TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Docks Wins Court injunction
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Congrats!
So will Tiesto ever be allowed to spin at the Docks again?? And if not..where da fuk would he spin?
p.s. I thought he didn't like the Guv or something.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by cl005k So will Tiesto ever be allowed to spin at the Docks again?? And if not..where da fuk would he spin? p.s. I thought he didn't like the Guv or something. |
quote:
Docks nightclub open for business
Jul. 28, 2006. 04:00 PM
HEBA ALY
STAFF REPORTER
Beer will flow from taps at the Docks once again - albeit with restrictions - after a divisional court justice stayed an order revoking the Harbourfront nightclub and entertainment complex�s liquor license over noise complaints, citing �irreparable harm� to the company.
That means the Docks can go back to full operation - raking in an expected $250,000 this weekend alone - until an appeal of the decision by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario is heard, no later than January 2007 by court order.
The club lost its licence earlier this week because of ongoing noise complaints filed by residents on the nearby Toronto Islands - complaints that have plagued the complex for a decade.
Without a liquor license, Docks lawyer Brian Campbell argued, the club would have been forced to close immediately, as alcohol sales account for 50 % of revenue.
�I am so happy for my (350) employees that they have jobs,� owner Jerry Sprackman said after the ruling, excusing him for a moment as his eyes watered. But �we don�t look at this as a win.�
Justice Katherine Swinton slapped Sprackman�s club with 10 conditions, among them:
payment of $14,377.50 in outstanding fines by 5:00 p.m. yesterday. no amplified voices, music or disc jockey outdoors before 11 a.m. or after 11 p.m. no large outdoor events, including concerts. the closure of all windows and doors, except for regular entrance and exit, while music plays indoors.
If the club violates any of these conditions, Swinton ordered, the stay will be lifted and the club will go without a liquor license until the appeal is heard.
But for some residents, these conditions won�t have any impact.
�They don�t have a history of obeying conditions,� said a Ward�s Island resident who preferred not to be named. �That�s why the board made the decision it made. It said conditions would be futile.�
The sentiment was echoed by Vivian Pitcher, a spokesperson for the Toronto Island Community Association who was granted status at the commission.
�It�s disappointing that they got their way again,� she said, but added it�s the appeal she really cares about.
In an impromptu speech during a break in the courtroom, Sprackman said the city - which he alleges breaks its own noise bylaws when it throws concerts on the islands - has been unfairly picking on the Docks.
Groups who stage raves in and around his property share the blame, he said, and if they don�t stop, �we are going to sue their behinds off� because �I�m getting sick and tired of being accused of things.�
source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...epath=News/News
There seems to be a lack of important information from the articles I've seen on the news covering this.
My questions:
1. Has anyone ever addressed the apparent "inequalities" of the islander resident privileges earlier? If not, why must it wait until something like the Docks is threatened before people start to take notice or care? If they never complained about noise levels would they have continued to live through their 99 year lease without anyone crying Communism?
Was the land trust on the Island that was set up by the former NDP government in 1993 ever put to a vote at Queen's Park?
2. What exactly are the standard conditions that the Docks nightclub must abide by as far as noise levels are concerned? How is this even measured (by decibel level) or enforced?
3. The Toronto Island Community Association claims that the Docks nightclub has violated the conditions of the noise bylaws in the past. How exactly were these alleged violations addressed with the club management, how often did they allegedly occur, and how did the club management respond in turn?
4. Who is Jerry Sprackman referring to at the end of the article when he states: Groups who stage raves in and around his property share the blame, he said, and if they don�t stop, �we are going to sue their behinds off� because �I�m getting sick and tired of being accused of things.�
Is he referring to the Cherry Beach party organizers and promoters?
If anyone can answer some of these questions I'd appreciate it for the sake of my own curiousity. Thanks.
yeah, but no Docks = no Tenaglia...at least not in a venue suitably large enough to house the gajillion people who will again come out to see him 
Tenaglia would pwn in Sonic...but the place isn't remotely large enough, IMHO, unless tickets are $100 and they keep the crowd size manageable.
(and yes, I'd easily pay $100 for him @ Sonic)
Stupidest thing I ever heard....
I didn't even care about the stupid alcohol... I just knew they wouldn't have south beach sundays without a liquor license... Fack! No DJ! WTF!?
Re: Docks Wins Court injunction
| quote: |
| Originally posted by techead We won the injunction to stay open , more details to follow |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ChemEnhanced That is the only benefit if the Docks closes...maybe we won't have to hear about Tiesto anymore....seriously....why the fuck would you bring tiesto into this thread.....holly crap....oh no....we may never have another destiny party at the docks either...what will destiny do now. Also....Tiesto is just a puppet...and he will spin where he is told to spin.....simple as that. |
Reading all those articles about the land plots of the islanders and the restrictions docks have been put on, I have just one thing to say: WOW.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by cl005k So will Tiesto ever be allowed to spin at the Docks again?? And if not..where da fuk would he spin? p.s. I thought he didn't like the Guv or something. |
Phew! 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by drgoodvibe Lastman was way worse then Miller. Lastman would expense the city for the hot dogs he ate among other stupid things he did.. |
| quote: |
| Groups who stage raves in and around his property share the blame, he said, and if they don�t stop, �we are going to sue their behinds off� because �I�m getting sick and tired of being accused of things.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jayx1 id rather pay for a few hot dogs than pay to clean up the mess miller made. How many millions of dollars did the airport bridge cancellation cost? And now the city may have to fork over for the docks too. Miller promised to clean up the city with his trademark broom. The only thing he has used that broom for is to hit us over the head with tax increase after tax increase. Lastman had a big mouth but he wasnt nearly as bad as Miller when it comes to actual policy. |
what does this mean for the pep rally that was supposed to happen, will it just be south beach sundays as usual?
from what I have seen both in here, and in emails I have received..it's going to be business as usual on Sunday!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ry Diggs Guvy ain't gonna bring him in....they have a certain level of aesthetic professionalism that they like to keep. If Docks really does shut down forever, then that leaves only 3 places to hold Tiest0r.... 1. Molson Amphitheatre 2. ACC 3. Skydome and Tiest0rz mgmt would most DEFINITELY bitch about SOMETHING in each of those 3 venues that wouldn't allow them to have a smooth running show in their opinion |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Skipper You forgot circa. |
Thank fucking god!
Great news.
I also can't believe he's threatening to sue the organizers of cherry beach raves. That's high hypocrisy and utterly rediculous.
| quote: |
On November 13, 2006, Toronto will elect a new city council. Over the next four years, the city will face numerous challenges and opportunities and we need our elected representatives to get things done. No more excuses, please. Spacing is asking its readers what they would like to see city council accomplish during the next term in office. Please email us your ideas and we may publish it in our upcoming issue (September 2006). Please keep your ideas to 50 words or less. It can be as simple as "make green roofs and solar panels mandatory for new buildings" or "act like adults during council meetings." Spacing's Fall 2006 issue will focus on the city election and identify what the biggest challenges Toronto faces in the city's public realm. Email us at: [email protected] |
I'm really happy to see the Docks back, but once again the city has slap on an unfair PROTOCAL! Yes your allowed, but with these guidelines ... you MUST follow.
this one is for jay ..
A crime in progress: Molly is way out of bounds by being actually inside this Yorkville eatery, but the server gave her water anyway. If you�re a dog, even being on an Ontario restaurant patio is against the law.
quote:
Ontario's pooch-free patios
Even patios are out for dogs under Ontario's health protection law. Except experts say dogs aren't a health hazard. Besides, birds are also outlawed, but nobody seems to have told the pigeons
Jul. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM
JUDY GERSTEL
LIFE WRITER
Among the ladies at lunch in Yorkville on a sweltering summer day, sipping ice water and taking in the passing parade, is Molly, perfectly groomed, sporting a great haircut and attracting admiring glances.
Not much bigger than the pigeons who frequent restaurant and caf� patios all over town, the tiny Yorkshire terrier is nevertheless flouting the law of the land, although it's the restaurant that will incur the penalty.
Molly the scofflaw will go free � as free as her leash allows.
The law violated by the Yorkie and the Yorkville eatery is Section 59 of Regulation 562 of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act:
"Every operator of a food premise shall ensure that... every room where food is... served...is kept free from... live birds and animals."
It's the latter, in the form of schnoodles, shih tzus and mutts (with an exemption for working dogs) and not the former, in the form of pigeons, seagulls and sparrows, that concerns city health inspectors charged with enforcing the Ontario law � even though, says a University of Guelph scientist, birds pose more of a health risk.
"Birds, flies eating feces before landing on food, I'd be far more concerned about them transmitting infections," Sandra Lefebvre says.
A veterinarian and researcher of diseases shared between pets and people, she confesses to allowing her cat to walk on the dining room table at home while she eats.
As for prohibiting dogs on restaurants patios, she says, "There are no health reasons that I know of."
But a Toronto food safety manager defends the decision to go after dogs.
"We certainly can't control pigeons and seagulls," says Gerry Lawrence, who oversees a team of 12 inspectors. "God's creatures could end up anywhere. It's the creatures we have control over we would not permit to be present."
Among these forbidden creatures: a canine on the patio of Gabby's at 2572 Yonge St. in mid-May.
Gabby's at this location is among a dozen Toronto restaurants listed by dogfriendly.com as welcoming dogs to their outdoor eating area. Several, including Gabby's, have changed their policy because of a crackdown by regulators.
Other restaurants around the city, including three in Yorkville that allow dogs on their patios, either ignore the law or are unaware that it applies to outdoor areas.
Almost all restaurants will permit dogs to remain on the other side of a railing or wrought iron fence that defines the eating area, even though the dogs are still adjacent to the tables.
"I totally allowed dogs on the patio," explains Gabby's manager Steve Atherley, "but a health inspector came by and said every patio has to be dog-free if you serve food."
He says a woman from the neighbourhood complained and reported the restaurant.
Dogs are no longer welcome at the restaurant's outdoor area, which is adjacent to a store selling pet supplies. Before, Atherley says, people would stop by with pets ranging from rottweilers to chihuahuas.
"We never had a problem with any of the dogs."
Food safety manager Lawrence suggests the legislation, which specifically mentions birds but not dogs, might have originated many years ago because of a concern about keeping live poultry on the premises that would be butchered and served.
`You're more likely to get an infection from the person sitting next to you than from a dog sitting next to you on a patio'
Scott Weese, veterinary college professor
Also, restaurant patios were uncommon in Ontario before the 1980s, when the current Health Protection and Promotion Act replaced century-old legislation.
In fact, the dog prohibition is really about cultural and individual preferences even though it is linked � speciously, say experts � to public health or food safety issues, which are pretty much non-existent.
"It's highly likely that the province is citing health reasons in order to meet preference-based concerns," acknowledges Toronto city councillor Shelley Carroll, who represents Don Valley East and has a golden retriever named Maxx and emphasizes that pet owners have to be responsible and obey the law.
Still, she adds, "If there were health concerns, there would be a lot of sick people in France."
There, and in other European countries, it's not unusual to see dogs and cats not only on patios but in restaurant dining rooms.
However, says Carroll, "There are people who are afraid of dogs and people who would never own a dog and think of them as not being clean, who say, `I'm not sharing this patio with a dog.'"
"A lot of it is cultural," acknowledges Scott Weese, associate professor of clinical studies at the Ontario Veterinary College in Guelph, whose dog Meg sits beside the table at home. "The potential (for disease) is very minimal. And there's no greater risk on a restaurant patio than having a dog anywhere else."
The risk, he says, which is always present with a dog, comes from "touching the dog and getting bacterium on the hand and putting it in the mouth. But it's easily preventable by not touching the dog or washing your hands before you eat."
It all comes down to common sense and good hygiene, wherever you are, scientists suggest.
As Weese puts it: "You're more likely to get an infection from the person sitting next to you than from a dog sitting next to you on a patio.
"It's so widely done in Europe, and we're unaware of any outbreaks (of disease) in Europe linked to pets on patios."
Nor does the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta consider dogs to be a health risk at outdoor restaurants.
"Although dogs can pass some germs to people and may have fleas or ticks, those are risks you have from being around a dog anywhere," spokesperson Christine Pearson says.
"Being in a restaurant would not necessarily pose any additional risk."
Pearson, who owns a golden retriever puppy named Milo, adds: "We do recommend that people thoroughly wash hands with soap and water after having contact with dogs."
"It's not about health," concurs Len Kain, vice-president of dog friendly.com. "It's about some percentage of the population feeling dogs shouldn't be there.
"But just because I don't like loud music, they don't ban it � even though there's a bigger risk to my health, because you can go deaf from loud music."
Dog owner Israel Morales, a former nurse who lives near the restaurants and patios around St. Lawrence Market, says his shih tzu Angel is family and he doesn't like to leave her alone for long.
"That's why I don't go to restaurants," he says.
Angel, he notes, is bathed several times a week, has her teeth brushed and tongue scrubbed regularly and behaves in accordance with her name.
She would fit right into the patio scene, he says. "I've seen kids behave badly at restaurants, worse than dogs."
Well-behaved dogs and responsible owners should be allowed to sit on patios together, says Fran Berkoff, an Annex resident who often walks into Yorkville with Molly the Yorkie.
"It's nice in summer to take her for a walk and stop for something to eat and drink," she says. "It doesn't hurt anybody. She doesn't bother anybody. She lies quietly at my feet."
Still, Berkoff says she wouldn't necessarily want to adopt the European habit of carrying Yorkies into upscale restaurants.
"If I were going out for an evening of fine dining, I wouldn't want to take the dog," she says, "but that's a different experience than patio dining."
More North American urban centres are moving in the direction of the the cosmopolitan European attitude to dogs, allowing them to accompany owners dining al fresco.
Austin, Texas, recently made it a point to permit leashed dogs at outdoor restaurant areas. Other cities in the U.S., including Santa Barbara in California, simply don't enforce outdated state prohibitions.
In Florida, it's now up to local governments to decide whether restaurant owners should have the option to open their patios to diners with dogs. The regulation will be reviewed after three years.
Ontario legislator Michael Prue, who once served on the Toronto Board of Health, is aware of the pilot program in Florida and agrees that dogs on patios is not really a public health concern.
"It's probably an esthetics reason...," says the MPP for Beaches-East York, a New Democrat who once owned a German shepherd named Artemis.
The prohibition, he says, "was not, as I recall, for anything to do with transmission of disease directly from animal to person."
The problem is that "people don't want to eat lunch if a dog starts doing its business right there. I think that's more or less what it's about."
Prue says he's never had anyone suggest to him, as an MPP, that the law should be changed to allow individual restaurant owners to decide whether to allow dogs to join patrons on patios.
But "if there is a mood for it," he says, it might be a good idea to follow Florida's lead.
"If the law is to be changed or challenged, there would have to be public input," he says. "It would need study. If people in the province want it, I will ask for public hearings."
City councillor Carroll agrees that permitting cities to implement policies regarding dogs on patios, with allowances for the preferences of different neighbourhoods, would be good for Toronto.
Finally, even the experts who find no problem with dogs on patios warn against equal treatment for every pet. Says Guelph scientist Weese, "A reptile on a patio is something I would consider inappropriate."
But of course he wasn't referring to singles bars.
#
MPP Michael Prue (Beaches-East York) can be contacted at mprue [email protected] or at 416-690-1032.
#
Toronto city councillor Shelley Carroll (Don Valley East) can be reached at councillor_carroll@
toronto.ca or at 416-392-4038.
source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...72154&t=TS_Home
ahahahah.. Toronto: the city that fun forgot...
Another great article by Joe Warmington in today's Sun that talks about all the stupid bylaws we have in Toronto...
LOL@"a sign should be erected at your door saying "dont bother going out" hahahahahah
| quote: |
There ought to be a sign erected that says "no more signs." But until they install one, sign me up for that business. You'd never be unemployed. What did Les Emmerson of the Five Man Electrical Band sing? "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign." On any Toronto city block you'll be amazed with what you find -- and just think of the bylaw fine money the city collects when someone is in violation. It should cover council's 9% raise and the legal fees for trying unsuccessfully to close down The Docks. I'll bet there'll be 10 times more people at The Docks enjoying the summer patio tonight than the number of people their noise affects on the island. And there will be more parking tickets handed out. City accountants may be cheering -- albeit not loud enough for the islanders to hear them. "Gotcha" should be this city's motto: "Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign!" Emmerson should update the song with a line that says "and now pay the fine." There's much you can't do here -- no street hockey, no skateboarding, no riding a bike without a helmet. My favourite signs are those that trick you into a parking ticket. Some poles have so many signs on them, you get dizzy trying to read them -- no pedestrian traffic, buses only, no idling and do not block intersection. They should have one outside your front door saying "Don't bother going out!" There are signs I didn't know existed and I am not sure why they do. One has a big P with a line through it and then says "at other times." Kind of ambiguous, so you should probably stay the hell out of that zone. There's another one with a man standing and a motorcycle with a line through it. I guess it means no people and no motorcycles allowed. It's unclear if it applies to women on motor scooters too! Don't take a chance, I say. Now this one. The sign says "No Standing" and then right below it it has a picture of a wheelchair. Kind of redundant I think. And is there a bylaw for insensitivity? We don't seem to have signs indicating a no-shooting zone -- yet. No sleeping on the sidewalk would be another good one. And no urinating. How about no panhandling? But we do have a sign with a hotdog cart with a line through it that says "no vending except by city permit." Oh those bylaw-breaking hotdog guys must be controlled. But perhaps instead of those signs the city should put up some with a crack dealer crossed out -- unless, of course, he has a permit. There's another sign that indicates no stopping "except vendor No. Clv 0002." They should try that for those lovely professional ladies at Church and Carlton -- to avoid any confusion of who should be standing where. Nearby there is a sign that says "red light camera," which gets some visiting businessmen excited for a minute thinking it says "red light district." We can only dream. For now we are stuck with a giant fine for sneaking through the amber so we can get home to our tax bill. There are other confusing signs about litter -- what to throw into what box, etc. They could start with the smelly sleeping bags of the homeless rotting on the sidewalks in 30C heat. Are they blue box or grey box? We may need a sign. There are some signs that say "buses, taxis and bikes" only but all I saw on those lanes was rollerbladers. If city collectors could only catch up to them, they'd be rolling in fines. I like the signs that say "urban clean way." Do we have one of those here? You don't need a sign to find any urban dirty way. Most people know what "tow away zone" means. It means $200 on your credit card and your kid can forget getting those cool new running shoes -- unless, of course, your parent is on city council with its upcoming Nike- or Puma-sized raise. A sign at Nathan Phillips Square says "restricted access, authorized personnel only." Perhaps it should say this area is for the "9% club only." The "no wading" at the reflecting pool is the same kind of teaser as the "no swimming" ones you see sometimes on the beach. A mom whose kids want to get their feet wet will get chased out of there before a homeless person taking a bath ever will. There's another sign for the city parking lot which has a picture of a fish and just says "trout" under it. I think that is us -- and the bylaw officers are out there reeling us in. My favourite around city hall says no left turn "7 a.m.-7 p.m., Mon-Fri." With this socialist council there's one I wish they would enforce. Nowhere could I find a sign that says "No smiling" -- so get out there and do some of that on this beautiful summer weekend. Scrawler out. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.