Toronto Rail Deck Development | 239.43m | 72s | LIUNA | Sweeny &Co

SaugeenJunction said:
Metrolinx owns this land, and the Rail Deck District group doesn’t. It should be complementary but not conflict. A new thread is probably needed.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I thought that the Rail Deck plan included the entire span of the area and that they had put their condos largely on the North side of the tracks. I will go back and take a look.
 
Northern Light said:
A key though is that the signee to the contract should have a clear understanding of what that flexibility means.

It's an interesting curiosity that many don't employ the services of either a lawyer or a real estate pro in purchasing a pre-sale condo, which would help address that.

Still, I don't think one can demonstrate 'a meeting of the minds in court' w/o some measure of evidence that the terms were in the APS, but moreso that they were in layman's language and/or clearly explained to the purchaser.

To some extent Caveat Emptor may apply; but there are limitations on that.
Click to expand...
You should always have your contract read by a lawyer. The developer invariably has the right to terminate the contract for any reason. Pre-construction condos are very difficult to conclude and are almost always late on delivery.
 
Big Daddy said:
You should always have your contract read by a lawyer. The developer invariably has the right to terminate the contract for any reason. Pre-construction condos are very difficult to conclude and are almost always late on delivery.
Click to expand...
technically correct, they only need to say "we didnt get 'satisfactory' financing and boom project cancelled. the only way theyre legally allowed out of the contract
 
Small update here: Craft Dev has lost at the Divisional Court, where they tried to argue that air rights did not constitute "land" under the definition of land in the assessment act, and thus, they further argued, they should not be assessed for taxation inclusive of air rights. It could be further appealed by Craft, but that's where things stand on the property value/taxation side. As I understand it, Craft purchased said air rights for ~43 million.
 
Urban-Affair said:
Small update here: Craft Dev has lost at the Divisional Court, where they tried to argue that air rights did not constitute "land" under the definition of land in the assessment act, and thus, they further argued, they should not be assessed for taxation inclusive of air rights. It could be further appealed by Craft, but that's where things stand on the property value/taxation side. As I understand it, Craft purchased said air rights for ~43 million.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, wonder if it will open the door for the site to be subject to parkland dedication.
 
Msleylar said:
Very interesting, wonder if it will open the door for the site to be subject to parkland dedication.
Click to expand...

To my understanding, it already is. The proposal includes parkland dedication.

What's interesting to me, is that so far as I can discern, the tax order makes the site potentially much more expensive to carry, by no means prohibitive for those involved, but it certainly becomes more problematic if they can't find a way to proceed in the near/medium term, given than the site doesn't generate any revenues to speak of in its current form.
 
Northern Light said:
To my understanding, it already is. The proposal includes parkland dedication.

What's interesting w/the tax order is that it makes the site potentially much more expensive to carry.
Click to expand...

No doubt about the carrying cost, but I was under the impression the lands are actually NOT subject to Section 42 parkland as they were specifically exempted under the City's parkland by-law. Now whether Bill 23 changes that I am not too sure, but the relevant sections of the Decision are below:


During his cross-examination of Ms. Bake, Mr. Kagan put to her his contention that the City’s parkland dedication by-law does not apply to the CRAFT Site (as set out below in this paragraph [93] (6)) (“Parkland Exemption”). After some considerable reluctance, during an unfortunately argumentative and evasive period of testimony, eventually Ms. Bake admitted that CRAFT’s legal position is absolutely correct and that the Parkland Exemption applies to the CRAFT Site – however she was unable to avoid expressing her strongly-held view that nonetheless all of this seems “wrong” from a “policy standpoint” (a point also strangely repeated at length in the final submissions of the City’s legal team along with other arguments). In fact, Ms. Bake also conceded that she knew that certain members of the City Planning department, including Ms. MacDonald and Ms. McAlpine, were also aware of the Parkland Exemption and that legal advice was sought on that very issue in connection with the City’s preparations for this LPAT proceeding. The evidence before the Panel demonstrated that a need was recognized to amend the City’s Municipal Code in order to remove the Parkland Exemption before this hearing began and before the City’s case was prepared– which amendment, of course, did not happen.

......

The Tribunal disagrees with the proposition stated above by counsel for the City in paragraph [93] (5). Instead, the Tribunal concurs with and expressly adopts the conclusions stated in final argument by CRAFT’s counsel that:
  • The CRAFT air rights are exempt from parkland dedication. This is provided for in policy 11.14 of the Railways Lands West Secondary Plan and policy 11.6 of the Railway Lands Central Secondary Plan. Policy 5.6.6 of the City’s Official Plan further provides that in the case of a conflict between the Official Plan and a Secondary Plan, the Secondary Plan prevails. Since the Secondary Plan exempts the CRAFT site from parkland dedication, it prevails over the more general parkland dedication policies in the Official Plan. Moreover, the CRAFT air rights are also exempt by virtue of section A in Schedule B, Article III of the City’s parkland dedication by-law (which is contained within the City’s Municipal Code)…That section provides that the parkland dedication provisions of the Municipal Code do not apply to the geographic area of The Railway Lands as described in By-law 612-85. Andrea Bake confirmed that the CRAFT air rights are wholly contained within the geographic area known as the Railway Lands in By-law 612-85…[and further]… confirmed that Exhibit 17 [in this proceeding] is that bylaw. [Ms. Bake conceded that]…the term “Railway Lands” in the definition section of the bylaw which defines that Railway Lands as “means that part of the City of Toronto located within the area delineated and designated by heavy lines on Map 1 contained in Appendix A to this by-law and referred to thereon as “Railway Lands”…Andrea Bake then confirmed that all of the CRAFT air rights are contained within the Railway Lands as shown on Map 1… Andrea Bake confirmed that the CRAFT air rights were exempt from parkland dedication… [emphasis added]"

Paragraphs 87-104 here:

 
Urban-Affair said:
Small update here: Craft Dev has lost at the Divisional Court, where they tried to argue that air rights did not constitute "land" under the definition of land in the assessment act, and thus, they further argued, they should not be assessed for taxation inclusive of air rights. It could be further appealed by Craft, but that's where things stand on the property value/taxation side. As I understand it, Craft purchased said air rights for ~43 million.
Click to expand...
So essentially, they will now have to pay taxes on the rail deck air rights, and that might dissuade them from seeing their project through if it's just sitting undeveloped for years? If the city still wants the park to happen I wonder if they could exacerbate things and keep it delayed endlessly until the developers give up.

I am aware it's a long shot, and would be stupidly expensive, but I still hold out hope a park there is possible somehow. When you walk by and visualise a public space there it would be so transformative.
 
JMSRead said:
So essentially, they will now have to pay taxes on the rail deck air rights, and that might dissuade them from seeing their project through if it's just sitting undeveloped for years? If the city still wants the park to happen I wonder if they could exacerbate things and keep it delayed endlessly until the developers give up.

I am aware it's a long shot, and would be stupidly expensive, but I still hold out hope a park there is possible somehow. When you walk by and visualise a public space there it would be so transformative.
Click to expand...
If the appeal decision isn't further appealed to a higher court, or is challenged but Craft loses, there would be no change, as Craft is already paying taxes based on the assessed amount, to the city now, so that outcome is unlikely to change anything with their proforma for the build. It would be a bonus for them if they won on appeal of this ruling however.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top