News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.5K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 414     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

Who knows....but I don't think it is particularly helpful to take the discussion in a tangent based on what we think they will say before they say anything.

It's not tangential and Ford has already commented on this; his line was essentially "this is another example of downtown elitists spending money only on themselves; where's the big, expensive, brand new park for the suburbs?"

Unfortunately, for all people who love this city, Doug Ford is a hugely influential figure and his opinion on matters can swing public opinion. The stance he takes on this project is news, though I badly wish that wasn't true.
 
It's not tangential and Ford has already commented on this; his line was essentially "this is another example of downtown elitists spending money only on themselves; where's the big, expensive, brand new park for the suburbs?"

Unfortunately, for all people who love this city, Doug Ford is a hugely influential figure and his opinion on matters can swing public opinion. The stance he takes on this project is news, though I badly wish that wasn't true.

A, albeit quick, google search for comments by him reveal only these ( from http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-s...family-s-etobicoke-home-for-annual-ford-fest/ )

“We need to make sure we get our fair share of tax dollars we pay in the city,” newly elected Etobicoke North councillor Michael Ford said. “I think it’s important to invest in downtown, absolutely, but there needs to be a balance.”

Doug Ford used the proposed rail deck park downtown as an example of what he believes is uneven public spending.

“You can’t funnel all the money downtown and ignore the people in the suburbs,” he said.

The subject of a downtown-suburban divide is always present in conversations with Ford Nation, but Friday’s crowd was optimistic that things might turn in Etobicoke's favour.

I see nothing shrill about these comments, I do not see the words "downtown elite" there either, I also do not see any mention of a "brand new park for the suburbs"...so this is what I meant about debating things he did not say.

It can hardly be a surprise that a person/family that represents people in the burbs is looking for a balanced approach to expenditures....heck, if you want "balance" the younger Ford even said the words "I think it is important to invest in downtown, absolutely,....."

So let's have a balanced debate (here and in the public realm in general) about whether there is appropriate value in spending $1B on this park.....neither the pro or anti side to that debate should be dismissed before it even gets going.
 
Who knows....but I don't think it is particularly helpful to take the discussion in a tangent based on what we think they will say before they say anything.
I am being a little facetious - because you are right that there should be discussion about this. Having said that, I am absolutely not kidding when I said there is nothing of import from those two.

On a more serious note, $1B is not an insubstantial amount of money - but it is also necessary to put into context - i.e. that isn't a five year project we're talking about either and the benefits are going to be measured probably in a century long context.

As to the matter of "fair share" - keep in mind where the intensity of growth and tax production is in the city. In any case, if one wanted "fairness", by all means demand that the park be built using funds generated in the core area where the benefit resides.

AoD
 
Last edited:
A, albeit quick, google search for comments by him reveal only these ( from http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-s...family-s-etobicoke-home-for-annual-ford-fest/ )



I see nothing shrill about these comments, I do not see the words "downtown elite" there either, I also do not see any mention of a "brand new park for the suburbs"...so this is what I meant about debating things he did not say.

It can hardly be a surprise that a person/family that represents people in the burbs is looking for a balanced approach to expenditures....heck, if you want "balance" the younger Ford even said the words "I think it is important to invest in downtown, absolutely,....."

So let's have a balanced debate (here and in the public realm in general) about whether there is appropriate value in spending $1B on this park.....neither the pro or anti side to that debate should be dismissed before it even gets going.

1) In that very article you quoted, from Ford: "You can’t funnel all the money downtown and ignore the people in the suburbs.”
2) Do you really need a citation for Doug Ford referring to downtown elites?
3) If you believe that Doug Ford is an advocate for a balanced approach to suburban vs. downtown spending, or if you believe that the current crop of city councillors has been unwilling to spend on the suburbs, you're living in a fantasy world and there's no point in having a debate about this park or anything related to city spending.
 
shouldn't there be a healthy debate about this expenditure though?

Ok I'll bite. For starters:

image.jpg




And secondly, imagine Chicago without Millenium Park. Imagine the tremendous lost opportunity it would have been had the Ford and Minnan-Wong mindset prevailed. The cost would not seem as high when you consider the enormous benefits, something which most penny pinchers are unable to realize. If the city sees the value in spending $billions to revitalize our waterfront, then why not do the same here too?

Chicago's advice for Toronto: "expect it to cost more than you think, expect it to take longer than you think, and go for it anyway".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/chicago-millennium-park-rail-deck-1.3708282
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    63.1 KB · Views: 518
1) In that very article you quoted, from Ford: "You can’t funnel all the money downtown and ignore the people in the suburbs.”

yes...but he acknowledges that balance is needed and no where does he reference the suburban park you put in quotes earlier.

2) Do you really need a citation for Doug Ford referring to downtown elites?

as it relates to this park, yeah I kinda do.

3) If you believe that Doug Ford is an advocate for a balanced approach to suburban vs. downtown spending, or if you believe that the current crop of city councillors has been unwilling to spend on the suburbs, you're living in a fantasy world and there's no point in having a debate about this park or anything related to city spending.

At some point, the debate has to become more rational and balanced though....and a new, creative, spectacular idea like this that carries a tag of $1B might be a good place to start. But if we start by assuming someone is going to say/do something before they say or do it we are not going to get there. One of my favourite lines from my favourite tv shows "if we are going to start at 212 degrees, we got nowhere else to go".
 
I am being a little facetious - because you are right that there should be discussion about this. Having said that, I am absolutely not kidding when I said there is nothing of import from those two.
see comment re: gotta start somwhere.

On a more serious note, $1B is not an insubstantial amount of money - but it is also necessary to put into context - i.e. that isn't a five year project we're talking about either and the benefits are going to be measured probably in a century long context.
that is a terrific place to start.....break the $1B down to the impact it has on the capital budget/borrowings on the city over the build out timeframe. Stop (heck don't even start) calling it a $1B park....reference an annual contribution from the capital budget of $X per year for the next Y years"

As to the matter of "fair share" - keep in mind where the intensity of growth and tax production is in the city. In any case, if one wanted "fairness", by all means demand that the park be built using funds generated in the core area where the benefit resides.

AoD

Not sure that is necessary, a strong/healthy downtown core is vital to this (any?) city.....sure there has to be a significant contribution from the funds generated by the core's growth...but there should be no need for all of it to come from there.
 
i can sense from a couple of comments that me coming to the defense of debate is being interpreted as, somehow, being opposed to this park....not sure how defense of debate (and the right of all to state their opinions in that debate) could be interpreted that way but...seems it has.
 
that is a terrific place to start.....break the $1B down to the impact it has on the capital budget/borrowings on the city over the build out timeframe. Stop (heck don't even start) calling it a $1B park....reference an annual contribution from the capital budget of $X per year for the next Y years"

Actually I was already thinking in the back of my head how much that translates to in an annualized way under various scenarios (30, 50 years) when I was typing out that original response. Only reasonable.

Not sure that is necessary, a strong/healthy downtown core is vital to this (any?) city.....sure there has to be a significant contribution from the funds generated by the core's growth...but there should be no need for all of it to come from there.

Yeah, but politically it would be hard to sell that notion in a zero-sum environment.

AoD
 
On a more serious note, $1B is not an insubstantial amount of money - but it is also necessary to put into context - i.e. that isn't a five year project we're talking about either and the benefits are going to be measured probably in a century long context.

In any case, if one wanted "fairness", by all means demand that the park be built using funds generated in the core area where the benefit resides.

And secondly, imagine Chicago without Millenium Park.
Well...I've been touting decking over railway tracks whenever possible in urban areas, the land above (air rights) is very valuable, but the mistake is to think it's either/or with public and/or private financing. The only way to make 'The Rail Deck' work is by doing a bit of both.

As to the "Chicago' model:
Millennium Park built 'the Chicago Way'
Hal Dardick, Tribune reporter
Ten years after it opened, Millennium Park stands not only as the crown jewel of downtown Chicago, but emblematic of how Richard M. Daley got things done as mayor.

The story behind its construction involved Daley's vision for the city, the well-heeled philanthropists who backed him, mayoral friends who benefited financially and people going to prison. And it was built with money the city didn't have, leaving a debt that lingers today.

In the end, Daley's relatively modest proposal to commemorate the millennium with a new park that was mostly open green space for $150 million "at no cost to taxpayers" resulted in a world-renowned, multifaceted destination completed in 2004 with a price tag that eventually topped $490 million, including at least $95 million in tax money. The rest of the tab was covered with $225 million in private donations, some cash from parking fees and the eventual sale of four city and Chicago Park District parking garages for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Once it was built, the city found it did not even have enough money to operate the park, despite help from the private sector, so Daley borrowed nearly $30 million just to keep it running — loans taxpayers continue to pay back.

That's not the only ongoing financial burden related to Millennium Park, which officially opened 10 years ago Wednesday. Taxpayers also could be on the hook for $58 million related to the lease of those parking garages because of how the Daley administration put together the deal.

Meanwhile, the city is paying a team of lawyers as it tries to back out of a sweetheart deal with the operators of Park Grill, a restaurant at the park. Investors included a Daley friend and a city contractor. The restaurant pays $250,000 a year in rent, while getting free garbage pickup, water and gas. It also pays no property taxes. Mayor Rahm Emanuel is battling in court to void that deal.

In classic Chicago fashion, there also was a contract that led to prison terms for three people: a Park District official who pleaded guilty to taking bribes for $8 million in landscaping work at the park and other district properties, the company owner who bribed her and a company executive.

It was all vintage Daley: The goal was laudable, but the execution was messy, said Dick Simpson, a former alderman who now is a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"There was a lot that in the Daley administration — a lot of the ideas were good ideas, but they were implemented in what's called the Chicago Way," said Simpson, who cited as another example Daley's bulldozing of Meigs Field in the middle of the night to create a nature park. "There were insiders, there was clout, there was corruption. And it was done in a way that cost more than it should have."

Jacquelyn Heard, a spokeswoman for Daley, declined comment for this story.

As he approached the end of his first decade in office, Daley announced that he wanted to transform a derelict railroad yard considered a blot on the downtown he had worked to beautify into a 24-acre park with an outdoor stage facing a "great lawn." The plan included a 300-seat indoor theater and a reflecting pool that would double as an ice rink in winter.

At the time, Daley said $120 million of the projected $150 million cost would be covered by parking fees from a new below-ground garage. Private donations would take care of the rest.

As construction began, costs soared as the plans expanded and the work proved far more complex than anticipated. The host of add-ons included the famous Cloud Gate sculpture known as The Bean and an innovative fountain with video sculptures.

Within 15 months of his 1998 announcement, Daley's City Hall had issued $170 million in bonds. Three months later, all of that money was spent.

As costs soared, Daley's City Hall drew down funds from a special property tax district adjacent to the park, despite his pledge to put no tax money into the park. Eventually, more than $95 million in tax increment finance district funds went to pay for Millennium Park.

By 2004, the wealthy financial backers Daley enlisted had pumped $200 million into the park's construction and put in another $20 million for an endowment to help maintain the park.

The money Daley borrowed was supposed to be repaid with fees from the garage beneath the park. By 2006, it was clear they would not cover the cost — the city had paid nearly $10 million from a reserve fund to cover the difference.

Faced with a large debt on his signature project, Daley leased the garage beneath the park and three other Park District-owned downtown parking garages to a Morgan Stanley investment company for 99 years. Morgan Stanley was then free to raise parking rates as high as it saw fit. In exchange, the city got a onetime payment of $563 million.

Daley took nearly $208 million out of that windfall to pay off the bonds issued to build the garage and part of the park. The rest went to the Park District.

As part of the 2006 lease, the city agreed to not allow public parking in the surrounding area. But three years later, it granted Standard Parking a public garage license beneath the Aqua tower, which led to a $57.8 million arbitration judgment against the city that was later upheld in court. The city is appealing.

"The city is giving the (garage operator) control of development in the east Loop," said Clint Krislov, an attorney who is trying to reverse the lease in court. "There can be no new garages in the East Loop. It is insane."

The parking garage deal also ended up going south for Morgan Stanley. The firm had borrowed $350 million for its investment and entered into related interest rate swaps that further increased its costs. In January, the firm gave up control of the garages to the bank that lent the money, according to a financial report filed with the city under the terms of the lease.

Much of the early money spent on the park went to people who had connections to Daley after he recruited former aide Ed Bedore to launch the project, according to a 2001 Tribune investigative report that concluded the then-underway project was dogged by haphazard planning, design blunders and cronyism.

A team of Bedore allies was assembled to get things moving. They included financial advisers and bond companies that employed former Bedore budget office employees. And an engineering firm led by James McDonough, a former Streets and Sanitation commissioner under Daley's father, was hired to work on the effort.

Benefiting from the Park Grill deal that Emanuel is now trying to void were Daley friend Fred Barbara and city contractor Raymond Chin, investors in the restaurant that is run by Matthew O'Malley, who owns the Firehouse Restaurant where Daley took then-President George W. Bush for his birthday in 2006. Daley attorneys are now trying to keep the former mayor from having to testify at the ongoing trial in the city's civil lawsuit.

A bribery scandal stemming from a Millennium Park landscaping deal saw a former Park District executive, the contractor and one of his top employees plead guilty.

Much of the controversy over the delays, cost overruns and contracts faded away after the park opened. But some of it resurfaced last year, when the Tribune reported that Daley borrowed $29.5 million between 2005 and 2011 just to keep the park running. Emanuel stopped that practice, but taxpayers are paying down $5.5 million of that debt this year and are expected to pay at least $2 million in future years until the loans are paid off.

This year, the city also is paying $6.1 million to cover park operations, money generated by advertising on city bus shelters, as Daley first envisioned. The Millennium Park Foundation chips in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to cover upgrades and maintenance.

Also helping to subsidize the park are fees from private events such as weddings, fundraisers, corporate events and film and television shoots. In 2013, those events brought in more than $637,000.

While Millennium Park is thought of as a proven tourist attraction that helped spur hundreds of millions of dollars in private development in the surrounding area, the controversy is likely to live on in the history books.

"Millennium Park is clearly one of the Daley administration's proudest public improvements, and one that is deserving of recognition," said Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, a government budget watchdog group. "However, the lack of financial oversight and budgeting rigor that went into the project ended up costing the city of Chicago much more than was projected and much more than was probably necessary to build this great public asset."

hdardick@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-millennium-park-costs-met-20140714-story.html
 
Actually I was already thinking in the back of my head how much that translates to in an annualized way under various scenarios (30, 50 years) when I was typing out that original response. Only reasonable.

I think if you spread it over that length of time you open up the possibility of being accused of "playing with numbers"...but certainly no criticism can be leveled at showing an annual cost based on the number or years of construction.



Yeah, but politically it would be hard to sell that notion in a zero-sum environment.

AoD

Would it? Is all the money for, say, the extension of Line 2 further into Scarborough coming from funds generated inside Scarborough.....the city is, after all, a bit of a collective.
 
That's an interesting read on Chicago, and a small part of it's money problems. Thanks for posting.
 
That's an interesting read on Chicago, and a small part of it's money problems. Thanks for posting.
I tried to reduce the length, but every time I thought I could cut it, there was more meat left on the bone. Toronto isn't anywhere near as corrupt as Chicago (without being too sanctimonious)(Montreal might take the brioche for that), but there are lessons to be learned. And I'm a bit worried about the way Tory is going about it. We still haven't a clue how the SmartTrack stations are going to be paid for (and Del Muncho wants figures in a month or so) so Tory takes a page from Wynne et al: "Distract their attention!". "Hey, massive squirrel...over there!"

I'd have more faith in Tory if he announced: (gist) "We realize there's huge opportunity to put the air rights over the rail lands to good use. We can't afford to finance it, but we can provide the planning by-laws and amenities to make it happen in a way that suits us all, We will trade planning permission for developed parkland open to all, and/or, turned over to the City when finished".

THAT would be believable.
 
I think if you spread it over that length of time you open up the possibility of being accused of "playing with numbers"...but certainly no criticism can be leveled at showing an annual cost based on the number or years of construction.

It depends on the nature of the project and the phasing.

Would it? Is all the money for, say, the extension of Line 2 further into Scarborough coming from funds generated inside Scarborough.....the city is, after all, a bit of a collective.

Except the city portion of Line 2 extension is funded by a city wide levy - which have a political backing that I don't see with a park downtown. Individuals at City Hall love to talk about it being a collective affair only when it benefits them.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the railways will not be "donating" the park, like John Howard did with High Park, because they will still be using the tracks under the park.

In 1855, it cost New York City around $5 million (in 1855 dollars of course) just to "buy" the land for Central Park. Then they had to spend more to develop it into a park.
 

Back
Top