News   Apr 16, 2024
A Look at Maple House and Birch House of Canary Landing
 315     1 
News   Apr 16, 2024
The Whitfield's Podium Takes Shape in the St Lawrence Neighbourhood
 728     3 
News   Apr 16, 2024
News Roundup for April 16, 2024
 489     3 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

karledice said:
Not an office tower and a residential place. 8 towers in total.
Infrastructure doesn't support that here at all and it's not going to be a real park, it's a small outdoor space for the sake of getting approval that people don't end up using.
Think Millenium park in Chicago built on rail deck as well and all the monetary and non monetary values Chicago gets. The millions of tourists go there annually.
It would pay for itself with all the tourist money, vendors, tourism boost to restaurants nearby, the cool "it" factor etc.
Click to expand...
The views of the city from this park would be fantastic, and instagrammable (which like it or not, drives the "cool" factor nowadays)
 
WislaHD said:
I don't believe the provincial changes with the community benefits charge (which replaced S42) will impact existing collected S42 funds, so unless someone tells me otherwise, the money already exists and is just collecting interest until we find a purpose for it (such as the Rail Deck Park).
Click to expand...

I’m not able to access it at the moment, but there is an annual report to Council documenting what the S42 reserves are. From memory, the amount is far less than what would be needed to fund this project, and that would pretty much end funding for any small park opportunities that may arise. So no, the money isn’t sitting ready with interest accruing. The taxpayer is on the hook.

I always figured the end result would be a compromise with some development on the space and some parkland set aside. It’s crucial that the City strike the best deal possible... it’s a pure win-lose negotiation. The developers will want as much as possible, as will the City. Tory strikes me as the kind of guy who blinks first. So I’m fearful.

- Paul
 
WislaHD said:
No, it is not tax-payer money.

It is largely Section 42 money that cannot be used for purposes other than public park space, a lot of which is earmarked specifically to the downtown area as it was collected from downtown development.

I don't believe the provincial changes with the community benefits charge (which replaced S42) will impact existing collected S42 funds, so unless someone tells me otherwise, the money already exists and is just collecting interest until we find a purpose for it (such as the Rail Deck Park).
Click to expand...

Even if you're right about the impacts of the new CBC (which I don't think is certain), Section 42 money is not remotely enough to cover the cost. Someone out there might have the exact numbers but I believe the entirety of the City's Section 42 stash would cover something like 10% of the costs. So...no.

karledice said:
Think Millenium park in Chicago built on rail deck as well and all the monetary and non monetary values Chicago gets. The millions of tourists go there annually.
It would pay for itself with all the tourist money, vendors, tourism boost to restaurants nearby, the cool "it" factor etc.
Click to expand...

People keep comparing this to Millennium Park but, In relation to the point above, who paid for Millennium Park? What percentage of the budget was taxpayer money? Was it under budget? And while we're at it, who owned the land before the City of Chicago decided to build a park there? Was it a private developer with their own plan? The park's Wikipedia page will help one start to find some of the answers!

I mean, all this stuff is just minor details....

Here's the reality few want to accept:
-The City has long history of being cheap and a Constitutional restriction on what it can do raise more money, if it wants to spend more. There are far too many examples to even begin listing them, notwithstanding the mayor's recent bravery on property taxes;
-The Bentway might be the closest parallel to this but A) a private donation made that happen B) This is a wholly different scale.
-Aside from it's physical form, there are many differences with Millenium Park, which is typically cited as the equivalent.
-As currently structured, they don't have the property tax $ or any other means, including Section 42, to fund this.
-They don't own the land/air rights.

It's a great idea! The renderings look beautiful! The City has won an early, important LPAT decision! They're still grossly glossing over how hard it will be to actually pull this off when, specific numbers of towers etc. aside, there is an argument to be made that a compromise with the developer is far more desirable and practical; obviously, IF it's a compromise that meet's the City's needs. But if the entire plan is to talk tough, expropriate and wing it with the almost $2B-cost, something's going to give, eventually.
 
Last edited:
From the most recent relevant report, considered at the January Executive Committee meeting:

Staff will bring forward a report to Council by Q3 2020 to authorize the next stage of the Rail Deck Park project, including a funding and financing strategy for acquisition of the air space and capital delivery of the project.
 
To put some facts to the discussion above.......

Section '42' balances below (most recent I could easily find)

As of September 30, 2016, the City held $382,140,538

An additional $199,563,530 is projected for the next five years.

My reading pegs typical annual expenditures from these funds at about $30M per year.

IF that held true here, you'd be looking at an approximate balance end of in/around 430M in 2021.

However, it is possible to re-allocate revenues from one project to another; in many cases; also that does not include section 37 funds.

The above is not a position on this project, just information for the discussion.

Figures taken from: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-102564.pdf
 
Northern Light said:
To put some facts to the discussion above.......

Section '42' balances below (most recent I could easily find)

As of September 30, 2016, the City held $382,140,538

An additional $199,563,530 is projected for the next five years.
Click to expand...

Thanks for looking that up! I look forward to seeing the City's strategy for paying it. Maybe it'll all make sense once they lay it out but given how things have been in flux with Sections 37 and 42, given what's already in the kitty and given the City's longstanding reluctance to use even the minimal taxes to which they have access, I remain skeptical about how practical it is and how much the city is posturing just as it is fair to remain skeptical about whether the landowners "actually" intended to develop the site or whether they're just establishing their own bargaining position. All I'd say is it's likely naive to assume one side is posturing and the other is entirely altruistic and practical. Both sides know they have something the other wants.
 
Rail Deck Park lol!
Could be the first UT thread to run 50 years!
(DRL and various iterations not included)
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
Post Millenial - LOL
Canadian Taxpayers Federation - double LOL
Click to expand...

Whenever I see "Canadian Taxpayers Federation", I turn it off. They are more interested in "money" than "people". Wonder how much influence the "Canadian Taxpayers Federation" had with long-term care, or anything that involves money over people.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top