News   May 13, 2024
 856     1 
News   May 13, 2024
 1.1K     0 
News   May 13, 2024
 772     0 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

Whenever I hear Doug Ford, or his cronies or his disciples (at city or Queen's Park), use the word "efficiently", it tells me "cuts in service", "reduction in state-of-good-repair", "more dirt and trash", "longer waits for everything", and "abandoned ruins".
That's true with any government in power. I joined the broader public sector in 1973 - the first time I recall hearing 'more with less' was 1974.
 

Ontario Place talks include former nightclub operator with Rob Ford ties

From link.

The Ontario government is in talks to lease a prime spot in its Ontario Place redevelopment to a group that includes a former nightclub operator with ties to Premier Doug Ford’s late brother Rob, as well as a labour union that has long supported the Premier.

The group, called Ontario Live, had previously submitted a bid for Ontario Place when the province issued a call for proposals to redevelop the site on Toronto’s lakeshore in 2019, and could now be asked to provide what the government says would be “family-friendly, world-class social hospitality and entertainment services.”

Ontario Live includes Zlatko Starkovski, the operator of the former Muzik nightclub at nearby Exhibition Place and the alcohol provider for the large “Ford Fest” political barbecues held when Rob Ford was Toronto’s mayor from 2010 to 2014, and Doug Ford was a city councillor.

It also includes the Labourers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA), a large construction union that is a long-time political supporter of the Premier, as well as Plenary Americas, a major infrastructure development and investment company involved in hospital construction and the government’s Ontario Line subway project. Also involved is Sheldon Esbin, founder of Romspen Investment Corp., the government said.

When the government announced the decision last week to move the Ontario Science Centre to the site, where its plans for a massive waterpark and spa have faced criticism, it said in a press release that it was “actively discussing partnership opportunities with Ontario Live.” It did not mention Mr. Starkovski or his Toronto Event Centre business by name.

The original call for proposals for Ontario Place issued in 2019 was an open-ended process seeking ideas from potential bidders, not a formal, competitive request for proposals. The government reserved the right to negotiate with one or multiple bidders seeking to build attractions on the waterfront site. Mr. Starkovski and Ontario Live had also submitted unsuccessful plans in a similar process that was launched by the previous Liberal government but abandoned before its defeat in the 2018 election.

According to corporate records, a federal corporation called ONTARIOLIVE Inc. was incorporated in 2017. Mr. Starkovski is listed as its only director.

Mr. Starkovski currently runs the Grand Bizarre Supper Club, a nightclub-like restaurant that operates with a long-term lease on the Horticultural Building at Exhibition Place, the grounds of the annual Canadian National Exhibition located next to Ontario Place.

Previously, his business at Exhibition Place was called Muzik, a massive nightclub attended by rapper Drake, pop singer Justin Bieber and by Rob Ford, whose term as mayor was marred by drug and alcohol abuse and erratic behaviour.

In 2014, in response to media reports about Rob Ford’s visits to the nightclub, Mr. Starkovski issued a statement saying he and the then-mayor were not close and any interactions they had “were of a purely social nature.” He also said he charged fees for providing alcohol at Ford Fest events.

The centrepiece of the Ontario Place plan is a massive spa and waterpark to be built by the Vienna-based Therme Group. Critics have seized on the government’s pledges to spend hundreds of millions preparing the site and building a 2,100-space multilevel underground parking garage, while reportedly offering the spa operator a 95-year lease.

The Premier’s Office released new drawings last week showing cafés, food stalls and a small train-like transportation system it said could be part of the new development, which also includes an expansion of the site’s existing concert venue, Live Nation’s Budweiser Stage.

The Premier’s Office declined to comment. In an e-mail, the manager of media relations for Infrastructure Ontario, Ian McConachie, confirmed the members of the Ontario Live group.

Neither LiUNA nor Mr. Starkovski responded to requests for comment. Mr. Esbin could not be reached. Stephanie Williamson, senior vice-president for corporate affairs for Plenary Americas, said in an e-mail on Thursday that her company “has not engaged in any substantive discussions about a potential project for the Ontario place site” and said it had “no additional information to share.”

According to e-mails obtained by The Globe and Mail through freedom-of-information legislation, a lobbyist for Mr. Starkovski’s group asked for an urgent meeting with the Premier in a message sent Jan. 13, 2019 – just days before the call for proposals was issued for Ontario Place.

Dan Mader, a lobbyist with Loyalist Public Affairs, wrote to a Premier’s Office staffer to say that Doug Ford’s then-chief of staff, Dean French – who resigned later that year amid a patronage scandal – had “agreed to set up a meeting as soon as possible between the Premier and Zlatko Starkovski and his Ontario Live team to talk about Ontario Place.”

When Therme, and other winning bidders Live Nation and Montreal-based Écorécréo were announced in 2021, there was no mention of Ontario Live. (Écorécréo subsequently backed out of its plans to build an “adventure park” on the site.)

Mr. Starkovski’s tenure at Exhibition Place, with a recently extended long-term lease first signed in 2003, has been the subject of controversy over the years. In 2015, Muzik was the scene of a shooting on the club’s patio that left two people dead, at a party hosted by Drake.

In 2014, The Globe reported that his lease allowed his club to rent the city-owned site for a below-market rate of $10,000 a month (with possible top-ups if sales hit a certain threshold), according to a 2010 affidavit he filed in court during a financial dispute with a former investor. In the same document, Mr. Starkovski said a real estate appraisal revealed a “realistic” rent for the venue was $85,000 a month. He said the lower rent was fair, however, because he has invested in renovations of the historic building.
 
Beat me to it, by just a minute! LOL.

But my commentary below:

Well, the Ford gov't got what sounds like a pretty good announcement out the door today; a new 'urban' provincial park near Uxbridge that could be, potentially, as large as 3,000 acres.

The province controls roughly 1,300acres here, but is also in discussions to include 300acres owned by the town of Uxbridge and another nearly 1,500 acres that are currently part of the Durham Regional Forest.

There are multiple key issues here TBD, the exact boundaries and size, as well as whether the park will include camping.

Still, if all of the above lands are included, that would be a real positive from a government thus far more dedicated to sprawl that environmental protection.

Thus far, we lack a clear sense of the boundaries, here, I looked up the Crown land index and there is a sizable holding over towards Port Perry, but I don't think that's what's at play. I assume its land somewhere contiguous to the DRF parcel and the TRCA parcels at Walker's Woods and Glen Major:

View attachment 471280
So this land is already what I'd consider 'park'. Do we know what exactly this changes for land that are already part of the different forests/woods aside from who owns the land (e.g. region vs province)? Does it truly protect it 'more' from development/urbanization? The Duffins Agricultural Reserve comes to mind of how designations and words like perpituity can seem meaningless.
 
So this land is already what I'd consider 'park'. Do we know what exactly this changes for land that are already part of the different forests/woods aside from who owns the land (e.g. region vs province)? Does it truly protect it 'more' from development/urbanization? The Duffins Agricultural Reserve comes to mind of how designations and words like perpituity can seem meaningless.

Lets start with this, when answering your question; all parks, reserves, etc. are created by legislation/regulation and can be reversed or undone in the same manner.

This is true of most things people perceive to be rights or entitlements.

Unless something about whatever is expressly protected is in the constitution, by a clause that cannot be impacted by the Notwithstanding Clause, then it is not permanent; beyond ongoing choice of government to make it so.

(Example, the Canada Health Act, the arguable basis of 'Medicare', is simply an Act of Parliament and one that is reversible, repealable or non-enforced, at the discretion of the Federal gov't of the day. )

****

So understanding that applies to all 'protected' spaces........... protection confers a political statement of importance to an area, and imagines a right of access for recreational purposes, be that 'day use' such as hiking, or camping.

From a political perspective, such protection is generally understood to be difficult to reverse......but that certainly is not a legal barrier of substance to a majority government, merely a political one.

***

We're any of these areas seemingly vulnerable today in a way they might not be?

Well, the 'Regional Forests' in Durham and York are actively logged, albeit, almost never by clear-cut, but rather with selective forestry which has much less obvious impact aesthetically.

So, typically, making a regional forest a park would remove logging; but note that very substantial exception to that rule which is Algonquin Park.

Depending on what lands are included there may be some benefits recreationally or ecologically.

It depends on whether any land included is currently farmed or just un-restored, and might be; it depends equally on whether any private land is acquired (certainly I don't expect any of significance but some is possible)}

Recreationally, benefits may include connected trail systems (likely), or possibly camping depending on how much land area is included.

***

Is it useful? Certainly it can be. Will it restore vast tracts of disturbed land? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't find any record of logging in those forests in/around Uxbridge. I know there has been some local support to further protect the lands, and I struggle to understand what really the concern is. I know some areas have large quarys and the like, but I imagine those fall outside of the Conservation lands anyways. I just don't see really the announcement of new Provincial Park as being anything of significance given much can change on a whim (and I doubt the province is standing on its high horse to protect from logging). Perhaps the addition of lands outside the existing forests and woods is where the significance lies as you suggest. I think I'll go watch that TVO The Agenda piece on the new park.
 
I couldn't find any record of logging in those forests in/around Uxbridge. I know there has been some local support to further protect the lands, and I struggle to understand what really the concern is. I know some areas have large quarys and the like, but I imagine those fall outside of the Conservation lands anyways. I just don't see really the announcement of new Provincial Park as being anything of significance given much can change on a whim (and I doubt the province is standing on its high horse to protect from logging). Perhaps the addition of lands outside the existing forests and woods is where the significance lies as you suggest. I think I'll go watch that TVO The Agenda piece on the new park.

Don't get me wrong, I think this and the announced Humber Headwaters Park (which will involve some restoration (its farmland) will be fine, but not in any way significant.

The only significant parks pending announcement are the mysterious 'central Ontario' park to be given some detail between now and late June...........

As well as White Duck Provincial Park n/e of Ptbo

Those parks should be substantial and will be (likely) withdrawn from 'Crown' lands which are currently available for logging.

Still; neither is under thread of any development that Queen's Park doesn't choose to permit.
 

I couldn't find any record of logging in those forests in/around Uxbridge. I know there has been some local support to further protect the lands, and I struggle to understand what really the concern is. I know some areas have large quarys and the like, but I imagine those fall outside of the Conservation lands anyways. I just don't see really the announcement of new Provincial Park as being anything of significance given much can change on a whim (and I doubt the province is standing on its high horse to protect from logging). Perhaps the addition of lands outside the existing forests and woods is where the significance lies as you suggest. I think I'll go watch that TVO The Agenda piece on the new park.
It might be a matter of semantics but I'm not sure I would call it "logging" as much as forest management. This link gives a good history of the Durham Forest, which is similar to those planted in in Simcoe, York and Dufferin. Contractors are hired to thin the stands, to encourage hardwoods to take hold and for general bushlot management.

 
It might be a matter of semantics but I'm not sure I would call it "logging" as much as forest management. This link gives a good history of the Durham Forest, which is similar to those planted in in Simcoe, York and Dufferin. Contractors are hired to thin the stands, to encourage hardwoods to take hold and for general bushlot management.


Its not quite semantics.

You're right to point out that what's going on is not wholesale clear cuts.

On the other hand, it is not really ecologically minded management for the most part either, irrespective of what many of the managers will say.

For a start, the felled trees are generally not left on site as they would be if you were trying to emulate a wind storm or a forest fire; where they would lay on the ground rotting and becoming cavities for wildlife a place for mushroom spores, and slowly degenerate into fertilizer; rather they are removed and processed as wood.

Further, I've walked plenty of those plantations and can say they are mostly being maintained as what they are now. Changing them over to hardwood doesn't happen simply because of thinning.

The product of what succeeds has to do not only with access to light, but also soil type, nutrient levels and various other factors from making sure you have right sex mix of plants (for reproduction) to complimentary/synergistic species.

Additionally, if you want a wide range of wildlife, you can't have disconnected fragments of habitat; you need both connections between such spaces, but also interior forest, and rare/biodiverse habitats such as swamp and bog, and fen.

Most of these forest tracts are semi-fragmented, and most have never seen rare habitats that were lost in their agricultural phase recreated.

In fairness, some tracts have been better managed than others; and also frankly, most of this type of operation hasn't been properly funded to achieve the highest/best outcomes.

Also worth saying, making some of these a Provincial Park doesn't inherently change any of that. It can lead to positive change, but it still requires both a policy direction and the requisite funding, neither of which can be taken as a given.
 
Last edited:
Its not quite semantics.

You're right to point out that what's going on is not wholesale clear cuts.

On the other hand, it is not really ecologically minded management for the most part either, irrespective of what many of the managers will say.

For a start, the felled trees are generally not left on site as they would be if you were trying to emulate a wind storm or a forest fire; where they would lay on the ground rotting and becoming cavities for wildlife a place for mushroom spores, and slowly degenerate into fertilizer; rather they are removed and processed as wood.

Further, I've walked plenty of those plantations and can say they are mostly being maintained as what they are now. Changing them over to hardwood doesn't happen simply because of thinning.

The product of what succeeds has to do not only with access to light, but also soil type, nutrient levels and various other factors from making sure you have right sex mix of plants (for reproduction) to complimentary/synergistic species.

Additionally, if you want a wide range of wildlife, you can't have disconnected fragments of habitat; you need both connections between such spaces, but also interior forest, and rare/biodiverse habitats such as swamp and bog, and fen.

Most of these forest tracts are semi-fragmented, and most have never seen rare habitats that were lost in their agricultural phase recreated.

In fairness, some tracts have been better managed than others; and also frankly, most of this type of operation hasn't been properly funded to achieve the highest/best outcomes.

Also worth saying, making some of these a Provincial Park doesn't inherently change any of that. It can lead to positive change, but it still requires both a policy direction and the requisite funding, neither of which can be taken as a given.
Fair enough. The contractors do remove the trunk (as far as I know the limb wood is chipped/let to rot on site). There is still a fair bit of deadfall and standing dead in any of the parcel I have been in. I suppose it would be more beneficial to leave the wood to turn back to soil but there are limits on human foresight. Soil quality is the root of the problem (pun intended). Historic clearing of the land for agriculture stripped much of the topsoil so I imagine it would take eons of decomposition to bring it back.

About half of the rural subdivision we are in looks like it was County forest at one point; pure stands of Red Pine, all roughly the same age, One property owner cleared his vacant lot about eight years ago and, from the road anyway, it seems that Poplar are filling in nicely.

I'll cut the local and provincial burghers of the 1920s some slack. Knowledge has evolved and I imagine the more immediate goal was to get the soil bound as quickly as possible.
 

Back
Top