Mayor opposes stadium location

[Richard]

My informant tells me the CSA is truly ticked off that the Downsview decision was leaked to the press prematurely. Their intention was to wait another month until all the necessary agreements were signed and sealed. This is the story anyway.

[Robert]

quote:Originally posted by john tv

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.

How many toilets have you got?[}]

[Guest Dave]

Richard, if the CSA is ticked off by the press leak, then why did Pipe tell the reporter about this in the first place? Did he say it "off the record"? If Pipe is foolish enough to trust a reporter to keep something off the record, then he has no business being in a position of responsibility. Besides, even if Pipe was sure he could trust this reporter, what would he have to gain by divulging such information to the press? Was he trying to appear important perhaps, or maybe he thought she was flirting with him :-) In any case, the fact that Pipe is the source of the info doesn't jive with the CSA being unhappy about the leak. Perhaps another reason Pipe should be relieved of his duties before he does more damage?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

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.

The case law supports you on this, in my view. Quoting from the 2004/2005 Edition of Ontario Planning Act & Commentary (a book not written, but developed by yours truly [8D] ) "Jurisprudence has confirmed the restriction on a municipality's ability to zone in relation to federal undertakings. Additionally, the limitation has been interpreted to restrict municipal zoning in relation to uses which are devoted and supportive of the federal undertaking."

In order for them to re-zone to prevent the Feds from using their own land, I think it would have to be demonstrated that the building of a stadium for use of the 2007 WYC is not a Federal activity.

[Johnnie Monster]

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

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.

I believe you are correct on this. Federal land is NOT subject to municipal zoning...

However, I believe there could be a few loopholes.

Vancouver has what's called a "grandfather clause"... it basically means the city was chartered before the province of British Columbia came into existence.

What this means is that the BC gov't has to jump through extra hoops to accomplish anything with provincially-owned land in the city boundaries - they can't just impose their wishes in Vancouver like they do in other BC communities.

It could be possible Toronto has similar leverage if it was chartered before "Canada" came into existence. I don't know Toronto's history that well, but it might be worth looking into.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

[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.

Possibly, but I'm not sure that it is the City that would be the one to do the re-zoning of the Feds land.

Also, its possible for a zoning by-law to be quashed due to bad faith, which I think would be the case here if the City Municipal Council were to be the ones to do the zoning and enacted it because, as they have publicly stated, they prefer Exhibition as the site for the stadium. They have to be seen to be impartial to the matter, which is too late would clearly not be the case. But I suspect its not up to them to do the zoning which is why the only threats we are hearing is "We won't fund the stadium, na na na na boo boo!"

[Elias]

Doesn't the province hold the power here? People in Ontario always complain about the Ontario Municple Board that it always overturns city council (any Ontario city including Toronto) decisions with regards to land use disputes. So wouldn't they get the final say? Although I find it hard to believe a province would have a say over federal land.

Somebody somewhere in one of these threads said something about the city actually putting up cash. This is the first time this has been mentioned has it not? Didn't the city always say they can only offer the CNE land and no actual cash. Hence the $35-million figure from the feds ($27) and the province ($8), nothing from the city. So now they are trying to pretend they are going to give money?

This is all the stadium needs. More clowns in the picture.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Johnnie Monster

It could be possible Toronto has similar leverage if it was chartered before "Canada" came into existence. I don't know Toronto's history that well, but it might be worth looking into.

I'm pretty sure that isn't the case here. I've never heard of anything in this regard as it applies to Toronto.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Possibly, but I'm not sure that it is the City that would be the one to do the re-zoning of the Feds land.

Also, its possible for a zoning by-law to be quashed due to bad faith, which I think would be the case here if the City Municipal Council were to be the ones to do the zoning and enacted it because, as they have publicly stated, they prefer Exhibition as the site for the stadium. They have to be seen to be impartial to the matter, which is too late would clearly not be the case. But I suspect its not up to them to do the zoning which is why the only threats we are hearing is "We won't fund the stadium, na na na na boo boo!"

The notion of "bad faith" is a very tough one to prove though. Polticians are expect by the courts to behave in political ways. And there is no obligation for a council to behave impartially on almost any manner. It happens all the time that political factors come into the decision making process. The only the courts would interven is if the municipality acted contrary to their own by-law. Which would mean denying a permit when the zoning is already apprpriate and the land use for the zone is a "permitted" use. Municipalities change zoning and land use by-laws in response to planned development all of the time. And they can do so legally. In Airdrie, AB, when I was the City Clerk it happen at least once or twice a year. And the simple reason that an elected council thought it in the best interest of the community was good enough. Toronto'c city council could pass a by-law amendment at their next council meeting to prevent the stadium and no court would overturn that.

In terms of municiaplities zoning federal lands, the jursidiction is not as cut and dried as the some have suggested here. But without debating that point - it has been too long since I worked in municipal planning for me to do it justice - I can say that the Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act specifically indicates that once federal lands are leased to a third party, they cease to be considered federal lands (i.e. if we are turning it over to yo, you assume liability, costs including taxes). Which means that the only way that the stadium can qualify as a federal building is if the stadium is owned an operated by the federal government. I am pretty sure they dont want to get into that. Which is why their threat is "we'll put it in Vaughn, na na na na boo boo!" But ultimatley, I don't think Toronto's City Council will using zoning to bugger this up because, I think they'll want in in Toronto rather than Vaughn when push come to shove.

[Loud Mouth Soup]

I knew Gian-Luca was good for something...

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

The notion of "bad faith" is a very tough one to prove though. Polticians are expect by the courts to behave in political ways. And there is no obligation for a council to behave impartially on almost any manner. It happens all the time that political factors come into the decision making process. The only the courts would interven is if the municipality acted contrary to their own by-law. Which would mean denying a permit when the zoning is already apprpriate and the land use for the zone is a "permitted" use. Municipalities change zoning and land use by-laws in response to planned development all of the time. And they can do so legally. In Airdrie, AB, when I was the City Clerk it happen at least once or twice a year. And the simple reason that an elected council thought it in the best interest of the community was good enough. Toronto'c city council could pass a by-law amendment at their next council meeting to prevent the stadium and no court would overturn that.

I'm not sure I agree. Findings of bad faith are becoming more an more common in the Canadian legal system (we are taking after the US in this regard), and in terms of a council a finding of bias wouldn't be that tough to prove IMO when people have already gone on record making biased statements that they prefer another location and when the Deputy Mayor in question who is so vehemently opposed to the stadium going to Downsview instead of Exhibition Place is also on the board of Directors of Exhibition Place. Its doesn't get much clearer than that, unless the argument is that the Toronto Municipal Council is not connected to or influenced in any way by the Mayor or its Deputy.

Any zoninng arguments have to be made on the basis that putting the stadium at Downsview is contrary to the Provincial policies & directives or will negatively affect the community, and has to be completely divorced from the Ex being a preferred location. The arguments provided thus far, based on transportation, are laughable, rather than persuasive.

quote:

In terms of municiaplities zoning federal lands, the jursidiction is not as cut and dried as the some have suggested here.

I think it has more to do with Federal activities & jurisdiction than land, but often it amounts to the same thing. There will be federal usage of this facility, the only grey area I see is that there it won't be exclusive federal use or an area which is exclusively the domain of the feds (since local pro sports teams will use it).

quote: I can say that the Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act specifically indicates that once federal lands are leased to a third party, they cease to be considered federal lands (i.e. if we are turning it over to yo, you assume liability, costs including taxes). Which means that the only way that the stadium can qualify as a federal building is if the stadium is owned an operated by the federal government.

Is a government association considered a third party in that Act? In any event, that would seemingly only apply to the question of taxes, rather than zoning.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

I knew Gian-Luca was good for something...

Because up til now I was good for nothing?

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

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.

Toronto Island Airport is federal and the city certainly stopped their bridge and expansion plans!

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan

Toronto Island Airport is federal and the city certainly stopped their bridge and expansion plans!

The airport might be but I suspect it had to have been the case that the bridge itself wouldn't have been over Federal land, but on the city-owned land that led to it.

There is a key difference in the political motivations here. Its not the case that the city doesn't want the stadium the way they didn't want a bridge to the airport. In this case the Mayor & Deputy Mayor want the facility for Toronto. They want it at their preferred location no doubt for their own developmental reasons. I'm thinking the choice to them is likely going to be you can get a free stadium for Toronto at Downsview or we'll give it to Vaughan. I could be wrong, but how else do you take Volpe's comments about "notice I said Toronto-area"?

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I'm not sure I agree. Findings of bad faith are becoming more an more common in the Canadian legal system (we are taking after the US in this regard), and in terms of a council a finding of bias wouldn't be that tough to prove IMO when people have already gone on record making biased statements that they prefer another location and when the Deputy Mayor in question who is so vehemently opposed to the stadium going to Downsview instead of Exhibition Place is also on the board of Directors of Exhibition Place. Its doesn't get much clearer than that, unless the argument is that the Toronto Municipal Council is not connected to or influenced in any way by the Mayor or its Deputy.

Any zoninng arguments have to be made on the basis that putting the stadium at Downsview is contrary to the Provincial policies & directives or will negatively affect the community, and has to be completely divorced from the Ex being a preferred location. The arguments provided thus far, based on transportation, are laughable, rather than persuasive.

No, they simply have to follow their own legislation and if the appropriate zoning for stadiums list stadiums as discretionary then it is at the planning commission's discretion. A city council, through its planning commission, has the authority to say "the only place we will approve a stadium is at exhibition." That is well established through centuries of planning law. Decisions can not be purely punitive and have to be based on legitament planning considerations which can be as simple as noise. Anyone would be hard pressed to prove that a preference for Exhibition is malicious, punitive or in bad faith.

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I think it has more to do with Federal activities & jurisdiction than land, but often it amounts to the same thing. There will be federal usage of this facility, the only grey area I see is that there it won't be exclusive federal use or an area which is exclusively the domain of the feds (since local pro sports teams will use it).

Yes that is the gist of it, and also has significant influence on zoning where a municipality annexes federal land. If FREX, Saskatoon annexed part of Corman Park that was land owned by the Feds, playing around with existing zoning to prevent say, a prision being built, would be more problematic than say denying a change in zoning.

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Is a government association considered a third party in that Act? In any event, that would seemingly only apply to the question of taxes, rather than zoning.

You know how the law works. The fact that the federal goverment changes its designation for some federal-municipal interaction will be brought forward as germain by a lawyer and a judge will consisder that on its merits. But far more important is convention. The way in which the three levels of government have been interacting for 150+ years. Will the feds mess with that over a stadium? And if it does come to hardball, then municipalities can simply refuse to supply water and sewer, fire and police protection. Its a messy business trying to "force" the issue for either party. I just don't see them doing this over a 60 million dollar stadium.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Unless I am mistaken, the Federal government withdrew their support of the Islands airport fixed link after the mayoral election. You can conclude that given the results of the election, they made a political decision. Besides it was a crown corportion that was behind the project. I don't think that there was any direct political involveent from the feds in that project.

Therefore, I don't believe (as someone mentioned earier) that the Islands airport fixed link is a good example to support the argument that the municipality hold the biggest stick when it come to these issues (ie.: Zoning).

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

No, they simply have to follow their own legislation and if the appropriate zoning for stadiums list stadiums as discretionary then it is at the planning commission's discretion. A city council, through its planning commission, has the authority to say "the only place we will approve a stadium is at exhibition." That is well established through centuries of planning law. Decisions can not be purely punitive and have to be based on legitament planning considerations which can be as simple as noise. Anyone would be hard pressed to prove that a preference for Exhibition is malicious, punitive or in bad faith.

Let me get the pedantry out of the way first - there hasn't been Planning Law in Ontario for "centuries", at least not in its current legislative form. There is a statute that governs Planning Law in Ontario called the Planning Act and its not "centuries" old - goes back to 1925.

Decisions on planning have to be consistent with the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, which is what I was referring to earlier, which you also refer to by indicating that it has to be based on "legitimate planning reasons". Noise is a good example but it has to be noise as it pertains to the Downsview community. There is nothing in the policy statement which says that it is the Province's policy to put stadiums at the Ex instead of Downsview.

If not, off to the OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) we go and they will over turn a decision made by that is not consistent with Provincial planning policies and which is instead made through bad faith. Of course whether or not they find it to be the case is another matter, but as Elias mentions, the OMB overturns City planning decisions all the time.

quote:

You know how the law works. The fact that the federal goverment changes its designation for some federal-municipal interaction will be brought forward as germain by a lawyer and a judge will consisder that on its merits.

Germane, but I doubt persuasive.

quote:

But far more important is convention. The way in which the three levels of government have been interacting for 150+ years. Will the feds mess with that over a stadium?

Probably not, but with Vaughan waiting with open arms apparently, would there be any need to? But will the City of Toronto really want to lose this facility altogether because its not at their preferred location? I guess that's the question.

[RealGooner]

Either way, If Volpe is to be believed, the GTA will get a stadium. I'm, happy about that. Is Joe Pantalone stupid enough to blemish his political career by being the guy who lost a free stadium to Vaughan due to stubbornness? My suspicion is that very soon the City will blink and accept Downsview rather than lose the stadium to the City Above Toronto.

[dbailey62]

quote:Originally posted by David C.

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.

Yes. David Miller is mayor of all of Toronto not just downtown. Let's be honest. This stadium will be one of the best things to ever happen to Downsview. Bring back Mel!!! He'd favour it.

I live in Willowdale. Downsview is a very downmarket Willowdale. It needs something, badly. The Park hasn't taken off yet apart from occasional mega-events. It needs something new and permanent. Downsview needs something special apart from Hooters.

The reason that Miller and Pantalone are pushing the CNE site is that they want to feather their nest. The City of Toronto owns the CNE grounds. They want the stadium to increase the value of that asset.

They've done so much to wreck the place, Pantalone particularly, that they have now realized what they've done and are now trying to bring it back.

The placed used to be magic. Now its a convention centre and a race track. It's a ramshackle collection of new and old buildings that once upon a time was something special. Not anymore, they know it and now they have to try and do something about it.

As G-L and I have said here many times. They had a stadium. If they'd kept the classic Grandstand, we could have built a new facility around it.

What's done is done Joe. You s--t in your nest. Live with it!

db

[leekoo]

quote:Originally posted by dbailey62

I live in Willowdale. Downsview is a very downmarket Willowdale. It needs something, badly. The Park hasn't taken off yet apart from occasional mega-events. It needs something new and permanent. Downsview needs something special apart from Hooters.

SOURCE: http://www.pdp.ca/Fall_Festival_at_Downsview_Park_-_Sept_18.1130.0.html

WOW has downsview got a big show for you on the 18th of september ...

the 5th annual fall festival ...

Celebrate the changing colours of the fall with a fun-filled daylong trip down memory lane at Downsview Park’s 5th Annual Fall Festival on September 18, 2005. Begin the day with our 25th anniversary celebration of the Terry Fox Run between 10 am and 12 noon on our specially designated Downsview Park Run Site. Free Admission!

Continue the festivities at noon with an exciting celebration of your best memories of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Twist, jitterbug and jive to the music of Chubby Checker, the Coasters, Elvis Presley, Hank Williams and the Big Bopper.

Groove to the melodies of the Beatles, Peter Paul and Mary, The Beach Boys and feel the soul of Aretha Franklyn, The Four Tops and The Temptations. Marvel at mint condition restorations of your favourite automobiles of yesteryear and sample the food, fads and fetishes you and your children will cherish for years to come. Don’t miss out on the fun.

Live Music All Day featuring:

50'S - JOHNNY AND THE BOPPERS

Bop 'til you drop with your favourite rock and roll hits from the 1950's. Sing along to top tunes from the Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, Neil Sedaka, the Coasters, and, of course, Elvis. Dressed in poodle skirts, slicked back hair, and fancy 50's dresses, these four musicians will have you twisting the night away.

60'S - TRIBUTE TO FOLK MUSIC

GIANTS BY GLEN REID -

Glen Reid, a star in his own right, was the banjo player for Singalong Jubilee in the 60's when the folk greats were making music history. Glen's duo will perform music by Ian and Sylvia, Gordon Lightfoot, Joni Mitchell, and Neil Young, all Canadian superstars who were groundbreaking performers in the 60’s.

70'S - GEORGE OLLIVER AND GANGBUSTER

George Olliver and The Mandala were a rhythm and blues mainstay in the Canadian music scene of the 70's. Fans will know him for many generations. George has opened for The Rolling Stones and worked with famous classic r&b artists such as, Martha Reeves, Junior Walker, and Wilson Pickett to name a few. His current band George Olliver & Gangbuster is the hottest r&b/blues band in Toronto right now.

80'S - PATTI JANNETTA

Patti Jannetta has worked her way up through the music industry into a position, which has garnered her respect as a singer, entertainer, songwriter, and humanitarian. She has recorded 3 albums during her career - all of which have fared well domestically, with her last two albums earning her acceptance on an international level. She is a true Canadian star who had her first hit in the 1980's and can do a full show of the best of the 80’s.

FERN LINDZON

Fern Lindzon is a sought after pianist and singer. She performed at this summer's Distillery Jazz Festival both with her own jazz trio, and with the Yiddish swing band, The Sisters of Sheynville. Fern has opened for Natalie Cole, played for Nancy Sinatra, and has performed with many of Toronto's finest musicians including Lennie Solomon, Neil Swainson and Don Thompson with whom she studied.

[Loud Mouth Soup]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Because up til now I was good for nothing?

Yer darn-tootin'...

**shakes fist from my rocking chair, shotgun in the other hand...**

[Gian-Luca]

The latest article from the Star.

Perfect pitch: Dryden

Area MP says Downsview is the right soccer site

Stadium would be `in the middle of today's Toronto'

JENNIFER QUINN

SPORTS REPORTER

Downsview Park is a great location for a new soccer stadium, the member of Parliament who represents the area thinks, an opinion that puts him at odds with city officials who want the facility built downtown.

"I think Downsview is not only a great location, I think it's the right location," Ken Dryden, who represents York West and is also the minister of social development, said yesterday.

"For anyone who lives and works south of the 401, the traditional understanding of Downsview is that it's in the middle of nowhere.

"But it's in the middle of today's Toronto, and it's in the middle of tomorrow's Toronto."

The comments came after the Canadian Soccer Association told the Star that it had decided to focus on the land near Keele St. and Sheppard Ave. W. as the site for a proposed 20,000-seat soccer stadium.

One of the reasons for the decision, CSA chief operating officer Kevan Pipe said, was because Downsview is in the geographic centre of the GTA, and has good access to public transit and highways.

But Toronto officials, including Mayor David Miller and Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone, had been lobbying for a stadium to be built at Exhibition Place. And the city councillor who represents the area has said she'd consider challenging the decision in court, saying the local infrastructure just couldn't handle the crowds a large stadium would attract.

Pantalone said the city would reconsider contributing city funds — pending council's approval — towards the $60 million project. Had the CSA chosen the site at the Ex, they were willing to put millions into the building, Pantalone, who is also the chair of Exhibition Place, said.

That decision is strange, Dryden said. "The last I could see is that Downsview is very much in the city of Toronto. It's within the boundaries."

The final approvals for the site are still pending, as is $8 million the province is considering contributing. The federal government has earmarked $27 million for the project.

But a deadline looms. The CSA is hoping to start building by the new year, since July 2007 — the opening date for the FIFA world youth championships — is approaching.

[RealGooner]

I just saw that too, and it basically sums up what I have been thinking: The City is blowing hot air out their @sses. I dont buy that the city was gonna contribute either. How are they gonna find money for a 'luxury' like a stadium and sell that to city councillors who want money for affordable housing and schools etc? No way the city was gonna contribute any $, what a load of bull.

[DoyleG]

Give Jennifer Quinn a map. Ken Dryden's riding is York Centre. York West is Judy "Anybody need a stripper?" Sgro.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

I just saw that too, and it basically sums up what I have been thinking: The City is blowing hot air out their @sses. I dont buy that the city was gonna contribute either. How are they gonna find money for a 'luxury' like a stadium and sell that to city councillors who want money for affordable housing and schools etc? No way the city was gonna contribute any $, what a load of bull.

Sorta like a province that can't build hospitals or balance its books contributing?!?!

Actually I think (WARNING: Unsubstantiated Opinion Approaching) the city was hoping to contribute the land so that they would be seen as a partner and have a say in the design/operation/use of the stadium. I doubt they have any money to contribute so now their only ability to contribute (and gain a say) has been pulled from under them.