News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.3K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.2K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

I don't put much faith in a 1929 law that precedes most of today's viewpoints - and a whole lot of legal precedents - on urban planning and zoning and balance of powers. Federal authority is seldom exercised unilaterally these days (well, not since Harper left, anyways) and there would be considerable deference to lower levels.

The usual dynamics of negotiation apply. Posturing notwithstanding, neither the city nor the developers really want to go to the OMB or (eventually) to court.....it's long, messy, costly, and no one really knows what a third party would decide. "Don't ask a question unless you actually want to hear the answer" applies. So far, some very key facts are not yet on the table. And, mayoral posturing notwithstanding, the City needs developers' needs met to lower the end cost. Most importantly, everybody needs to save face.

There is more incentive to reach a deal - perhaps on the courtroom steps - than there is to slug this out.

- Paul
 
So, we need to get Queen's Park and Ottawa on side with the city vs. the developers. We've let developers build condos all over the city. All it takes is an act of legislation to expropriate the lands for public use, and if ownership of land or air rights are confirmed give them fair value (not potential value as a condo, since none has been approved, but whatever that land/air would be worth). I imagine the city, province or feds took tens of thousands of hectares from private land owners when building the Gardiner Express Way, DVP, 400 series highways, Pickering Airport, Pearson Airport, etc. Government is supreme as the representative of the people.

Take the lands, let the developers waste their cash on a Supreme Court of Canada challenge if they want.
 
steveintoronto said:
lol...you must be joking? Just heading out the door, I'm late, but you might do well to Google: "Pickering Airport".

So who do you think the air rights belong to over them?
Click to expand...
I get you, but when replying to someone saying "these days", it's not ideal to use an example of expropriation that happened in the 1970s.
 
I'm wondering if Canada Lands Corporation would have some ownership by default. Also the original "Metro Centre" development was to be built largely over the rail corridor. Perhaps there's some related tidbits about ownership/leasing in those unbuilt plans.
 
Expropriation isn't even necessarily the issue - the more fundamental one is whether building on top of the rail corridor in the manner hinted (i.e. more or less permanent, immutable condo buildings) is in the best interest of the city region, particularly regional rail AND potential expansion of intercity rail - and whether the city should even approve such plans en masse. Is it really appropriate for TTR to determine what is the best land use beyond expertise directly related to rail operations?

AoD
 
Agreed. But I think the City will be thrown a bone, and that the finer details will all come out in the wash. For now I think the key is for the real stakeholders to cash in while the getting is good (Feds, Prov, quasi-autonomous rogue agencies). Right now all the City can do is wait on the sidelines until the anticipatory hand rubbing has cooled off a bit.
 
steveintoronto said:
lol...you must be joking? Just heading out the door, I'm late, but you might do well to Google: "Pickering Airport".

So who do you think the air rights belong to over them?
Click to expand...

To exercise federal powers, Ottawa would have to argue an overriding national interest. It just isn't there. Ottawa's most arguable interest would be to ensure that the corridor remains available for use as a railway. That issue is moot, because this tract has about as many tracks as one could put there, and no one is suggesting that developing the air rights will constrain the rail use.

This is a municipal level land planning decision, nothing more. Even if the ultimate authority is held federally, any sane federal government of any political strip would not wade into a local fray unnecessarily or preemptively. They have neither the expertise nor the parallel land planning procedures and policies in place to even attempt to resolve this, let alone sustain their position through a legal challenge. Nor would they take a position in a matter that could leave them on the hook for funding or damages. Sometimes passing the buck is the right approach.

The air rights over the rail lands have always been held by the land owner, up to the point where they sell them to someone else. The Pickering airport issue http://www.aaron.ca/columns/2005-03-26.htm is a very different fact base.

And (as the 2014 article demonstrates) there has long been a recognition that the rights above this particular bit of terra firma might have great value some day. Historically, ownership was held by CN and TTR. I'm confident that they were holding onto these rights against an eventual development transaction. Whether they have already transferred ownership is obviously being debated, and we don't have the facts or the legal viewpoint on this yet.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I find it hard to believe that they are unaware of air rights issue - that kind of incompetence from all three is unthinkable (esp. from JK from a planning perspective and JT from a strategic one). But look at what it has done? It basically gotten TTR to issue a letter, flushed out some noises about another private proposal AND then have the former talk about "working together" in public.

AoD
Click to expand...

JT and JK are tactical geniuses said no one ever.
 
Palma said:
How is it possible that CN and TTR do not know whether they have sold the air rights to that developer?
Click to expand...

No different than selling a house or renting an apartment. You do a bunch of paperwork that is your "offer to purchase" or your rental application. Lots of things happen before the realtor puts the "Sold" sign on the lawn. The buyer/tenant may even get the keys to the place before the actual closing or move-in date. They may enter the premises to take measurements, do cleaning or painting. And then lots of things can arise whereby the vendor decides you aren't taking possession, or the landlord decides you aren't moving in. The locks may get changed. The buyer/tenant may decide to back out of the deal. Your bank may or may not loan you the money. The property may fail a title search or a building inspection. You may or may not get your deposit back. Lawyers get rich on this stuff.


- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top