salsa
Senior Member
So, in other words, Waterfront TO does have a vested interest in removing the Gardiner. They would be able to make money off this to fund their other projects. This is why I think they shouldn't have been involved in the study - at least not so much.
Their mandate is to create an attractive waterfront. The "improve option" is nothing more than lipstick on a pig, that will seriously hinder the full potential of the waterfront. It has to go.
![12414732975_72fff2f8e8_c.jpg](http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7344/12414732975_72fff2f8e8_c.jpg)
![12415216434_6b8f17af3a_o.jpg](http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7363/12415216434_6b8f17af3a_o.jpg)
![12415859474_dbdc9d4f2a_c.jpg](http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5473/12415859474_dbdc9d4f2a_c.jpg)
Seriously? No thanks.
![12414732765_58a27f4b7e_c.jpg](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2880/12414732765_58a27f4b7e_c.jpg)
![12415217694_8530d94aa7_o.png](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3834/12415217694_8530d94aa7_o.png)
Last edited: