Conrad Black
Senior Member
Is the land zoned residential or commercial? If not where's the bad faith bargaining?
Doing right, in this case, will be to get the highest possible price for the land. That's what the Trustees or Governors or whatever the board members at U of T are called owe the university. When the real estate market is at its peak, you don't sit around waiting for some town bureacrat to wake up and do something. It's not the town's real estate, it's the University's.
NO, I said this upthread: It is NOT the university's land at all.
They held the land (owned by the Dunlap family) in trust until such time as they closed the observatory.
The board of governors was not stupid enough to close the observatory and let the family get the windfall from a land sale.
So, they have spent the last few years looking at legal options and negotiating with the family because, as you say, the real estate market has made the land very valuable.
While they were doing this they told the media, residents or anyone else who asked that nothing was going on and that it was business as usual when this was not the case.
Understanding this process - and that U of T manouvered to profit from the sale of land they did not actually own - is an important part of understanding just what has gone on here.
I'd like to produce the actual agreement the university signed with the family in the 1930s but, oddly, it is not easily accessible and even the Town of Richmond Hill does not have a copy on record.
Moreover, the university argued that this was an ACADEMIC decision so saying it was okay because it was profitable is ultimately disingenuous and not in support of the university's purported primary motives.
You may STILL think that it was the school's right to maximize its profit (despite being a public institution) but you should know the facts before making that argument.
(And Conrad Black is 100% right about what the town will do and Walt is 100% right about what will come next. The land is zoned institutional and will likely get at least some kind of heritage protection but that won't stop developers from saying Places to Grow means it would be a crime to leave such a juicy piece of land free of high-density development.)
Well, it's the University's right to get the best legal advice and put themselves in the most advantageous position. They are not requried to disclose their plans to the media. Whether they hold the land outright or through some complicated trust arrangement is largely irrelevant. It is the Universities to deal with and the Board of the University would be derelict in their obligations to the University if they did anything other than get the maximum benefit from it for the University.
Seems to me you could develop this land and keep a lot of it intact. Not knowing the site, here's what I created using the posted aerial view from Google Maps.
Yeah I drew rectangls because they're more urban than curvy roads. Of course I'd prefer it be undeveloped (and that's totally in the town's control). But if it must be developed, you could minimize the disruption. If you're familiar with the site, develop your own site plan that does the best to save the best parts of the site.