News   Nov 15, 2024
49-Storey Condo Proposed on Dundas West Near Kipling Mobility Hub
 331     2 
News   Nov 15, 2024
Development Opportunity Offers Pre-Approved High-Rise Potential in Downtown Hamilton
 687     0 
News   Nov 15, 2024
Crosstown Community Progressing at Don Mills and Eglinton
 1K     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
dt_toronto_geek said:
Daniels and their arrangement with Regent Park is a whole different can of worms, and you know it. They needed a developer willing and able to go in there with the master plan and build this unique revitalization.
I don't think putting the Councillor on a list for early sales for a building in the revitalized Regent Park stinks at all. She and her husband paid market value for the unit. Perks (here, as early purchasers) to some people in some positions or with connections is very normal. When I was an executive at my last job, I got perks related and affiliated with my job too.
What risk is there to putting money down on any pre-construction condo in this city or Province? I'd say if anything, there may be a risk to the value of the property in Regent Park given it's previous, unfortunate reputation. But she chose to live there, among her constituents, of all income levels.
Click to expand...

There is a risk of putting down money on a pre-construction condo. What if the project falls through? You may get your money back but you have lost out on the opportunity that you would have realized if you had bought into another project that succeeded.

As for getting perks in the private sector there is a big difference between an employer deciding to give an employee a perk (e.g. company car) to keep them happy and a private developer conferring a perk upon elected official (not saying that happened here but the optics sure looked bad!).
 
Peepers said:
As for getting perks in the private sector there is a big difference between an employer deciding to give an employee a perk (e.g. company car) to keep them happy and a private developer conferring a perk upon elected official (not saying that happened here but the optics sure looked bad!).
Click to expand...

If you actually read my message or the linked article, or any one of the other thousand resources out there about it that are available with with three seconds of due diligence, you'll find out that the only thing she had going for her that allowed her to get on the list was that she could come up with $250.00. That's it. There was absolutely no favoritism, perk, discount, notice or help from anyone here. Nothing.

The only people for whom this looked 'bad' are the people who learned about it from Sue Anne Levy's front page smear in the Sun and then never bothered to look any further. The worst thing is that the Sun and Levy must have known it was nothing. The thing doesn't pass the barest of sniff tests until you take the most deranged possible angle on it, which means it must have been an absolutely deliberate attempt by Levy and the Sun to smear someone for no reason whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
oops, I think they forgot to redact one instance of the name of the dry cleaner's kid on p. 386.
Not very relevant, but maybe there are other such mistakes...
 
Peepers, I see you chose not to engage or reply to blearghhh's post, which, to my eyes, neatly obliterates the aforementioned talking points. Has blearghhh made some factual error that I, an outsider, can't see? Could you point them out if so, please?

If not, this is a great example of a troll's selective engagement technique. Don't engage in any push back on your original statement which you cannot realistically defend, and instead pick a whole other aspect and make new claims. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
 
Peepers said:
There is a risk of putting down money on a pre-construction condo. What if the project falls through? You may get your money back but you have lost out on the opportunity that you would have realized if you had bought into another project that succeeded.
Click to expand...

No, not may get your money back, you will get your money back, let's be very clear here.
As for risk, well, I found the perfect winter jacket browsing online at Mark's but there's a risk that my size may not be in stock at their Eaton Centre store. I need to pick up some boxers there too, but there's always the risk they'll be sold out this time of year. I could get killed in a car accident driving up the DVP, that's the risk I take. We all take hundreds of risks every day. In the end, in this market, I can probably count on one hand the number of midrise & highrise projects that have failed this boom.
 
Ford was at the Albany Club for a "Christmas Party" of some kind.
pic from @YourLegacyInc
Ba2MWokIIAALC_l.jpg


another pic from @ANASTASIAAmusic on instagram
http://instagram.com/p/hmkwxcHGtz/
 
blearghhh said:
Hey, yeah, that's horrible! What kind of a person would take advantage of...



...oh, uh, but she voted on it, without declaring a conflict of interest?


Well, surely she got something out of doing it?


Good for the Sun for exposing this malfeasance on the front page of their newspaper! Investigative reporting is exactly what the news media should be doing more of!

All quotes from the lefty pravda rag: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lls-regent-park-condo-purchase/article627548/
Click to expand...

Of course she was not in a conflict of interest when she voted on the project because she had not bought into it as yet but that does not make her actions subsequent to the vote Kosher. Not by long shot!

Notice from the same article that TCHC employee's could only buy into the project provided they did not receive any preferential treatment. If TCHC employee's were prevented from receiving preferential treatment why is it OK for a Councillor? Just because she paid $250 to her real estate agent doesn't make it OK. It may be perfectly legal but it doesn't feel right.

When TCHC asked David Mullan, the city’s Integrity Commissioner at the time, if buying in would be a problem, he replied that “provided that there is no preferential access or priority, there can be no objection to any employee of TCHC … purchasing a condominium in the Regent Park revitalization at the price at which that condominium is available to the general public.”
Click to expand...

I also noticed from this G&M article this interesting fact:

Ms. McConnell, though, had faith in the project. She moved out of her rental co-op, gave up her garden, took out a big mortgage and bought at One Cole St. in Regent Park. “I’ve never regretted it. It’s a wonderful place to live because people have a future and hope that they didn’t have before. And we’ve been able to provide that by selling condominiums to people like me where the profits build people new homes.”
Click to expand...

So McConnell - who makes over $100,000 a year and her husband (how much does he make?) were living in a co-op - i.e. government supported housing intended for low income people!

Also according to Pam her move to Regent Park was an act of benevolence. She gave up her garden to buy into a condominium where the profits from the sale of homes to "people like her" go to build new homes for those less fortunate. What a load of B.S.! smh
 
Last edited:
It just dawned on me that perhaps Peepers is actually quite young. That would explain why he is unaware (time and time again) of what co-ops are.

Also, can people stop doing the Ford selfie thing already? I've seen several people I know on my fb feed who hate Rob Ford posing and smiling with him. It's just so pathetic.
 
Peepers said:
Notice from the same article that TCHC employee's could only buy into the project provided they did not receive any preferential treatment. If TCHC employee's were prevented from receiving preferential treatment why is it OK for a Councillor? Just because she paid $250 to her real estate agent doesn't make it OK. It may be perfectly legal but it doesn't feel right.
Click to expand...

This remark reminds me of that episode in West Wing where the President's secretary, Mrs. Laningham, paid full sticker price for a new car because she felt if she haggled and received a discount or some freebie accessories, she would be in violation of the government "receipt of gifts over $50" rule.

Preferential treatment means treatment not available to the general public. If the general public can put down a $250 deposit to get on the list, it's not preferential treatment.

Peepers said:
So McConnell - who makes over $100,000 a year and her husband (how much does he make?) were living in a co-op - i.e. government supported housing intended for low income people!
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Co-ops are properties where instead of holding fee simple deeds and having the property ruled by a strata, you actually own shares, and the property is ruled by a co-operative. I live in a neighbourhood in Vancouver where many of the large, mid-century apartment blocks are all co-op, and way out of my price range. I'm fortunate enough to have lucked into one of the few mid-century rental buildings, and have stayed here for 22 years now.
 
Parker said:
This remark reminds me of that episode in West Wing where the President's secretary, Mrs. Laningham, paid full sticker price for a new car because she felt if she haggled and received a discount or some freebie accessories, she would be in violation of the government "receipt of gifts over $50" rule.

Preferential treatment means treatment not available to the general public. If the general public can put down a $250 deposit to get on the list, it's not preferential treatment.



Uh, no. Co-ops are properties where instead of holding fee simple deeds and having the property ruled by a strata, you actually own shares, and the property is ruled by a co-operative. I live in a neighbourhood in Vancouver where many of the large, mid-century apartment blocks are all co-op, and way out of my price range. I'm fortunate enough to have lucked into one of the few mid-century rental buildings, and have stayed here for 22 years now.
Click to expand...

If and when Peepers admits his glaring mistake in this total smear job and apologizes, then I'll agree he's not a troll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top