Jump to content

Mayor opposes stadium location


cyris2k

Recommended Posts

Mayor opposes stadium location

Downsview not as good as Exhibition

Planned site will be `white elephant'

JENNIFER QUINN

SPORTS REPORTER

Mayor David Miller and other city officials are hoping to derail plans to build a $60 million soccer stadium at Downsview Park.

They were angry yesterday after the Star reported that the Canadian Soccer Association had selected Downsview over city-owned Exhibition Place as the stadium site.

"People from all over the GTA can get there very easily and Exhibition Place knows how to run a sports stadium," Miller said of his preferred location.

"Of these two sites, there's no doubt it's the only one that wouldn't be a white elephant and would work."

Even more upset with the CSA's move was Councillor Maria Augimeri (York Centre), whose riding Downsview's in.

"It's a total shock to me and my constituents," she said. "They haven't been consulted on this at all.

"It's 20,000 extra people coming into a community that doesn't have the infrastructure to handle it. I'd be willing to go to court on this issue, I really would."

The CSA has been urgently seeking a Toronto-area spot for its stadium in the hopes of getting it built in time to help host the 2007 world youth soccer championship, which has been awarded to Canada. Previous plans to build downtown at the University of Toronto and at York University fell through when U of T and then the CFL's Argonauts pulled out.

In July, the CSA virtually anointed the Ex as the home of the new stadium, even going so far as to say there was no second choice in a letter to Joe Volpe, the federal minister responsible for the GTA.

But with the federal government offering $27 million in stadium funding, the CSA changed its mind and decided to focus on Downsview Park, which is on federal land near Keele St. and Sheppard Ave. W.

"A soccer stadium at Exhibition Place would be an urban stadium, where people could walk, bike or take transit," said Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone, who is also the chair of Exhibition Place.

"Minister Volpe is fixated on not liking Exhibition Place. He should tell that to the 5.2 million people who visit each year."

Stephen Heckbert, Volpe's spokesperson, said the minister has no bias against the Ex site.

"Up until yesterday," he said, "it wasn't our understanding that the CSA had made a commitment to one site."

Now that the organization has, Heckbert said, the responsibility of the city's federal, provincial and municipal representatives is to focus on making the stadium a reality.

But Pantalone said yesterday that the city wouldn't commit to funding — subject to city council approval — unless it's built at Exhibition Place.

"Why would we put money into a place that doesn't work?" he said. "We don't want to be part of it because we think it's a bad decision."

Miller was adamant yesterday that the deal wasn't done yet, and he's correct: there is still a process the CSA must complete with the federal government to get the $27 million, which was originally pledged to the soccer group's previous stadium plans. Also to be completed are negotiations with the province, which has offered $8 million.

CSA chief operating officer Kevan Pipe reiterated that Downsview is a good spot for the stadium because it's in the centre of the GTA, and said, "Hopefully, we'll be able to remind everyone that we're talking about a facility in the city of Toronto."

His group hopes to begin construction at the former military base in the new year and have the stadium ready for April 2007.

"We may not be able to please all of the people all of the time," Pipe said. "But a 20,000-seat stadium is going to be built for this event and the city of Toronto is going to benefit for decades to come. Let's give it fair dues."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Does the CSA ever get things right?

Before hyping Varsity did they ever ask the folks at MLSE if there was anything that would make them back out and, thus, embaress the CSA?

After that harsh lesson, did they ever ask the Argos that question before telling us York was the greatest site that the heavens ever created for a stadium?

Now just one day after leaking out how perfect the Downsview site is ("centre of the GTA") we find out that the City of Toronto (the body that would need to issue the actual building permits for crying out loud) is vehemently opposed to Downsview and is calling the site a white elephant! Does Mr. Pipe not have Mr. Miller's phone number? Did he not think to say "we are leaking that Downsview is the place....we need your support!".

Wow....before anyone says "the feds will just tell Miller what to do and where it is going"....I have three words to that.....Island Airport Bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it was by accident, or the CSA got someone clever involved but by announcing essentialy nothing (well the fact Downsview is the target site now) they've turned up this whole process a notch and given it some urgency which seemed to be previously lacking.

Might be a Hell of a fund raising move as well.

Huh. Pretty sharp.

P.S. I wouldn't worry about MLSE. From the read in the Downsview topic I'm going to guess that MLSE is pretty firmly commited to their whole MLS scheme. Think it's getting down to a matter of squeezing the most money they can out of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, one thing everyone missed in yesterday's article was that the $60 million cost quoted didn't include any financial contribution from the City of Toronto.

I'm guessing that the CSA is realizing that the clock is running out is going for it and realizing that they can build the stadium without City funds, with the Feds providing most of the money & all of the land and with the MLSE content to put the MLS is Downsview, have decided to take that route. Its too bad Quinn didn't put any mention of the City & Mayor in the first article, as by their absense we had assumed that the debate had ended.

I have no sympathy for the City wanting to go to Ex as long as Joe Pantalone is the Deputy Mayor. He is one of the people that tore down Exhibition Stadium in the first place. Now he's changed his mind,after its been torn down. Too bad, and too late. You had your chance and you blew it.

I also have no sympathy for any Nimby councillors from Downsview. They have two major highways, the bus and a subway stop right there - how much more infrastructure do they need? They seem to cope pretty well when the Pope and the Stones visit, which brought out crowds of larger than 20,000, let me tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was posted in the other thread, where there's also a CP article which also assumed that the fighting over the location was over. It says the MLSE doesn't care where the stadium goes & its the first time that we've heard an indication from MLSE that they will help fund the stadium.

So the only problem is the City of Toronto, who are objecting to receiving a free gift of a soccer stadium because its not in the best spot they'd like. Well boo hoo.

--------------

THE CANADIAN Soccer Association's plan to build a 20,000-seat stadium at Downsview Park is not even close to becoming reality.

In the wake of a report confirming the CSA had chosen Downsview as its site yesterday, City of Toronto politicians blasted the association for backing out of a idea to build at Exhibition Place and the CSA confirmed it still needs some funding to help foot the $55-$60 million bill.

Toronto Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone said the city was interested in spending "in the (mid-to-high) single-digit millions" to help erect a facility at Exhibition Place, not anywhere else. The CSA sent out a letter last month indicating Exhibition Place was the desired location.

"I'm scratching my head at this," Pantalone, who cited environmental and transportation concerns, said.

"This is not the best place to ensure we have the proper customer base (for the facility)."

City councillor Maria Augimeri, who is responsible for the area where Downsview Park is located, is furious with the federal government for not consulting the city on the matter. The feds are slated to put up $27 million and the provincial government is expected to contribute $8 million, with the rest coming from private investors. However, the CSA has not sent its final proposal for funding to the federal or provincial governments.

Augimeri said previous events at Downsview Park have led to plenty of illegal parking in her Ward 9, blocking in residents and not allowing emergency services to access the area properly.

"This is going to wreak havoc on our community," she said. "It is absurd that they would do this without consultation. They're going to need to connect with our sewers (to run the facility). This puts me in a position where I'd say to our mayor, 'Let's not let them flush their toilets.' How else are we supposed to deal with this arrogance?"

CSA chief operating officer Kevan Pipe said he remains hopeful Toronto will help financially. He also admitted not all funding is secure for the facility, which needs to start being built by March 1, 2006 at the latest to ensure it is ready for the world youth soccer championships in July 2007.

"We've got a little ways to go," said Pipe, who has not revealed potential private investors. "We are marching toward that ($55-$60 million) mark."

Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd., which wants to place a Major League Soccer pro team in the CSA-operated venue, could be a small financial contributor to the stadium.

"(The CSA) will probably need some help," MLSE president/CEO Richard Peddie said. "I don't want to show our hand. It won't be (the bulk of the) $25 million (that MLSE commits), but we can help in many ways."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Augimeri said previous events at Downsview Park have led to plenty of illegal parking in her Ward 9, blocking in residents and not allowing emergency services to access the area properly.

Those events had about what, 4 or 5 times the number of people that could possibly attend a 20,000 seat stadium event?

Unless there are no plans to include a parking lot with the facility (and heaven knows that there is enough space to include one), I don't think she has a sewer grating to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way both levels of government are playing politics with this is truly galling. It's a downright political pissing match between the Mayor and the federal Minister for Toronto with the CSA in the middle getting pissed on by both sides. The CSA had to pick a side here and I think they picked the right side by following the $$$.

My great fear now is that the city will try to derail this by putting up zoning barriers or filing a court challenge of some sort. Even a spurious court challenge could delay the project enough to kill it and I don't doubt that the city would do this out of spite alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I hate writing it, if this Stadium "complex" they have planned is going to include additional fields, winter play facilities, training centre and indoor soccer fields (a real multi-purpose, high usage, all seasons venue) then the Downsview site may just be preferable. Toronto money be damned.

From what I understand, it has easier access to automobile traffic and has a much more suburban location. You're going to your customers and that's always a smart thing to do.

And if an all season athletic/soccer complex well cover the operating costs of the facility, then that is a very important consideration.

Of course I'm assuming something here as we haven't seen the CSAs full construction and usage plans yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by MikeD

The way both levels of government are playing politics with this is truly galling. It's a downright political pissing match between the Mayor and the federal Minister for Toronto with the CSA in the middle getting pissed on by both sides. The CSA had to pick a side here and I think they picked the right side by following the $$$.

True, though you still have to wonder if they could have handled the release of the news in a better way. Still, if two sides refuse to agree you have to go forward with plans at some point with time running out with the hope that one can either be ignored or placated. FIFA's coming next month to inspect the site.

quote:

My great fear now is that the city will try to derail this by putting up zoning barriers or filing a court challenge of some sort. Even a spurious court challenge could delay the project enough to kill it and I don't doubt that the city would do this out of spite alone.

Yeah, that appears to be the remaining concern at this point. But I don't know if they have a leg to stand on since it is Federal land, not City-owned land. I would be surprised if a zoning problem could be invented at this stage. I am trying to think of what they could possibly do. Preventative Injunctions can be tough to obtain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Globe & Mail article: (incidentally, Joe Pantalone is full of it when he says Downsview can only be accessed by car - is he planning to blow up the subway system there?)

Downsview Pulls Ahead as Site for New Soccer Stadium.

By JENNIFER LEWINGTON AND PETER MALLETT

Thursday, September 8, 2005 Page A18

With a report from Robert MacLeod

Federally owned Downsview Park has raced ahead as the preferred site for a new $60-million soccer stadium to the dismay of Toronto officials who back Exhibition Place.

With Canada playing host to the 2007 world youth soccer championship in Toronto and other cities, a spokesman for the Canadian Soccer Association issued a key endorsement yesterday for Downsview Park, which is situated on the northern edge of the city.

"Multiple discussions over the past five or six weeks have led to the selection of Downsview," said Kevan Pipe, chief operating officer of the soccer association. "The site is very appealing, it is in the centre of the city, near subway lines and has a lot of things going for it."

The imminent arrival of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) under-21 championship makes it critical to settle on a location for the 20,000-seat stadium, he said.

Advertisements

The Downsview plans are contingent on federal funding.

Deputy mayor Joe Pantalone said the news left him "surprised and perplexed."

He said the soccer association had previously favoured Exhibition Place, home of the Canadian National Exhibition, because stadium services are in place, with easy access to transit and major roads.

The Downsview site is a poor choice, Mr. Pantalone said, because "you can only get there by car."

But others disagree. Federal Immigration Minister Joe Volpefavours Downsview Park.

"We have the potential of bringing a world tournament into the Toronto area -- notice I said the Toronto area," he said yesterday.

A soccer stadium, he added, "would have the capacity to attract a first-class franchise," a reference to plans by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. for a possible major league soccer franchise in Toronto.

Mr. Pantalone, clearly upset at the latest turn of events, criticized Ottawa, and Mr. Volpe in particular, for what he called a "whimsical" attitude that appears to ignore the merits of Exhibition Place.

Meanwhile, Richard Peddie, chief executive officer and president of Maple Leaf Sports, said yesterday that his company is "very interested" in a franchise "but we would not do it without a stadium.

"So we're watching what's happening -- Downsview it looks like today -- with great interest."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

But I don't know if they have a leg to stand on since it is Federal land, not City-owned land. I would be surprised if a zoning problem could be invented at this stage. I am trying to think of what they could possibly do. Preventative Injunctions can be tough to obtain.

G-L, I actually feel a bit more optimistic based on your comment above. I had been under the impression that braindead NIMBYs could derail this with court challenges, zoning bylaws, building permits, etc, especially since it appears that the dirtbag local politicians are siding with the NIMBYs. As an attorney, are you reasonably confident that these types of things (esp zoning and building permits) won't be an issue because of it being on federal land? I'd thought that the city politicians could still deny a building permit, especially if local NIMBYs start b.itching.

As far as my comments re the bumbling boobs at the CSA, I stand by that, since in my view they should have anticipated this kind of crap, and made sure things were square with the local politicans behind closed doors prior to going public with this. If Pipe thinks that having something approved by the CSA board of directors is a major accomplishment, or matters 2 cents in the real world, then he is living in his own delusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Dave

As far as my comments re the bumbling boobs at the CSA, I stand by that, since in my view they should have anticipated this kind of crap, and made sure things were square with the local politicans behind closed doors prior to going public with this.

Well, it seems like in this case you can either get in bed with the local politicians or get in with the federal and provincial ones. Not both. They made their choice and went public maybe in the hopes this might pressure the local politicians a little bit. Or to get the bitching out of the way now seeing as how it is inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, sometimes you have to choose sides. However, based on my work and life experience, I believe that in such situations it's necesaary to do preventative damage control.... in this case, you have a polite phone conversation with the mayor and the appropriate council members beforehand, explaining your position, the reasons underlying it, and your intention of going public. This gives them a chance to vent a bit to you privately, and it also opens the door to you throwing them a few concessions. Hopefully that way they don't feel blindsided when you go public, and they avoid taking public positions which they find it difficult to back down from later. Never paint a politician into a corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess any media is good media.I just am sitting here and chuckling about 3 minutes away from the Downsview side.Lots of busses, a subway and an sixteen lane highway(401) one way and another eight lane, the Allen express way the other way.Sheppard is also a four lane street, plus we have Finch on the north and Wilson on the south. This thing must be the easiest one to get to. As I promised you guys, free parking at my store. My lot holds 36 spots.

This is also the place were the Pope and the Stones had their fun with some 800.000 fans I believe attending the two events, the biggest ever in Canadian history.

Anyway let's build this thing and with the MLS input meaning the Rogers boys this is going to be a big turning point in Canadian soccer history.

I knew politicians are screwed up but these flagrant excuses and lies make me shudder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Dave

G-L, I actually feel a bit more optimistic based on your comment above. I had been under the impression that braindead NIMBYs could derail this with court challenges, zoning bylaws, building permits, etc, especially since it appears that the dirtbag local politicians are siding with the NIMBYs. As an attorney, are you reasonably confident that these types of things (esp zoning and building permits) won't be an issue because of it being on federal land? I'd thought that the city politicians could still deny a building permit, especially if local NIMBYs start b.itching.

I'm not a practising lawyer and certainly not an expert in this area, so I wouldn't say I'm reasonably confident of anything. I mentioned zoning in particular as unlikely to be a concern because the location in question has been used for concerts & events in the past & is also the proposed site for a provincial sports complex to improve athletics in Ontario. Given this, it seems unlikely that zoning is a problem.

Building permits, I'm not sure about. Its not something we ever studied in law school to be honest. It should be governed by the Ontario Building Code Act, I believe. There would have to be a legitimate legal reason to deny a permit, and I would be very surprised if the Deputy Mayor being on the board of Directors of Exhibition place would be considered one. Of course, if they are really desperate to ensure no stadium happens rather than see one get built at all, they might still try something in this regard, if they are able to.

The only person suggesting that it will be taken to court is a councillor who could very well be talking out of her ass with a knee-jerk reaction of Nimby anger. The other quotes suggest that the City can do no more than threaten to not contribute any funding to the stadium, which is sounding less and less like its necessary at all, especially if the Leafs are ready to pick up the slack.

It should be noted that the Sun article is the most negative of the four articles we've seen, and the first line of it practically reads as "Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah" to rival paper the Star getting the scoop on them. The other articles appear more balanced, though the Sun article actually might contain the best news of all the way it ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very odd that a mayor and deputy-mayor would speak so negatively about a proposed site - going so far as to call it a white elephant (which could ironically describe the Ex grounds).

Such strong (and potentially narrow-minded) opinions are not David Miller's style (up to now) and not what the city needs right now. Almost seems as though there is some (backroom) deal-with-the-devil, in pushing for the Ex so strongly.

The City should come to grips that this is a proposed national stadium - not a municipal one.

On a sidenote, does the Toronto Star have a new reporter that is actually interested in soccer? Jennifer Quinn has been quite busy this week - great to see expanded soccer coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Yeah, that appears to be the remaining concern at this point. But I don't know if they have a leg to stand on since it is Federal land, not City-owned land. I would be surprised if a zoning problem could be invented at this stage. I am trying to think of what they could possibly do. Preventative Injunctions can be tough to obtain.

Zoning can be a concern if the said project has a negative effect on the broader community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This point was made by a bigsoccer.com poster - this quote from Volpe from the Globe article sounds a bit ominous towards the City councillors when combined with the news that the Mayor of neighbouring Vaughan supports the idea of Downsview.

"We have the potential of bringing a world tournament into the Toronto area -- notice I said the Toronto area," he said yesterday.

Loose Translation: "If the City puts up too much of a fuss, we'll give it to Vaughan. Now piss off."

Also note that the Leafs have indicated that they are willing to help out the CSA in "many ways" - ie. more than financial ways, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by David C.

On a sidenote, does the Toronto Star have a new reporter that is actually interested in soccer? Jennifer Quinn has been quite busy this week - great to see expanded soccer coverage.

Three in a row on local soccer as well, while Cathal Kelly continues to ignore the country he's writing for in the same paper.

Having spoken to her on Monday,I get the feeling she's been assigned to cover it, rather than being a huge fan. She did say she covered the matches at the Skydome last year (and mentioned that our chants were better than the Liverpool fans), but I think that was the only time until now that she's covered socccer and I don't think she's overly knowledgeable about the game itself, but that doesn't mean that she can't be if she continues to cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Zoning can be a concern if the said project has a negative effect on the broader community.

But if there is no current zoning problem now the City would have to be quick to deliberately re-zone the area ahead of time to prevent the Feds from building on their own land. That's going to look slightly suspicious, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

"We have the potential of bringing a world tournament into the Toronto area -- notice I said the Toronto area," he said yesterday.

Loose Translation: "If the City puts up too much of a fuss, we'll give it to Vaughan. Now piss off."

Also note that the Leafs have indicated that they are willing to help out the CSA in "many ways" - ie. more than financial ways, perhaps?

Thats an enouraging piece of info. I didn't think of that..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

But if there is no current zoning problem now the City would have to be quick to deliberately re-zone the area ahead of time to prevent the Feds from building on their own land. That's going to look slightly suspicious, to say the least.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and please point out the law saying so, but I'm not sure the city can regulate building on federal lands. The feds can simply flip the city the bird and tell the bumbling clowns on Toronto Council to be gone from their sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on the issue of planning law and the capacity of Toronto to put up obstacles, there is some capacity for TO to do this. First off, it is useful to understand that municipalities are creatures of the province and have no legal "standing" beyond what provincial legislation allows (hence the ability of provinces to force amalgamations). This is important for two reasons. Ultimately the hammer lies with the province of Ontario who can simply legislate Toronto into behaving the way they want. Of course, throughout the whole process there are the political sensibilities, starting with Toronto playing fast and loose with the planning process - i.e. they may want exhibition but if political careers are on the line, they won't mess things up. Similalrly with the province. You don't excersize the hammer if its gonna cost you elections. The second reason that it is relevant is that, while legally, Cities can not tax federal or provincial governments (even property taxes), by convention, these governments pay grants-in-lieu of taxes (i.e they give a grant equal to what they would have been taxed). This means that the feds will likely have had the area in question zoned at the level that costs the least tax wise for its current use. i.e. if it is largely parkland, it may be sitting as urban reserve, which is taxed at a lower rate than residential, commecial or industrial (and has few if any permitted uses). If that is the case, then they will have to get the land rezoned. Now, I am unfamiliar with Toronto's land use by-law but it is quite likely that the city will not be compelled to zone it as requested by the feds if it is not already zoned as is needed to build the statium. More importantly, virtually every city/town/village takes the pains to designate potentially disruptive or controversial activities (bars, churches, stadiums, etc. etc) as a "discretionary" rather than a "permitted" use. So even if the land is appropriately zoned for the construction type, the stadium almost certainly will require City approval to proceed.

Without knowing exactly the use and designation of the downsview site, nor the land-use by-law, I am still quite confident that Toronto's Municipal Planning Commission will be able to block the devlopment, if they are so motivated, as it would be consistent with planning law and practice in canada generally and I have no reason to expect that Toronto would be any different. But the will do so will almost certainly be directed by community politics. If its a popular it will get built. The ward system always results in posturing, the most humourous I can recall would be former Calagry Mayor Al Deurr, while still an alderman, public opposing a development becasue his ward didn't like it, while privately calling in favours from his colleagues to vote for it as the developer was a major contributor to Duerr's campaigns. And of course, if the province decides to intervene, then they can simply legislate appropriately and Toronto will have no options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...