Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[TheTigerMaster]

Self-funding is no guarantee that this won't continue.... City Council has done its share of reversing decisions.

Of course it won't guarantee it won't continue, but it will make transit upheavals less frequent when you're dealing with only one level of government deciding where to spend the money.

No one should have any illusions that Wynne is collecting revenue in Windsor to fund Toronto's transit.

This is ultimately my issue. There's no chance in hell that the province will fund our transit network plan in a timely manner. The City needs to take charge of funding it. Begging the province for money isn't a viable funding model. This much has already been said by City Planning, and they're looking at tools for Toronto to raise the revenue itself.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Ultimately I don't care how the money is raised as long as the plan gets built. Implementing a regional tax, and then begging the Province to have access to those proceeds raised within your borders, when you have dozens of other municipalities fighting for the same limited funding, seems like the worst possible way of generating revenue for this plan.

 

[44 North]

One idea for Toronto-specific funding that always seems to recur in my mind is Mammo's idea of a Red Light District. Imagine if we pulled that off? People could buy drugs, prostitutes, gamble, or whatever - somewhere in a beautiful (but contained) area along our waterfront. Perhaps the future Villiers Island Precinct could be a good candidate. It'd be a tourist mecca, and a cash cow. People already flock to our redeveloped waterfront (as was plainly evident when being on QQW this summer), but a RLD would amplify this - while bringing in serious money to the city.

Seems silly, and counterintuitive. But money's money. And RLD's can work.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

One idea for Toronto-specific funding that always seems to recur in my mind is Mammo's idea of a Red Light District. Imagine if we pulled that off? People could buy drugs, prostitutes, gamble, or whatever - somewhere in a beautiful (but contained) area along our waterfront. Perhaps the future Villiers Island Precinct could be a good candidate. It'd be a tourist mecca, and a cash cow. People already flock to our redeveloped waterfront (as was plainly evident when being on QQW this summer), but a RLD would amplify this - while bringing in serious money to the city.

Why do we need to contain it and by extension creating a ghetto? If these acts are normalized, then surely there is no need to be that restrictive about their locational choices. In fact, you may have to legislate against overconcentration of these venues just because the potential tendency for uhh, comparison shopping.

AoD

 

[44 North]

Why do we need to contain it and by extension creating a ghetto? If these acts are normalized, then surely there is no need to be that restrictive about their locational choices.

AoD

The 'containment' isn't so much to actually contain these activities. But rather to let families our wayward tourists know that this particular area might be a bit more risque. And I highly doubt any ghettoization would occur, considering this is prime waterfront real estate that would probably see a major increase in retail and commercial dollars.

 

[crs1026]

And I highly doubt any ghettoization would occur, considering this is prime waterfront real estate that would probably see a major increase in retail and commercial dollars.

The 'red light district' would end up in an industrial park, somewhere that real estate is really cheap. I'm not sure I like what it would do to Toronto's brand image - it really hasn't been a good thing for Las Vegas, or Amsterdam - but fundamentally I don't have a problem with people doing this, and if it goes on, those involved ought to pay their fair share of taxes, and the city might as well profit from it.

Maybe it would be good development for downtown Brampton - or the north end of a Line 1 extension.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The 'containment' isn't so much to actually contain these activities. But rather to let families our wayward tourists know that this particular area might be a bit more risque. And I highly doubt any ghettoization would occur, considering this is prime waterfront real estate that would probably see a major increase in retail and commercial dollars.

This variant of siloing communities often leads to ghettoization. But regardless, if the practice is legal, I see no compelling reason to restrict the activity to a very specific part of the city. Legalize and tax it.

 

[pstogios]

Maybe it would be good development for downtown Brampton

? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[44 North]

Maybe I didn't think it through that much. I'd actually be more okay with a sex and drugs district than a casino (or large-scale gambling venue). Every casino I've seen on this continent has been ugly, ugly, ugly. So I definitely wouldn't want some monolithic corporatized structure straddling the waterfront, nor anything like Vegas. Basically what I was imagining was a small district, separated by water (similar to Ontario Place), where vice-y things could be legalized and taxed (with revenue going straight to the DRL). And it would be organized in a way that was tasteful, car-free, with clubs and retail within a built form similar to heritage districts north of Lake Shore. I've been to Amsterdam and Hamburg in the past, and though there were thieves and junkies roving about their RLD's, they were far outnumbered by throngs of pedestrians/tourists.

 

[crs1026]

This variant of siloing communities often leads to ghettoization. But regardless, if the practice is legal, I see no compelling reason to restrict the activity to a very specific part of the city. Legalize and tax it.

There is some merit to zoning restrictions, the issue being traffic and the clientele behaviour. And it attracts 'grey market' activity. So you want it in specific locales where it can be patrolled. This doesn't argue for a single district that becomea ghettoised, but it does suggest that already sensitive districts might be adversely affected should be protected. And it should not be in a residential area, any more than any other activity that attracts traffic at unsociable hours.

- Paul

 

[A Torontonian Now]

I didn't know the DRL in the thread title stood for "Drugs and sexual Release Location". Somehow I thought this thread had to do with the subway.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

We're talking about how to use prostitution to raise funds for the Relief Line

 

[salsa]

We're talking about how to use prostitution to raise funds for the Relief Line

Less irrational than tax increment financing.

 

[EnviroTO]

This is ultimately my issue. There's no chance in hell that the province will fund our transit network plan in a timely manner. The City needs to take charge of funding it.

The city doesn't take charge of finding much at all. They have a hard time finding state of good repair on the infrastructure they own. For many years they were trying to play a zero percent tax increase game. Which based on the way property tax is set would actually be a decrease to homeowners and have them less able to find state of good repair. All the transit being built is by the province.

 

[David Brake]

I just had to tweet that out...