line abandonment to protect the transportation network but the railway isn't abandoning anything here.

Second there is zoning which indicates if something can be built. I'm not sure what city zoning is for these lands, nor if this has ministers special zoning order, nor if this has gone to the Ontario Land Tribunal for appeal.

Yes, well said. The City claimed a minor victory when the LPAT ruled that the land COULD be used as a park. I believe the zoning is not yet in place to allow for all the ORCA development, but it will be, per the LPAT. I've lost track of precisel where we are in this process, it's been so convoluted
But at the very least, the principle of ORCA being able to develop over the corridor is now established.

I’d say it’s entirely our business because all development is subject to permit and approval. I can’t even build a balcony in parts of my area, let alone a skyscraper on stilts. I think we need to reassert the interests of the commons. I don’t care what happens in the Netherlands or Japan. We set the terms for what kind of development is acceptable and where. No, this LPAT nonsense is against the public interest full stop. You can’t ascribe a market value to air that hasn’t been approved for development. So don’t approve any development over the corridor and no compensation for expropriation is required.

I dunno what to tell you. This is, at a fundamental level, not how our planning system operates. Yes, there are rules about whether you can build a new deck or whatever on your house. A neighbour may say, "Hey, gibsonm's new deck will block my view!" but we cannot have is the government saying "you can't build the deck because The Commons would like to have a playground under it, in your backyard. We're not the USA but that level of government intervention in private real estate is still a big no-no.

I understand why it frustrates you but the air rights WERE sold so the market DID ascribe a value to those lands (even if, technically, the "land" does not yet exist) and the City can't just take that "land" at a lesser value. That's the expropriation law in Ontario. That's how things operate in a capitalist system.

And the planning law allows the governments to establish principles and then respond to private applications. If you wanted to build an airport in your backyard, you have every right to ask the municipality and, if they say no, to appeal to the LPAT. And they should both tell you where to put your crazy idea. But what they cannot do is deny you the right, within the legal framework, to build a deck or tear down and rebuild your house or otherwise assert your rights as a private landholder on your own land.

If they decide they want to take your house, and a few next to it, because the Commons would like a new neighbourhood park, there are legal steps they have to take to do that. And if that were to happen, you would be happy that you have rights and they can't just grab land "from a position of strength." And you're just a homeowner - imagine you were CN Rail, one of the oldest, richest corporations in this country.

No one here is AGAINST a park. But the idea that our government can use the extraordinary power of expropriation with the ease you seem to think they should, based on an abstract notion of Public Interest/The Commons, is just not how it works and IMHO, that's a good thing.

 

[gibsonm]

Yes, well said. The City claimed a minor victory when the LPAT ruled that the land COULD be used as a park. I believe the zoning is not yet in place to allow for all the ORCA development, but it will be, per the LPAT. I've lost track of precisel where we are in this process, it's been so convoluted
But at the very least, the principle of ORCA being able to develop over the corridor is now established.




I dunno what to tell you. This is, at a fundamental level, not how our planning system operates. Yes, there are rules about whether you can build a new deck or whatever on your house. A neighbour may say, "Hey, gibsonm's new deck will block my view!" but we cannot have is the government saying "you can't build the deck because The Commons would like to have a playground under it, in your backyard. We're not the USA but that level of government intervention in private real estate is still a big no-no.

I understand why it frustrates you but the air rights WERE sold so the market DID ascribe a value to those lands (even if, technically, the "land" does not yet exist) and the City can't just take that "land" at a lesser value. That's the expropriation law in Ontario. That's how things operate in a capitalist system.

And the planning law allows the governments to establish principles and then respond to private applications. If you wanted to build an airport in your backyard, you have every right to ask the municipality and, if they say no, to appeal to the LPAT. And they should both tell you where to put your crazy idea. But what they cannot do is deny you the right, within the legal framework, to build a deck or tear down and rebuild your house or otherwise assert your rights as a private landholder on your own land.

If they decide they want to take your house, and a few next to it, because the Commons would like a new neighbourhood park, there are legal steps they have to take to do that. And if that were to happen, you would be happy that you have rights and they can't just grab land "from a position of strength." And you're just a homeowner - imagine you were CN Rail, one of the oldest, richest corporations in this country.

No one here is AGAINST a park. But the idea that our government can use the extraordinary power of expropriation with the ease you seem to think they should, based on an abstract notion of Public Interest/The Commons, is just not how it works and IMHO, that's a good thing.

It’s absurd that air rights over a purpose-built rail corridor were already sold prior to approval of any proposal for development over a designated rail corridor. It’s only when the city proposed the Rail Deck Park that flattering ORCA drawings appeared. Anyway, that’s Toronto. Private development drives planning instead of the reverse. We’re not asking for a Big Dig here, merely a ribbon of parkland downtown amid the endless condos. If people who pride themselves on design and urban planning won’t fight for the Rail Deck Park, then they deserve the LPAT ruling. I just hope people realize that these adjudicating bodies are created and given their mandate by the provincial government. It doesn’t have to work against the public interest, but if people are are willing to defend that process, enjoy the ORCA scraps of public space and prepare to lose the next battle for public space.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It’s absurd that air rights over a purpose-built rail corridor were already sold prior to approval of any proposal for development over a designated rail corridor. It’s only when the city proposed the Rail Deck Park that flattering ORCA drawings appeared. Anyway, that’s Toronto. Private development drives planning instead of the reverse. We’re not asking for a Big Dig here, merely a ribbon of parkland downtown amid the endless condos.

You're shouting at clouds, my friend

There will be substantial parkland (a lot more than a ribbon) as part of the development. Is it enough? Maybe you're right that it's not but the City is still allowed to expropriate, if they want to put your money where their mouth is.

And you have things completely backwards: it's only when the city knew that ORCA was for real that they made their Imaginary Park announcement, and without telling the landowners with whom they'd been engagingy. That's a fact.

But even if I agreed with you on every principle you raise (many of which I do) it doesn't change the core facts about private land ownership, the rights of those owners and the practicality of the City achieving a park in that corridor. What they should have done is negotiate with ORCA but they decided to try their luck at LPAT and lost big. I'm no fan of LPAT but the ruling was completely sensible and the city played its residents for fools to believe otherwise. Now we all have to live with it.