Flashback: Rob Ford versus Gloria Lindsay Luby

Etobicoke councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby's break with Mayor Rob Ford this week called to mind their tumultuous history. The Star published the following story six years ago.

* * *

July 7, 2005

Councillors square off in a verbal slugfest

By Paul Moloney and John Spears

Captions: Rob Ford: Says Gloria Lindsay Luby accused his family of stealing something off her front porch. Gloria Lindsay Luby: Admits she called Rob Ford a "jerk," but only after he called her "a waste of skin."  

Text: One councillor called another a "waste of skin." The other called the first councillor a "jerk." The mayor said the antics demean the work of city politicians.

It was another day in the sandbox at Toronto City Council, as Councillor Rob Ford and Gloria Lindsay Luby went toe to toe.

The two Etobicoke councillors got into a verbal brawl over a complaint about a pothole.

Ford (Ward 2, Etobicoke North) said Lindsay Luby (Ward 4, Etobicoke Centre) had insulted his brother in an email, accusing Doug Ford of making the complaint. Lindsay Luby denied insulting his brother.

As Councillor Joe Pantalone, chairing the meeting, tried in vain to impose order, Ford started yelling at Lindsay Luby, who had left her seat and was standing at the edge of the chamber.

Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti (Ward 7, York West) rose to say that Ford had called Lindsay Luby a "waste of skin," "a joke," "a waste of time" and a "low-life."

Ford yelled that Lindsay Luby had accused his family of being thieves: "That's slander."

Pantalone said he hadn't heard Ford's comments, prompting objections from Mammoliti, who wanted Pantalone to ask the city's integrity commissioner to review the remarks.

Pantalone declined.

As councillors continued to shout at Pantalone, Councillor Gay Cowbourne (Ward 44, Scarborough East) rose to apologize to anyone watching for the "absolutely appalling" behaviour of her colleagues.

But the battle wasn't finished.

Later, the media scrummed an unrepentant Ford, with Lindsay Luby looking on.

Ford demanded an apology from Lindsay Luby for derogatory comments he said she made about his family. "She accused us of stealing something three years ago off her front porch, which we never did," Ford said. "She called my family a jerk, called me a jerk, told me to shut up. I'm just not going to sit there and take it. I'm going to stick up for my family. We're not thieves. We're not jerks.

"I've had enough family problems. I'm not going to tolerate anybody, media included, that are going to attack my family. I just want an apology."

Lindsay Luby, who had been shaking her head at Ford's comments, initially refused. "There is nothing to be sorry about. I've never in my life got into things like this until this gentleman has joined our council."

Lindsay Luby admitted she had called Ford a jerk, but only after Ford called her names.

"That's not true," Ford retorted. "You called me a jerk first and told me to shut up."

Lindsay Luby laughed off the accusation and said, "You know, it's interesting, because other people around him have said that he called me a waste of skin. We don't need this kind of shenanigans going on."

Mayor David Miller wasn't in the council chamber during the arguments, but said later he was embarrassed by the antics.

"I think public service is something that's a privilege that you must honour with your conduct," he said.

Photo evidence: Mayor Rob Ford on the subway

Mayor Rob Ford is known to be a big fan of the car, specifically his minivan. Subway spottings are few and far between.

So a few theories are out there about why Ford was apparently on the subway late Saturday night. He was seen at Islington station, near his home.

@amandanicolep14 tweeted Saturday at around 11 p.m. "ROB FORD IS ON THE SUBWAY WITH ME" and snapped a photo of an ill-at-ease-looking Ford apparently shrugging at her.

  The mayor and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford, earlier attended the 9 p.m. Toronto Triumph home opener in the Lingerie Football League at Ricoh Coliseum at Exhibition Place.

One of the crazier stories floating around city hall has Doug giving Rob a lift home, Rob telling Doug council wouldn't be voting to take control of the Port Lands from Waterfront Toronto, and Doug ordering Rob out of the car. Maybe somebody saw the subway photo and worked backwards.

But The Goods would love to know how the mayor broke that piece of news to his brother, who up until the end of last week was vigorously lobbying colleagues to back the takeover. If you know, please let us know.

UPDATE: A city hall source says he heard the mayor took the subway to and from the game with players from his high school football team "because they wouldn't fit in his truck." Some could query taking high school students to a lingerie game, but we're cheering for the Better Way.

UPDATE2: Reader Mark McElway says a "red-faced" Ford got on his westbound subway car that night, alone, at Ossington station. "My girlfriend approached him and told him what she thought about the portlands development proposal that he was pushing at the time. He listened and was quite amicable. He said, "I could have rammed it through council if I wanted to." Then he gave her his business card and said, "give me a call anytime." McElway says Ford was still on the subway when he and his girlfriend got off at Jane station.

Of course, being an instantly recognizable celebrity politician in a city full of smartphones means you're always popping up somewhere. If anybody knows the story behind this photo, taken on Front St. the night of Aug. 20, after the Ontario Varsity Football League Finals at Rogers Centre, we'd like to know that too.

 

 

Video: Mayor Rob Ford, Rabbi Moshe Steiner and Rosh Hoshana

 

Supporters of Mayor Ford's Port Lands plan, and other waterfront reflections

It was a busy week on the Port Lands file. Despite writing several stories, many of my interviews never made it into print. Below are some of them. They were conducted Thursday and Friday.

But first, two points that sometimes get lost.

1. While the visions of Waterfront Toronto and the Toronto Port Lands Co. are very different in terms of components (parks, flood protection, retail, etc.) perhaps the most critical difference is in their business models. Waterfront Toronto is using its seed money to service -- put in sewers, water, roads and other infrastructure -- land in the centre of the Port Lands with the first neighbourhood. That will raise the value of the land. After it's sold to developers, the proceeds will be used to service the next parcel. The more services, the more development, the more people living and visiting, the higher the value of the land. That's most true for residential, less so for commercial. The model proposed by the Fords and Toronto Port Lands Co. is to sell unserviced land, at cheaper prices, to developers who will pay to put in the infrastructure. They argue that the more intense commercial development in their plan will lead to higher tax revenues for the city, more job creation for residents and more revenue from tourists, lifting the eonomy as a whole. Proponents of Waterfront Toronto's model say you use seed money to maximize the value of the land and get a livable, sustainable vibrant waterfront community.

2. For the Fords, the key is that proceeds from the land sales flow into city coffers and not to Waterfront Toronto. Look for any amendments coming from the mayor's office or its proxy to preserve that goal. The budget chief, Councillor Mike Del Grande, has linked the need for revenue from land sales to the city's budget shortfall that he pegs at $774 million. When councillors have raised concerns with Doug Ford that his plan is a fire sale of land to plug the budget hole, he denies it, but they note both he and the budget chief have publicly linked the opportunity and the problem.

Here are the interviews:

Councillor Norm Kelly, Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt, chair of the parks and environment committee and member of Mayor Rob Ford's executive committee: "Absolutely" supports negotiating with senior levels of government to regain sole land of the Port Lands from the intergovernmental Waterfront Toronto. "I want an area that's livable, commercially viable and affordable, and creates more jobs faster than in the projected roll-out of Waterfront Toronto's plan." Kelly, a former chair of history at Upper Canada College, used the rallying cry from Quebec's Quiet Revolution "Maîtres chez nous" (masters of our own house) to describe Toronto's need to take back full control of its eastern waterfront from Waterfront Toronto. However, he applauded Waterfront Toronto for creating some "fabulous" parks. "I think that, given the changing context in the city (referring to the budget shortfall) the government of Toronto has an obligation to review everything at its disposal." When asked about the 147 planners, architects, designers and other experts who wrote an open letter to councillors asking them to stick with Waterfront Toronto's Port Lands plan, Kelly said: "There seems to be an orthodoxy out there and orthodoxies need to be challenged. We can accelerate the value of this land sooner rather than later, and what's wrong with that?"

Councillor Paul Ainslie, Ward 43 Scarborough East, chair of the government management committee and a member of Ford's executive committee: "I support the new vision. We need to get the private sector involved, create new partnerships. It's a vision, it's not set in stone. I fully don't expect to see a ferris wheel on the Port Lands." Ainslie said he's willing to look at the idea of a monorail. He said he had asked proponents of the Waterfront Toronto plan where they would get the $654 million needed to implement its flood protection plan, which includes a new "naturalized" mouth for the Don River. They didn't know and suggested the federal and/or provincial governments, but little had been done to press the senior Waterfront Toronto partners, he said. (Waterfront Toronto says council will next week see its plan to pay for flood protection. Since the ageny has no ability to borrow, it's believed they will suggest the governments guarantee loans against the future value of the land.) Ainslie said people talk about what a great job Waterfront has done on projects including Sugar Beach ("there's sand but you can't swim there") but the ageny has done nothing attention-grabbing to get his Scarborough constituents to make a point of visiting them. "We can go to Rouge Beach and actually swim in Lake Ontario. Today, after 10 years, what have we got that makes me want to go to the Port Lands? Absolutely nothing." Ainslie said he's willing to consider a compromise between the two visions "but I want to see things get built."

Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, Ward 12 York-South Weston, a council centrist who generally backs Mayor Ford.He said Thursday he was trying to assess both sides, adding "there's an element of time and public investment that needs to be looked at very closely." All kinds of schemes can be put forward for the waterfront "but at some point we need realistic costing and ask, is it doable?" He said Waterfront Toronto's plan might not be doable and "we may proceed in a slightly different way, looking at reviewing the situation, reducing the costs overall in grandiose schemes. Waterfront Toronto is heavily reliant on public investment before anything can happen." He favours the Fords' approach, where developers who buy the land pay for infrastructure, rather than Waterfront Toronto's, where the agency services the land to raise the value of it, then sells it and uses the proceeds to service more of the land. He said the Waterfront Toronto vision "will take two lifetimes, maybe three to come to fruition." Di Giorgio said Waterfront Toronto's plans for mixed-income condos are not realistic, that the economics don't work and only wealthy people will be able to afford to buy on the waterfront. "It's a fallacy, it's pie in the sky to sell this based on mixed communities."

Councillor Gary Crawford, Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest, a rookie conservative who often backs Ford: Interviewed on Thursday, he was unsure how he would vote and was waiting to talk to Waterfront Toronto representatives that afternoon. "I'm assuming there is going to be amendments or compromise, I haven't made any decisions yet. What's coming before council isn't this wonderful grand design. We're not voting on a ferris wheel. I, like everyone else, have concerns about that vision. "It's about the environmental assessment and the watershed aspect. Am I comfortable with Waterfront Toronto on its environmental assessment. Once the watershed questions are decided, that determines where we go." He expected there to be attempts at compromise. "I'd like to see the two sides work together." He would like to see Waterfronto Toronto move quicker with its plans. "Is there an opportunity to develop that entire parcel quicker than 25 years? Waterfront may come back and say they can do it quicker."

Mary-Margaret McMahon, Ward 32 Beaches-East York, a rookie centrist who is a fiscally conservative environmentalist. She is organizing council opposition to Ford's plan to turn control of waterfront development over to Toronto Port Lands Co., which is charged with leasing waterfront land and cleaning polluted soil but has, apparently at the behest of the Mayor and Councillor Doug Ford, presented the alternate "vision." She believes their plan would be a planning and environmental disaster and that putting a huge shopping centre ("They say it's a town centre but whether it's outdoor or whatever it's a megamall - we're talking thousands of parking spaces on the waterfront) in the Port Lands is madness. She says she formed her opinion after taking office and going to Waterfront Toronto and seeing their plans and projects and being extremely impressed with their soil remediation works. When the alternative waterfront vision became public, she started organizing "field trips - I used to be a teacher" taking councillors to Watefront Toronto's Bay St. office to get their side of the story. She is targeting centre and centre-right councillors -- the swing votes. Those who have gone or are scheduled to go before the council vote include Chin Lee, Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, James Pasternak, Frank Di Giorgio, Raymond Cho, Jaye Robinson and Mary Fragedakis. On the thorny point of compromise, McMahon says she could live with "some more retail, some more boutiques along the canal", but not much more. Waterfront Toronto and the Toronto Port Lands Co. "are so far apart in their visions I have trouble seeing how co-operation would work. Doug Ford really wants to really develop the Port Lands. I mean, a megamall! I don't like malls anywhere but on our precious waterfront? I would like to see the agencies work together but I can't compromise Waterfront Toronto's vision." Doug Ford has lobbied McMahon. Asked if she thinks Ford would be willing to compromise on his vision -- "he really believes in developing this as a destination, an entertainment district, full on" -- McMahon sees one critical sticking point. Ford is adamant that the money from land sales must flow into city coffers. Under the current plan, the revenue would go to Waterfront Toronto to spend on servicing new parcels of land for sale. Asked if she thinks she has the votes at council to defeat the motion to start negotiating with senior governments to regain sole control of the land, McMahon says: "I don't know. I think it's going to be very, very close."

Michael Thompson, Ward 37 Scarborough Centre, chair of the economic development committee and a member of Ford's executive committee. Thompson says he believes both the Fords' vision and Waterfront Toronto's vision can be accommodated, and public consultation is needed to strike the right balance. He says he would vote to start the process of regaining complete control of the Port Lands. He suggested the memorandum of understanding with senior governments that governs Waterfront Toronto could potentially be renegotiated so that some of the money from land sales would flow directly to the city treasury, and some would stay with Waterfront Toronto.

A final observation gleaned from the interviews above and others: Nobody is more responsible for the current debate than Doug Ford. Councillors of all stripes said his interview on CBC Radio, laying out a detailed malls-and-monorail vision, and revealing that the vision had been presented to people, was a tactical error in revealing the alternate Port Lands vision before it was ready. The Toronto Port Lands Co. representatives briefing councillors on the merits of their vision have admitted as much and so, to a degree, has Ford himself. The result was a half-baked presentation to executive committee, a headache for the Ford administration while it's trying to get support for deep cuts to city services, and the alienation of Ford allies including two members of his executive committee. But councillors of all stripes also commented that, painful as it is, the debate is a good thing in that it thrust Toronto's waterfront to the top of the city's mind at a time when most people were, at best, only vaguely aware of development plans. No matter the outcome of next week's council meeting, nobody can say Torontonians looked away from the lake.

Mayor Rob Ford ally Councillor John Parker backs Waterfront Toronto

In an e-newsletter to residents sent Friday, Councillor John Parker, deputy speaker and an ally of Mayor Rob Ford, strongly rejects the mayor's push to seize control of the Port Lands from Waterfront Toronto and replace its mixed-use neighbourhood plan with a shopping centre, attractions and more.

Here's his message:

From:   John Parker

            Toronto City Councillor

            Ward 26 - Don Valley West

 

Ward 26 residents have asked me to comment on where I stand with respect to the recent proposals considered at Executive Committee with respect to the development of the portion of Toronto's waterfront area known as the "portlands".

 

Many Ward 26 residents will remember that I hosted a public meeting on the subject of Toronto's waterfront plan about two years ago. At that meeting residents were made aware of the tripartite federal/provincial/municipal commission established some years ago under the name "WaterfronToronto" with responsibility for environmental remediation and urban development initiatives in this long neglected part of the city.

 

Those seeking further detail as to the recommendations of WaterfronToronto would do well to visit their website at www.waterfrontoronto.ca.

 

The recommendations that recently came before the city's Executive Committee can be reviewed at http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2011.EX9.6

 

The recent recommendations to the Executive Committee include removing a portion of the waterfront lands (the "portlands") from the remit of WaterfronToronto and having the city manage them according to a revised set of development criteria.

 

My thoughts on the matter can be summarized thus:

 

1.     I have always favoured having the present tripartite commission (WaterfronToronto) take the lead in matters relating to the development of Toronto's vast waterfront lands. I do not favour giving over a portion of the land to another party – even if it is the City of Toronto or one of its corporations – to develop independently. I have the concern that removal of any significant component of the whole will interfere with the execution of the overall vision for development and lead to the possible unravelling of the tripartite approach generally.

 

2.     I favour the environmental goals and remediation plan set out by WaterfronToronto. This includes the creation of a naturalized Don River mouth as developed by WaterfronToronto in collaboration with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), of which I am a member. I do not favour abandoning this approach for any alternative that I have yet seen, and I do not see good reason for doing so.

Further on that point: The current plan for the mouth of the Don is the product of years of collaborative work. It takes into account the needs of flood protection across the waterfront lands and upstream under extreme weather conditions, as well as lake water quality and water turbulence criteria under normal circumstances. Before I can support any alternative proposal I need to be convinced that it addresses these priorities satisfactorily.

Apart from the foregoing, the current plan is advancing toward regulatory approval. Changing the environmental plan risks upsetting the existing timelines.

 

3.     As for the development proposal itself, I am inclined to favour the original approach - mixed use - over the new proposal, which relies heavily on large scale commercial development. I believe that redevelopment of the vacant waterfront lands gives us a chance to build a community comprised of all the ideal elements – our chance to build the city that we wish we always had. To my mind this is what the original development model aims at. I have not been convinced that new commercial development in this area is needed or that its merits outweigh those of mixed use development. I also have questions concerning its likely effect of attracting the infiltration of cars from other regions and also its potential impact on the city's existing commercial areas, including the downtown commercial zone.

 

4.     I am uncomfortable with the transit system that is proposed in the recent recommendations. Whatever its value to the portlands, I have the concern that it may not be well suited to serve any of the other waterfront development areas. Transit systems are enormously expensive to build and operate (I am a TTC commissioner so I am confronted by these realities regularly); they must therefore be developed with considerable attention to cost, value, and impact on city building goals.  (Make this one of the reasons why I favour making all waterfront lands subject to a consolidated, coordinated development plan under a single authority rather than severing one component for independent development.)

 

The new proposal has some exciting elements: adaptive reuse of the enormous former Hearn station for recreational purposes, a yacht club in the harbour area, attractive roadways, streetscapes, etc.  These are all worth looking at closely and adopting as part of the overall plan if practical. To my mind these elements can be considered within the context of the existing proposals and possibly introduced by way of amendment. I do not see a need to reject the current plan altogether in order to include certain good new ideas.

 

In short, I support taking a good look at the new proposal and determining the practical impact of its recommendations. I see a number of hurdles to overcome in advancing its recommendations. On the key features I am going to need a lot of convincing before I can be persuaded to change course. In general approach I do not support abandoning the present tripartite commission as lead player.

 

I am hopeful that, if everyone just takes a deep breath, the best ideas in the new proposal – if they test out after due analysis – can be adopted by way of amendment without jeopardizing the development plan and approach currently in place. My efforts as a member of council will be applied towards that end.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Parker E-News is circulated every now and then to email addresses on my e-News subscription list. It is intended to keep Ward 26 residents and other interested persons updated on matters of possible interest.

www.johnparker.ca

facebook: Councillor John Parker

twitter: johnparker26

Is this the Ford administration's waterfront compromise?

Councillor Peter Milczyn, chair of the planning and growth management committee, is apparently the mayor's office's point person to fix the waterfront development mess.

Below is an email Milczyn sent to some supporters suggesting a possible compromise. Below that is his office's response to the Star's questions about the email. Any compromise will be subject to a council vote next week, even though the email makes his plan sound like a fait accompli.

It's interesting to note that, while Milzczyn argues the vote is not about the Toronto Port Lands Co. "vision" for the eastern waterfront, Councillor Doug Ford was lobbying his colleagues to vote for the motion -- to start negotiations to take control of the land from Waterfront Toronto -- expressly so that vision can be made a reality. Ford is showing the councillors a flip chart of renderings.

Also of note is that Milczyn says the city may "undertaking planning studies for the additional
600 acres of City Portlands that have not yet been subject to any detailed planning," with "robust" public consultation. Paul Bedford, the city's former chief planner who is among 147 experts lobbying council to stick with the Waterfront Toronto plan, is arguing that, just because Waterfront Toronto hasn't yet planned the land doesn't mean it should be subject to a different type of development.

Here's the email, which was obtained by Matt Elliott (@graphicmatt):

From: "Councillor Milczyn" <councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca>
Date: 14 September, 2011 5:35:36 PM EDT
 
Subject: Revitalization Opportunities for the Port Lands  - UPDATE ON REPORT GOING TO CITY COUNCIL

Good Evening;

On September 6th, the Executive Committee debated a Staff Report tabled
with respect to EX9.6 Toronto Port Lands Company - Revitalization
Opportunities for the Port Lands (please see the link further below in
blue to review the minutes of the meeting, the Staff Report that was
tabled and the decisions of the Executive Committee on this item).

Many residents have written to me, asking for clarity of what is
actually coming before Toronto City Council on the 21st of September for
this item, and for my explanation on this important item.  I am
providing them to you now.  

I ask you to monitor my website www.petermilczyn.com for additional
updates once Council has voted on this item AND when any further
recommendations or Staff Reports are brought back to Toronto City
Council for our consideration. Your ongoing feedback is welcomed.

Revitalization Opportunities for the Port Lands
Outline of the Process Moving Forward
Overview and comments from Councillor Peter Milczyn
Ward 5, Etobicoke-Lakeshore

MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON September 6TH (item EX9.6):

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&decisionBodyId=262#Meeting-2011.EX9


I believe that the recent controversy at City Hall over the
redevelopment of the City’s Port Lands, was the result of a lack of
understanding (and media reporting) of the actual recommendations in the
City Manager’s Report to Executive Committee, and the distraction
caused by images created by some prominent architects and urban
designers to demonstrate ideas from various waterfront developments
around the world.

To be clear, the Executive Committee, and Toronto City Council do not
have a new waterfront plan before us for consideration or approval.  

The images you may have seen of ideas from other cities, and which are
skilfully architecturally rendered, are not an actual plan or a proposal
for redevelopment.

The Staff Report written by the City Manager seeks Council's approval
to initiate discussions with Waterfront Toronto about the development of
1,000 acres of City owned lands which were transferred to Waterfront
Toronto as part of the Agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) between
the Federal, Provincial, and Toronto to create the framework to
co-ordinate redevelopment of Toronto’s waterfront.  

The City has always retained the right to take back control over lands
owned by us.

I encourage you to read the rest this email for a detailed explanation
of this Staff Report and the recommendations that will be before Toronto
City Council on the 21st.

The recommendations to review the currently approved plans stem in part
from the fact that City staff were not allowed to undertake a detailed
financial or economic analysis of the plan before its approval last
year.  We have now learned that there was political pressure to ensure
the approval of the plan before the last municipal election without the
benefit of a more thorough analysis of its implications on the City’s
finances, or value of our lands.

The Staff Report titled “Lower Donlands Project” from May 31, 2010
indicated this in carefully couched terms which have only recently been
more fully explained (if you would like me to send you a link to this
report, please email me and I would be happy to provide it to you).

It is interesting to note that when that Report was debated and voted
on at Toronto City Council, that only five members of City Council voted
against the plan in 2010.  Four of those five members continue to serve
on Council, and they now are the most vocal critics of the re-evaluation
proposed and the strongest defenders (publically at least) of the
current plan which they did not support.  It appears their motivation
may be purely political.

The Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2006 outlined the
expectation that the Port Lands would be developed over a 20-25 year
time line.

If approved at Council this month, the review of revitalization
opportunities for the Port Lands will look at opportunities to
accelerate that time line.

A key point to keep in mind, is that the current approved “Lower
Donlands” plan (2010) actually only covers 400 acres of Waterfront
lands and the remaining 600 acres of City owned Portlands are still
awaiting the creation of a plan for their future redevelopment.

To carry out this review of revitalization opportunities, all parties
involved will:

●    ensure a robust and comprehensive public consultation process
that is consistent with the standard and expectation in the Designated
Waterfront Area.
●    have a fresh look at the options for the Don Mouth Environmental
Assessment ("EA") and the Lower Don Lands to ensure that the plan is
accurately costed and sufficiently funded.

Any review of the plans for the Port Lands will be a significant
undertaking that requires the cooperation and collaboration of the City
of Toronto, Waterfront Toronto, Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC) and
the Toronto & Region Conservation Authourity (TRCA).

Each organization will bring its substantial set of skills, background
and credibility to the discussion that is essential to expedite the
implementation of any plan for the Port Lands.

This review will look at two things:

●    The current Environmental Assessment (EA)
●    The economic model for development of the Port Lands.

This will be done while recognizing financial constraints of the three
orders of government and the basic objectives of the EA.

The TRCA, in conjunction with the City and Waterfront Toronto, and with
input from TPLC, will undertake a re-examination of the EA.

The EA re-examination will incorporate the costing and economic
analysis from the work of TPLC (see below) and Waterfront Toronto's
business plan for all EA options for the Port Lands.

The TRCA, Waterfront Toronto (WT) and the City will coordinate all
public consultation for review of the Don Mouth EA and Lower Don
Lands plan to ensure that public consultation is provided at a standard
consistent with the EA Terms of Reference. Public consultation shall
consider formats that were previously utilized (facilitation, working
groups, sub-committees, etc.).

TPLC, with input from WT, will undertake a business plan for the Port
Lands as outlined in the August 22, 2011 staff report to Executive
Committee.

The RFP for this work will be vetted with all parties to ensure that
its scope is comprehensive.

The analysis will include a review of the development model, financial
incentives and tools that could be used for the development of the Port
Lands (TIF, TIGs, Development Charges, CIPs, etc.), and financing
mechanisms (public and private) that are designed to offset the cost to
the City of infrastructure requirements.

The TPLC Port Lands business plan will be reviewed by the City. The
plan will include:

●     an analysis of alternative financial scenarios to determine
whether additional density and/or mix of uses can provide a financial
return to offset the costs of development in the Port Lands;
●    a review of other development models (i.e. making land available
through RFI/RFP processes, as-is market sale, pre-established
cost-sharing arrangements, etc.); and
●    finding ways of minimizing the City's taxpayer funded obligation
to fund the development of the Port Lands.

As the TPLC business plan is being completed, the City will initiate a
review of the Port Lands planning framework to assess whether any
changes will be necessary.  

This may also include undertaking planning studies for the additional
600 acres of City Portlands that have not yet been subject to any
detailed planning.  

**These studies would be anchored within a robust public consultation
process.

●    Both Waterfront Toronto and TPLC shall work together to present
and explain the findings Waterfront Toronto Business Plan for the Lower
Don Lands and TPLC Business Plan for the Port Lands and gather input
from the public and provide the City with joint recommendations to move
forward.
●    Following the public consultation period and review of economic
analysis and options, City staff in collaboration with Waterfront
Toronto, will prepare recommendations to City Council with a
recommendation regarding the EA and an appropriate business case to
proceed with accelerated Port Land development.

Thank you for taking the time to review these comments and I appreciate
your patience with the delay my response to you.

Sincerely,


Councillor Peter Milczyn
Ward 5 | Etobicoke-Lakeshore

And here's the response from his office:

The email below was a simply a response the Councillor sent to a small group - about 20 or 30 residents I believe (was not a mass email to the ward or the city). It was sent to provide additional information and clarity - in response to questions they had written the Councillor directly about (pertaining to the Port Lands) and coming up at Council this month.  

 

My best,

Susan O'Connor, EA to Councillor Milczyn

 

Councillor Wong-Tam slams Fords over Olympics "decision by fiat"

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam undeniably comes at many issues from the left. But the rookie has impressed many with her eagerness to work with colleagues of all stripes to get things done. When others were dismissing Mayor Rob Ford, she tried to keep the door open.

That openness closed somewhat when she tried to act as Ford's gateway to the gay community, offering him ways to mark the Pride festivities and remain in his comfort zone. When Ford made no effort, Wong-Tam's frustration was palpable.

Now, she is taking direct aim at Ford and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford, over their closed-door method of governing, asking the city manager for an "administrative inquiry" into their apparent joint decision on behalf of the city not to even entertain the idea of making a bid for the 2020 Olympics. It's part of a pattern, Wong-Tam writes in her open letter, that has her worried about the health of local democracy. 

She also asks an uncomfortable question - what exactly is Councillor Ford's role at City Hall? Is it proper that he gets special access to the mayor and decision-making ability on something as important as an Olympic bid even though he is only one of 44?

Asked about the letter on Wednesday, Mayor Ford said he was unaware of it and couldn't comment.

Councillor Doug Ford suggested nothing improper is happening. “He’s my brother. Of course I have access to him, ” Ford said. “The left is playing politics.”

Below is Wong-Tam's letter in full:

August 31, 2011
 
Open Letter to Mayor Rob Ford
City of Toronto
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2
 
Dear Mayor Ford:
 
I will be submitting an administrative inquiry to the City Manager in an attempt to make public
whatever information is available about the decision that was made not to bid for the 2020 Olympic
Games without Council's participation.
 
I've learned, through the media, that Toronto is required to notify the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) to express our interest to host the 2020 Olympic Games by September 1, 2011.  I
cannot hide my disappointment that on the day before the deadline to express interest to the IOC,
43 other Members of Council were not privy to any details of the proposal.  In fact, I believe that
you and Councillor Doug Ford disrespected our roles as elected representatives when you made a
decision by fiat without Council consideration.
 
Some of my constituents have asked me why Toronto turned down the bid so quickly, what the bid
was comprised of and why Council wasn’t involved with this decision.  This is why I am writing to
you today.
 
Although Toronto is currently facing budget pressures, we as Members of Council still have a
responsibility to our residents to review and consider proposals that have a major impact on the
city.  That is why we have rights to information as duly elected representatives.
 
With sincere respect to Councillor Ford, he is one of 44 City Councillors, is not a committee Chair,
and is not entitled to special privileges that do not extend to all of us on behalf of the constituents
we represent. This transparency and equality is a fundamental principle of our civic democracy,
and you as Mayor have a duty to ensure it.
 
Informal discussions in your office between you and your brother are not to be mistaken for official
committee or Council meetings.  I believe discussions involving an Olympic bid require serious
exploratory consideration, due diligence, and a broader and more robust debate that involves all
Members of Council and Torontonians from every neighbourhood. 
 
I am concerned with the health of our local democracy. The decision about the Olympics is only the
latest in a worrying pattern. On your first day in office, you declared “Transit City is dead” despite
the fact that a Council decision declaring it our first priority has never been revisited, and have
since been operating on the premise that your unilateral decree overrides the democratic
processes of civic government.  

Media reports also reveal that detail financial and technical plans are not required by the IOC until
February 2012.  There was sufficient time to engage all Members of Council and even more
broadly the general public about the feasibility of hosting the 2020 Olympic Games.
 
Transparency in government would have required that an informative briefing on the bid and an
invitation to the Olympic working group be presented to Members of Council on behalf of our
constituents.  Whether one supports or does not support an Olympic bid, what is of the gravest
concern to me is the lack of accountability and transparency in your decision.
 
An informative briefing would have allowed Council Members and our constituents an opportunity
to learn more about the obligations and benefits expected for Toronto if we were to host the most
high profile international sporting event in the world. During such a briefing I would have asked the
working group whether or not Toronto’s hosting of the Pan American Games in 2015 could have
enhanced our bidding position. I also wanted to know if were leveraging opportunities for us to
“build once and host twice.”
 
I wanted to ask the Olympic Working Group what kind of legacy hosting the 2020 Olympic Games
would have had on Toronto as it relates to affordable housing, infrastructure, cultural assets,
amateur sports and public transit.  I needed to know if there would be tangible benefits to the
suburbs as surely they would inherit all the major new facilities by their birthright in vastness of
land.  I wanted to know if Toronto’s aging subways, theatres, recreation centres, swimming pools,
parks would have seen new stimulus funding.  I would also have wanted to know if other levels of
government and private sector partnerships were interested in this collaboration.
 
As a result of your decision, we will not get answers to these questions, or even have the
opportunity to ask them.  I am sure that my Council colleagues and the general public would have
had questions of their own for the working group about their Olympic proposal, but again we were
not given that opportunity.
 
In year 2000, then Mayor Mel Lastman championed the 2008 Olympic bid where the merits of the
bid were explored openly and debated robustly before Council unanimously agreed to submit
Toronto’s proposal to the IOC for consideration. Perhaps Council would have made a different
decision in 2011, but we will never know, as no vote will be held.
 
Mayor, our democratic institutions are to be respected and I urge you to re-consider the
governance style in which you currently operate.  Making a public announcement cannot replace
legislative process and policy.
 
I am ready to work with you to build a more prosperous, just and beautiful city.  A little respect
would go a long way.
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
Kristyn Wong-Tam
Councillor, Ward 27
Toronto Centre-Rosedale