Toronto Rail Deck District | 227.23m | 70s | Craft Dev Corp | Sweeny &Co

[ProjectEnd]

There's is absolutely no acknowledgement of title or deed by the City accepting an application, not least that it's not their competence to begin with. Accepting an application means it gets in the front door for consideration, nothing more.

Exactly, albeit I suspect the OMB even has no competence in the matter either. Before anything legal can move forward, the title to the land has to be examined, and the Parliament of Canada, as ruled by the Supreme Court on at least one massive case, retains all rights and power over the USRC (formerly referred to as The Esplanade Agreement).

It might take an application to the OMB to cue the Feds to step in with an injunction, and that just might be the start of some sobriety on the whole affair. Since it's known as fact to some of us that there are MPs in the Cabinet looking into this, one can only assume the next significant move is theirs. It may be a few months yet until there's even close to a definitive word on this. If the Feds claim as is their right, there will be a slew of court cases on previous transactions that were never legal to begin with. This is going to be complex. Even the City of Toronto may have acted illegally in selling some plots already, but I digress until word comes down from on high.

A little known fact is that you do not in fact need proof of ownership to file an application to rezone. You can rezone your neighbours property if you really want to. Will it end up happening? likely not. Doesn't mean that the city can't accept your application.

This "loophole" is in place to allow potential purchasers to handle rezoning if it is a condition of sale. Since the sale won't close until they rezone, they don't "own" the property, even though they are handling the rezoning.

This also means that if ORCA is willing to pay for a property that they may not own, then that is their prerogative.

Anyone with access to Teranet could do a simple title search and see if ORCA owns this. I suspect they don't.

Regardless, even if they do, The city always has expropriation rights. This is also worth a whole lot less than ORCA is making it out to be. the financial feasibility of bridging the tracks means that the land itself probably needs to be near worthless to work financially.

Ish. While you don't have to prove title or deed in an application, knowing who the registered owner is a required piece of the application (see below form).

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Tor...tion Forms/2017/Development-Approval-0008.pdf

This is not to say that one couldn't do a simple title search and find out who it was, but simply that anyone in business wouldn't do that without there being some sort of end-game. Why waste money on the fees, consultants, time, etc. required to put together an application if you won't see an ROI on that initial investment? It doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, a simple Teranet search isn't going to yield much since what we're dealing with here isn't the ownership of the land (which is held by TTR), but the air-rights above it.

 

[Automation Gallery]

So i assume by the time its all said and done, Tory and Cressy will look like magicians by securing the City of Toronto this land
hopefully they can also magically find the funds to proceed with this parkland in our lifetime, ill keep my fingers crossed

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ish. While you don't have to prove title or deed in an application, knowing who the registered owner is a required piece of the application (see below form).

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Developing Toronto/Files/pdf/Application Forms/2017/Development-Approval-0008.pdf

This is not to say that one couldn't do a simple title search and find out who it was, but simply that anyone in business wouldn't do that without there being some sort of end-game. Why waste money on the fees, consultants, time, etc. required to put together an application if you won't see an ROI on that initial investment? It doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, a simple Teranet search isn't going to yield much since what we're dealing with here isn't the ownership of the land (which is held by TTR), but the air-rights above it.

Which have apparently been severed off. The air rights will be searchable just like any other piece of property.

What may have happened here is they are stuck in some legal mess where they had some form of deal to close on the land from the TTR from years ago, but it hasn't closed for god knows why. They are trying to hedge their bets and be treated as owners to get that expropriation money. The OPA application is to make it look like the property is worth billions.

The registered owner thing isn't that big of a deal on the application form. ORCA just puts TTR, and is done with it. Just like if in my theoretical rezoning my neighbours property scenario, i would put "my neighbour" in the registered owner form, even if it is different than the applicant.

Excuse me for doubting the ability and competence of a developer that hasn't done much of anything for proposing a development that rivals the most ambitious on the planet today that development giants like Oxford struggle to pull together over decades (Hudson Yards). ORCA seems to be struggling on even identifying that they own the damn land. There is a 0% chance this thing gets built. Period.

 

[innsertnamehere]

And.. Look at that. They don't own jack. There are 4 owners of various properties they are proposing to develop, according to their application form:

Metrolinx
City of Toronto
TTR
CN

CN and TTR owns the rights directly above the tracks. not ORCA.

also: note that it is hand sketched. Rush job.

 

[ProjectEnd]

There's a lot going on here is all I'll say at this point. What's public and what is actually going on are two different things. There's much public posturing from both sides.

 

[Avenue]

Does anyone know why Fort York Boulevard is randomly wavy like that?

 

[steveintoronto]

Just got a chance to read the latest posts, and it looks intriguing, I'm going to have to digest this before commenting save on the one point following, but this string is a microcosm of just how legally sinuous this whole case is. I see fireworks in court unless *someone* comes up with a clear title that renders the SCC judgements on the acts of Parliament moot. This I've got to see! The Court and the Legislation state that it is (gist) "purely the venue of the Parliament".

Not to debase anyone's claim at this point, it's all interesting, but be aware:

Furthermore, a simple Teranet search isn't going to yield much since what we're dealing with here isn't the ownership of the land (which is held by TTR), but the air-rights above it.

I challenge TTR to show a deed of ownership! Someone at some point is going to call them on it...

And further to that...*even if* they could prove title...the *jurisdiction* of the purpose of the land and the *air rights above it* reside in Federal hands. To take that point to the abstract...if a flight path is deemed necessary from say, the Island Airport, then Transport Canada has *absolute jurisdiction* over that air-space.

I'll detail further later, but again, some excellent points are being made, I'm dying to read some of the following posts. This is good forum!

Edit to Add: Afterthought to above: What TTR can show, and it would even have to be inherited, not with their name on it save by surrogate, is a *leasehold* or more legally correct...a *concession* from the City of Toronto. Could that be 'assigned' to a second or third party? Perhaps, but not owned.

More on this later with reference.

 

[steveintoronto]

And.. Look at that. They don't own jack. There are 4 owners of various properties they are proposing to develop, according to their application form:

Metrolinx
City of Toronto
TTR
CN

CN and TTR owns the rights directly above the tracks. not ORCA.

View attachment 118847

also: note that it is hand sketched. Rush job.

Excellent digging!

 

[ProjectEnd]

Just got a chance to read the latest posts, and it looks intriguing, I'm going to have to digest this before commenting save on the one point following, but this string is a microcosm of just how legally sinuous this whole case is. I see fireworks in court unless *someone* comes up with a clear title that renders the SCC judgements on the acts of Parliament moot. This I've got to see! The Court and the Legislation state that it is (gist) "purely the venue of the Parliament".

Not to debase anyone's claim at this point, it's all interesting, but be aware:
I challenge TTR to show a deed of ownership! Someone at some point is going to call them on it...

And further to that...*even if* they could prove title...the *jurisdiction* of the purpose of the land and the *air rights above it* reside in Federal hands. To take that point to the abstract...if a flight path is deemed necessary from say, the Island Airport, then Transport Canada has *absolute jurisdiction* over that air-space.

I'll detail further later, but again, some excellent points are being made, I'm dying to read some of the following posts. This is good forum!

Edit to Add: Afterthought to above: What TTR can show, and it would even have to be inherited, not with their name on it save by surrogate, is a *leasehold* or more legally correct...a *concession* from the City of Toronto. Could that be 'assigned' to a second or third party? Perhaps, but not owned.

More on this later with reference.

Posted by @innsertnamehere a couple posts above yours:

 

[ProjectEnd]

Fundamentally, there's a good deal of posturing and Scaramucci-measuring here. Both sides know they're not going to get everything they want but each needs to keep up facades until things are settled.

 

[steveintoronto]

Posted by @innsertnamehere a couple posts above yours:

Errr...thank you for your reply, but the point of establishing "ownership" has completely eluded you.

In all fairness, unless CN, TTR or *anyone else, save for the City of Toronto* can prove ownership by supplying a deed, then you're in good company. Meantime, I suggest you read back in this forum for reference. You confuse "leasehold" and "concession" for "ownership".

And yes, one can buy the rights to a leasehold depending on the terms of that leasehold to begin with.

This all has to be settled, and there's going to be some big shocks when it is, far beyond what we're presently discussing. I might add that this could well be the basis of silence from any of the major players concerned. And that isn't ORCA...

Quick Google to point you in the right direction:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=city+of+toronto+statutes+esplanade+tripartite+agreement&source=bl&ots=1r2MDgaJUI&sig=bOPQ6hyiWHSM2_Sl-MXpWGC_RhU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieouaFte7VAhWB54MKHbetD38Q6AEIQDAE#v=onepage&q=city of toronto statutes esplanade tripartite agreement&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=OaWxAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA781&lpg=PA781&dq=city+of+toronto+statutes+esplanade+tripartite+agreement&source=bl&ots=MoqP7r8ADP&sig=qnka6GCosXju4e3dm44G48VEJWU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieouaFte7VAhWB54MKHbetD38Q6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=city of toronto statutes esplanade tripartite agreement&f=false

RE: "The Toronto Viaduct Case"
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do

Note that the original deeding to the Province of Ontario who then granted it to the City of Toronto pre-dated the present TTR, by some twenty years or so.

And btw: Take very close heed of this, the SCC gave it profound and special mention in later ruling(s): (see link above)

[...]

[...]

[...]
And so on...my concern now is that by quoting the above and passages following examining Section 1, the purpose of the ruling is lost. (The case revolved on whether " THE BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA" had the jurisdiction to rule against the Railway Companies. SCC ruled they did) What is most important here is that the *basis of ownership* has already been established by the highest court in the country. Unless someone can produce an Act of Parliament to deem this otherwise, or a later SCC ruling to overturn or put this one aside, then the books rule on this.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

A reminder that there's a community consultation meeting about this tonight at the Renaissance Hotel at 7pm

http://www.joecressy.com/rail_deck_park_public_meetings_in_september

 

[interchange42]

Here's how it went, and I'm quoting here:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr. Raymond Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point! None of the residents want ORCA!

42

 

[Tuscani01]

The meeting definitely didn't go well for the developer, who sent their planner to do all the speaking (and who admitted he hasn't seen the legal documents that show who owns the land).

Their planner seemed to have no clue of the traffic issues or accessibility problems CityPlace currently faces with Fort York being the only in and out. Their planner kept saying they were mitigating traffic issues by proposing 3 entrances to their development, and didn't seem to understand that the 3 entrances all relied on Fort York for access, which is the problem street. (He also referred to Telegram Mews as Telegraph Mews and pronounced Capreol Court incorrectly, which was called out by the group.)

He also tried to play off the fact that providing only half of the minimum required parking (which is still 1200 spaces) would help with traffic issues - which would only be true if you ignored that the issues already exist and any more parking in the area will just exasperate the issue.

Overcrowding of schools was another concern brought up, as the development is heavy on 3 bedroom units that are being geared to families. The developer response was that a daycare was being proposed - another non answer.

Both the developer and the city seem to acknowledge that ownership of the entire site is fragmented between the people behind ORCA, the City, and Metrolinx - meaning that neither project can be built as envisioned without some sort of consensus or agreement.

As expected, everyone in the community is against the project. At this point, the community would rather keep the open tracks than see the ORCA proposal move forward.

 

[interchange42]

Yup, on a more serious note, I'll agree with everything you've reported. The developer's planner should have been better prepared on the details—going in just knowing the broad strokes is a recipe for being pilloried by the mob… (and the audience did act like a mob to a degree). In any case, yes, the ORCA planner was ill-prepared to answer traffic questions, and issues that came up about schools. He vaguely referred to studies, but those are the types of things which should have been illustrated on one of the copious slides that be showed.

The City's planner, meanwhile, was nearly unintelligible on her mic, far too soft a voice, and either didn't know how to or physically couldn't respond to calls to be clearer/louder. The planner on the file may be perfectly competent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are able to communicate well to a large crowd. Bring in departmental facilitators!

The City and the ORCA guys need to present a map that shows exactly who owns what, and if they don't agree, show where there may be any disputes over that.

When people in the audience spout off about planning issues and procedures, revealing that they don't really understand how things work, instead of letting it all pass, there should be a Toronto planner there to explain why their notions of how the OMB works, for example, might be lacking. Some nights there is someone to do that, other nights there isn't.

Finally, Joe Cressy loves to say "No way no how there'll be a towers here", but it's time for the City to present their plan for paying for Rail Deck Park.

42