TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- TORONTO STAR: Fed up with lakefront noise? Just deal with it
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »


Posted by King Luis on Jul-30-2006 20:47:

i'm going to move on to bay and front street and i'm going to complain about the traffic that happens in the morning and around 4-5pm when people leave work.

if they move in and know that they don't want the noise, then dont' move there. its plain and simple.


Posted by dEsidEL on Jul-30-2006 20:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
just playing the devils advocate for a second. A lot of scientists now consider "noise pollution" to be very harmful. Of course this all falls into interpretation and relevancy. Whereas you may feel that a "little bit" of noise is not harmful to you in relation to smoking, others may feel that a little second hand smoke is not harmful to them in relation to car fumes on a city street.

Thats the problem when you become a nit picker. Its all in interpretation.

I happen to have a high (for our society at least) tolerance for the actions of others. Other people do not.




i guess that's where common sense comes in .. but i suppose that too has died along with having fun in this city..


Posted by skip-f*ckn-intr on Jul-30-2006 23:49:

What no one here seems to realize is that Islander's houses were literally shaking, windows and floors shaking at four in the morning.
A few years ago when in attempt to reduce the number of times fines were getting dropped at their door the docks management turned the speakers away from the Island people in the Beaches complained about the noise to the point where their counsellor was advocating pulling the plug on the club immediately.
By way of comparison, beside where the docks is now located there was a car crushing facility for as long as anyone can remember, no one on the islands complained about the noise from the sounds of cars being pulverized.

For ten years people on the islands were asking if the club could keep the outdoor noise levels down after 11pm. Even when the local constabulary fined the docks for noise violations, it evidentl became a cost of doing business ($5000 seems palrtry compared to any night's bar tab).

There has always been room for compromise but the management of the docks has steadfastly refused to consider the neighborhood that they moved into. Yes the residents of the Islands were there first.

If the docks ends up permanently losing their liquor license the only person who should be blamed is Sprackman for trying to bully his way into ignoring the existing bylaws and the environment he operates in.

I think the docks is great, it is a great venue in an awesome location and the facilities have brought new life to an industrial area. But it is also not too much to ask that business owners respect the area that they are moving into. If the clubs in the entertainment district - I used to live on Adelaide at John for years - can manage to have a dialogue with local residents, what is stopping sprackman and company from being good neighbors?

Clubs in LA and New York are silent at street level, and heart stoppingly loud inside. When we used to have illegal after hours parties they were also loud inside and nearly silent outside, so WTF is up with sprackman. Seems to me like he is pitting the club goers against his neighbors, maybe to drum up free publicity?


Posted by Truepioneer on Jul-31-2006 00:13:

LOL the whole reason for moving to the city centre is to be closer to the noise!

Yeah sure, the island residents were there before the Docks, but the downtown was there before them. Traditionally downtowns are the centre of a cities night life.

I find it funny how often a minority can ruin it for the majority in Toronto.

If you don't like the beats move to Barrie, Bolton or some other far flung place.


Posted by skip-f*ckn-intr on Jul-31-2006 00:53:

Uh I don't know what map you are looking at but the docks isn't downtown or in the city centre. If the industrial and shipping noises that preceeded the docks didn't annoy the people on the islands, then I don't think that it is just the noise of living in a busy area that is what is bothering them.

Sprackman's been breaking the law for years, like it or not he is the author of his own fate. Turning this into a publicity campaign is just embarassing.

As far as a majority's fun being ruined by a minority consider the millions of people who visit the Islands, it is city park after all - as a retreat from the heat and congenstion and noise of the city? Is it necessary to subject them to the noise of the docks as well? Maybe we should suggest moving the party to High Park instead.


Posted by MKpacha on Jul-31-2006 00:59:

quote:
Originally posted by skip-f*ckn-intr
Uh I don't know what map you are looking at but the docks isn't downtown or in the city centre. If the industrial and shipping noises that preceeded the docks didn't annoy the people on the islands, then I don't think that it is just the noise of living in a busy area that is what is bothering them.

Sprackman's been breaking the law for years, like it or not he is the author of his own fate. Turning this into a publicity campaign is just embarassing.

As far as a majority's fun being ruined by a minority consider the millions of people who visit the Islands, it is city park after all - as a retreat from the heat and congenstion and noise of the city? Is it necessary to subject them to the noise of the docks as well? Maybe we should suggest moving the party to High Park instead.


hahahhahaha

so the noise of the docks bothers the visitors to the islands during the day?

millions of visitors to the islands? source please.

you also make it seem like sprackman is a criminal...because his club on occasion has broken noise bylaws?

seriously, move.

who do you islanders think you are? honestly....


Posted by slingshot on Jul-31-2006 01:06:

quote:
Originally posted by MKpacha
hahahhahaha

so the noise of the docks bothers the visitors to the islands during the day?

millions of visitors to the islands? source please.

you also make it seem like sprackman is a criminal...because his club on occasion has broken noise bylaws?

seriously, move.

who do you islanders think you are? honestly....


i would also like to add that the motives of you islanders are so selfish it makes me sick. you have no consideration whatsoever for the economic impact that closing down the docks will have. it will not only force 400 people out of jobs but also cost the tax payers a rediculous amount of money in fighting the massive lawsuits that will soon follow.

all for what...quiet weekends in the summer? we all know the noise isn't nearly as bad as you whiners make it seem.

THE TORONTO ISLANDS ARE NOT A FUCKING RETIREMENT HOME.


Posted by skip-f*ckn-intr on Jul-31-2006 01:13:

I'm not an islander. I live downtown, and I like to visit the island, and I have friends who have lived there their whole lives and I have no problem with loud music, I just don't think that one groups party has to piss all over other people's lives. There is always room for a compromise, something which the Docks has shown no interest in when it comes to it's neighbors.

but since you asked for a source:
City of toronto website.
Over 1,225,000 people visit this 230.388 hectare park each year.

And yeah if you go over the islands during the day when there's a party at the docks you can hear it loud and clear on the islands.

What do you call someone who repeatedly breaks the law, even if they can simply ignore it by absorbing the cost of the fines?


Posted by skip-f*ckn-intr on Jul-31-2006 01:15:

And as i said before if the docks close because they have lost their liquor license, it would be the managements fault for continuing to break the law for years.


Posted by MKpacha on Jul-31-2006 01:18:

I laugh how all 4 of your posts have been on the topic of the docks vs. the islanders. not only to mention you profile leaves nothing to the imagination "turn it up or turn it off".

seriously. get back on the boat.


Posted by slingshot on Jul-31-2006 01:18:

quote:
Originally posted by skip-f*ckn-intr
City of toronto website.
Over 1,225,000 people visit this 230.388 hectare park each year.



exageration kills the credibility of your arguments.

1.2 million is hardly millions.

and as if you don't live on the islands...who are you kidding?


Posted by skip-f*ckn-intr on Jul-31-2006 01:25:

Spadina and College is a ways from the islands but whatevah.


Posted by Jem_hadar on Jul-31-2006 01:25:

quote:
Originally posted by slingshot
THE TORONTO ISLANDS ARE NOT A FUCKING RETIREMENT HOME.




+1111


Posted by techead on Jul-31-2006 02:09:

skip-f*ckn-intr are you the token islander bitching about Sprackman , you seem very bitter for someone who is not connected with the Island I smell a plant


Posted by techead on Jul-31-2006 02:15:

quote:
Originally posted by skip-f*ckn-intr
Uh I don't know what map you are looking at but the docks isn't downtown or in the city centre. If the industrial and shipping noises that preceeded the docks didn't annoy the people on the islands, then I don't think that it is just the noise of living in a busy area that is what is bothering them.

Sprackman's been breaking the law for years, like it or not he is the author of his own fate. Turning this into a publicity campaign is just embarassing.

As far as a majority's fun being ruined by a minority consider the millions of people who visit the Islands, it is city park after all - as a retreat from the heat and congenstion and noise of the city? Is it necessary to subject them to the noise of the docks as well? Maybe we should suggest moving the party to High Park instead.


the airport and redpath were there before the islanders , but you don't want them either
STFU and go back to your island


Posted by skip-f*ckn-intr on Jul-31-2006 02:48:

Just so you know techhead, people were living on the Island before the airport was built. I am not an Islander, but many of my friends are, and I have never heard any of them complain about Redpath, some might, just not any I know.

I joined this forum because I heard from a former coworker how Islanders are totally getting slammed here. What he told me sounded like there was a lot of misinformation about the whole debacle, understandable because noone here wants the Docks to close and it seems on the surface like a bunch of spoiled whiners are shutting down everyone else's fun. I don't think it is that simple. The islanders I know don't want the Docks closed, they just want to be able to sleep at night. I like the island, I like the Docks, (but not so much Sprackman's behavior). I was hoping that maybe a compromise could be found if people knew the other side of the story, rather than what was being presented in the press. If Mister Sprackman is true to his word then maybe a dialogue can be opened. it is just too bad that it had to come to this. Clearly I made a terrific error in judgement in joining this forum as it is a whole lot easier to just get angry and hope that the other side loses, rather than listening to what both sides have to say.

Good luck to you


Posted by TSI_AWD on Jul-31-2006 03:03:

Canadians love conservatism

Today at the restaurant I work at; a Portugese lady ask me if it's "OK to smoke outside on the street". I was kinda surprised at the odd question...but for only a second cause she must of spent a day in Canada realized that, you can't drink anywhere except designated places, can't smoke even certain placed outside, like patios and near entrances/exits, prolly can't shit in all the toilets except specially designated ones. The external world must think Canada is full of, cancerously filled alcoholics, who can't drive...cause the speed limits are 50km/h everywhere; and all the police does is hide behind trees with a little radar gun, because in Canada cops don't have real guns, since they're always holding the other kind...


Posted by dEsidEL on Jul-31-2006 04:32:

quote:
Originally posted by skip-f*ckn-intr
Just so you know techhead, people were living on the Island before the airport was built. I am not an Islander, but many of my friends are, and I have never heard any of them complain about Redpath, some might, just not any I know.

I joined this forum because I heard from a former coworker how Islanders are totally getting slammed here. What he told me sounded like there was a lot of misinformation about the whole debacle, understandable because noone here wants the Docks to close and it seems on the surface like a bunch of spoiled whiners are shutting down everyone else's fun. I don't think it is that simple. The islanders I know don't want the Docks closed, they just want to be able to sleep at night. I like the island, I like the Docks, (but not so much Sprackman's behavior). I was hoping that maybe a compromise could be found if people knew the other side of the story, rather than what was being presented in the press. If Mister Sprackman is true to his word then maybe a dialogue can be opened. it is just too bad that it had to come to this. Clearly I made a terrific error in judgement in joining this forum as it is a whole lot easier to just get angry and hope that the other side loses, rather than listening to what both sides have to say.

Good luck to you




well atleast you're trying to make a conscious effor to open up some dialogue .. which is about the only thing I haven't seen in this whole debacle ..


Posted by dEsidEL on Jul-31-2006 04:42:



still hoping that somebody can help answer some of these questions..

quote:

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.



Posted by Jayx1 on Jul-31-2006 04:46:

To the friend of the islanders:

How is it that the islanders are still complaining yet according to the city itself, the docks has not received one noise complaint all year??

Second: Why do this little group of people think they can run city hall and waterfront development? I have no question that the islanders probably heard noise from the docks. But my question is, how can they expect not to hear noise from the mainland?

And, its not just the docks they are after. They want the airport to close, they want to stop party boats from partying, and im sure they want a major say in Robert Fung's master waterfront plan (or whoever is in charge these days).

Sound travels over water. Therefore the islanders are at a greater disadvantage than most since they are surrounded by water. That means that unlike on mainland, the island will absorb everything that goes on around them. But thats called trading off. You want to live near water next to the nation's largest city? Expect sound to bounce across the water!

As has been said many times on this message board the solution is very simple. If islanders dont like noise emitting from the docks, the party boats, the airport, the power generator, or whatever else they will whine about next, then move to a place where the peacfullness meets their expectations.

We live in the second biggest country in the world. We have wide open spaces next to water everywhere. Places where the only noise you will hear coming across the lake is from birds and loons. I suggest those who dont want to hear city noise move there.

And what if i was in their position you may ask?

I used to live above a pub. Every thurs-sat night they would play loud music and my living room above would shake to the boom boom boom. It was annoying at first. But eventually i got used to it. Under the law (because our laws are fucked) i had every right to complain. But i didnt.

1) because they were there first

2) because i chose to live in a mixed used commercial/residential area

3) i lived in a built up part of town in the middle of a downtown section.

4) if i wanted utmost peace and quiet there were plenty of other places i could live. However i WANTED to be within walking distance of everything. So therefore the music was the trade off.

5) im not selfish and consider myself a tolerant neighbour

Personally id be in this fight whether it were the docks, a party boat, a factory, or anything else. Why? Because its high time that people start accepting that there are certain trade offs involved in picking a location to live. And that if they are not willing to make those trade offs then they should move.


Posted by skip-f*ckn-intr on Jul-31-2006 05:40:

quote:

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.

1) The islands terms of residence were made law, first by the Rae government and then with changes under Mike Harris. Since they were acts of the provincial pariliament, yes they were voted on, twice.
The 99 year leases were a way of the province and the city ensuring that they hold title to the land. The prices of the houses are fixed based on the cost of the materials to build the homes, this was done to a) avoid giving islanders a lottery type wind fall and b) to avoid speculation. I am sure that there are a lot of islanders who would have been or would be happy to sell their homes at market rates, but the law forbids this. For better or worse.

2) noise complaints after 11 pm don't require a sound pressure measurement, they rest on what i think is called a test of reasonableness. During hours before 11, I think that there is a sound pressure measurement required. As noted earlier peoples windows have been shaking in their frames sometimes. ( I will admit that that is third hand, but it does get pretty loud over there sometimes, and as a former resident of Adelaide and John streets, my idea of what constitutes loud is pretty tolerant.

3) judging by the fact that part of the terms for the docks stay included paying $14700 in outstanding fines I would guess that the docks had been warned and then fined at least three times, but probably more. I do recall that when the speakers were turned towards Ashbridges Bay five or so years agp Tom Jackobek from the Beaches wanted the club shut down immediately.

4) I have no idea, but I would imagine that is the case. The Docks has taken great pains to demonstrate that their sound system keeps sound levels reasonable and so on. I would imagine that he feels he is being unfairly tarred with a brush more unfairly. I know that islanders have complained about noise from the docks in february...are there parties on Cherry beach in the winter?

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
To the friend of the islanders:

How is it that the islanders are still complaining yet according to the city itself, the docks has not received one noise complaint all year??

Second: Why do this little group of people think they can run city hall and waterfront development? I have no question that the islanders probably heard noise from the docks. But my question is, how can they expect not to hear noise from the mainland?

And, its not just the docks they are after. They want the airport to close, they want to stop party boats from partying, and im sure they want a major say in Robert Fung's master waterfront plan (or whoever is in charge these days).

Sound travels over water. Therefore the islanders are at a greater disadvantage than most since they are surrounded by water. That means that unlike on mainland, the island will absorb everything that goes on around them. But thats called trading off. You want to live near water next to the nation's largest city? Expect sound to bounce across the water!

As has been said many times on this message board the solution is very simple. If islanders dont like noise emitting from the docks, the party boats, the airport, the power generator, or whatever else they will whine about next, then move to a place where the peacfullness meets their expectations.

We live in the second biggest country in the world. We have wide open spaces next to water everywhere. Places where the only noise you will hear coming across the lake is from birds and loons. I suggest those who dont want to hear city noise move there.

And what if i was in their position you may ask?

I used to live above a pub. Every thurs-sat night they would play loud music and my living room above would shake to the boom boom boom. It was annoying at first. But eventually i got used to it. Under the law (because our laws are fucked) i had every right to complain. But i didnt.

1) because they were there first

2) because i chose to live in a mixed used commercial/residential area

3) i lived in a built up part of town in the middle of a downtown section.

4) if i wanted utmost peace and quiet there were plenty of other places i could live. However i WANTED to be within walking distance of everything. So therefore the music was the trade off.

5) im not selfish and consider myself a tolerant neighbour

Personally id be in this fight whether it were the docks, a party boat, a factory, or anything else. Why? Because its high time that people start accepting that there are certain trade offs involved in picking a location to live. And that if they are not willing to make those trade offs then they should move.


1) The docks lost their license because they had according to the findings by AGCO consistently ignored noise complaints for many years. I don't know about whether or not there had been complaints in the last year, but the Docks behavior had been in the past to ignore the law, and since there are very few remedies under the law and the $14000 in fines for previous noise violations had yet to be paid, the Alcohol and Gaming commission found them in violation of their license.

I don't know if Islanders run city hall, they have a city counsellor as do you. City council was not responsible for the Docks loss of their license it was the Alcohol and Gaming Commission who had over a month of hearings on the subject. Theirs was a finding based on the laws dealing with liquor licenses.

As for the idea that islanders simply should move, well sure, except that does that mean if someone opens a noisy club within earshot of any other residential area the residents should move? There are families living on the islands who have been there literally for generations. It doesn't seem like a particularly fair or reasonable solution to tell people who have such strong historical links to a community to move in order to make way for an entertainment facility. So your point about the pub owners being there first could be seen in a different light when it comes to the islanders in question seeing as they were there before the docks.

I know that there are actually a few islanders who work on the party boats, and that the Empire Sandy is owned by a fomer islander, so it would seem counter intuitive to suggest that they want the party boats out of the picture. So I can't really comment on that.

As for the airport, if i am not mistaken the question is about jets and airport expansion. I think that if there are intercity jets flying into the airport, the waterfront will be pretty unpleasant, including the docks patio and drive-in. This is not opposed just by islanders but by pretty much everyone who lives on the harbour and by the film studios along the water and east as far as Pape. The rock in that snowball is that without expanded commuter air service the airport will continue to bleed money in perpetuity. I think if you support a vibrant waterfront, you should think carefully about whether the amount of air traffic proposed makes sense.


Posted by Jem_hadar on Jul-31-2006 05:48:

Smile Tongue

IM HAMMERD! FUCK! HOY SHIT.... man, i love alcohol.


Posted by Halycon on Jul-31-2006 06:11:

quote:
Originally posted by Jem_hadar
IM HAMMERD! FUCK! HOY SHIT.... man, i love alcohol.



winner of best post in the thread goes to.....


Posted by dEsidEL on Jul-31-2006 12:40:



quote:

Sounds of silence come from Docks
Club's licence is back pending appeal
Seagulls drown out patio noise on island

Jul. 31, 2006. 05:34 AM
TAMARA CHERRY
STAFF REPORTER

The neon-lit palm trees draping over the Docks patio are so loud, you can almost hear them.

At 1:30 a.m. Sunday, the Cherry St. hotspot is flooded with people inside and out. But the rhythm of the music is felt only through the pulsating lights seen through the closed windows and doors.

Docks regular Clint Mack stands on the patio, drink in hand.

"It's a nightclub inside," he says. "But you can't hear anything out here."

Business doesn't seem to have dropped since last week, when the Docks had its liquor licence temporarily revoked over noise complaints and then reinstated, with restrictions, pending an appeal.

For years, Toronto island residents have complained about emotional stress and sleep deprivation due to noise coming from the nightclub. But as this water taxi drifts from the Docks to the Cove � the island spot where taxi driver George McQuinn says residents get the brunt of the so-called noisy storm � the ambient sound of chatter coming from the patio is quickly trumped by seagulls.

After 10 seconds of silence and concentration, a distant bass vibrates through the air. We trace it to the source: About a mile away, The Guvernment nightclub blasts music from its rooftop patio on the harbourfront. Closer to the island, reggae beats belt out from party boat Enterprise 2000.

Party boats like this are a sign of summer, says Cove resident Jimmy Wicks in a ride from the city to the island. And many times, they create just as much, if not more noise than the Docks, which has been plagued by islander complaints for a decade in a battle to turn down the music.

That battle seemingly ended last week when the nightclub had its liquor licence revoked in a precedent-setting decision � the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has suspended, but never removed, a licence solely because of noise issues. Days later, a judge reinstated the licence pending appeal, saying the venue would suffer "irreparable harm" if it was banned from serving alcohol.

"I can't say that it has never been obnoxious, because it has," Wicks says, pointing to times when the Docks has hosted outdoor concerts. "It's just one of those things you get used to."

`I hear the Docks on Algonquin ... sometimes it drives me nuts'

Sarah Willinsky, island resident

Algonquin island resident Sarah Willinsky hears things differently.

"I hear the Docks on Algonquin and it wakes me up," she says. "Sometimes I don't mind it, sometimes it drives me nuts. It depends what mood I'm in."

McQuinn thought the Docks issue was taken care of a couple years ago when he began taxiing an employee to the island each weekend to test sound levels. The trips tapered off after a while but began again with last week's controversy, McQuinn says.

The "sound guy" will likely spend weekends for the next while out on the island, McQuinn says. From 11 p.m. to 3 a.m., he walks around the island, walkie-talking information back to the nightclub on what he hears.

The Docks isn't the only thing McQuinn hears the islanders talking about.

There's the port authority, the airport, the airport bridge, the party boats, the dirty harbour, he says.

It's 2 a.m. As the water taxi roams into the island lagoon, the sound of the motor is the only noise.

McQuinn shuts off the engine; a lone cricket takes over.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has until January to appeal the judge's decision to reinstate the Docks' liquor licence.

"If I was the owner of the Docks and I had a liquor licence revoked, I would throw an all-ages party and be f-----g loud," Wicks says.

At 2:30 a.m., we float between the island and a bustling city in serene silence. Seconds later, Brooks and Dunn's "Hard Workin' Man" blasts through the air. The source? None other than McQuinn's own little party boat.


source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...72154&t=TS_Home


Posted by Jayx1 on Jul-31-2006 13:38:

quote:
Originally posted by skip-f*ckn-intr
1) The islands terms of residence were made law, first by the Rae government and then with changes under Mike Harris. Since they were acts of the provincial pariliament, yes they were voted on, twice.
The 99 year leases were a way of the province and the city ensuring that they hold title to the land. The prices of the houses are fixed based on the cost of the materials to build the homes, this was done to a) avoid giving islanders a lottery type wind fall and b) to avoid speculation. I am sure that there are a lot of islanders who would have been or would be happy to sell their homes at market rates, but the law forbids this. For better or worse.


so dont you agree that the islanders should be paying regular municipal taxes on a normal land assesment? As it stands they pay taxes based on assessments at $90,000 etc which we all know in today's marketplace is ridiculously undervalued. Face it, just on property taxes alone the islanders got a sweetheart deal. And yes the NDP did sell out. Just like they sold out the province on a number of things.


quote:

2) noise complaints after 11 pm don't require a sound pressure measurement, they rest on what i think is called a test of reasonableness. During hours before 11, I think that there is a sound pressure measurement required. As noted earlier peoples windows have been shaking in their frames sometimes. ( I will admit that that is third hand, but it does get pretty loud over there sometimes, and as a former resident of Adelaide and John streets, my idea of what constitutes loud is pretty tolerant.


im willing to bet that the sound is a combination of all the events going on around the city concentrating in one spot thanks to the proximity of a large body of water. See above article.


quote:
3) judging by the fact that part of the terms for the docks stay included paying $14700 in outstanding fines I would guess that the docks had been warned and then fined at least three times, but probably more. I do recall that when the speakers were turned towards Ashbridges Bay five or so years agp Tom Jackobek from the Beaches wanted the club shut down immediately. [/quoke]

Tom Jakobek was a sensationalist freak. Thank god this guy didnt become mayor (the corruption allegations put a stop to that) I could go into personal anctidotes about this guy and what a sensationalist attention seeker he was. Jakobek is NOT a credible ally im sorry to say. And i know the incident you are talking about specifically. I will see if i can find a newspaper article from that time period.

[quote]
4) I have no idea, but I would imagine that is the case. The Docks has taken great pains to demonstrate that their sound system keeps sound levels reasonable and so on. I would imagine that he feels he is being unfairly tarred with a brush more unfairly. I know that islanders have complained about noise from the docks in february...are there parties on Cherry beach in the winter?


the islanders complain about everything year round. I think that has been demonstrated repeatedly.



quote:
1) The docks lost their license because they had according to the findings by AGCO consistently ignored noise complaints for many years. I don't know about whether or not there had been complaints in the last year, but the Docks behavior had been in the past to ignore the law, and since there are very few remedies under the law and the $14000 in fines for previous noise violations had yet to be paid, the Alcohol and Gaming commission found them in violation of their license.


So they paid the $14000 and turned down the noise. Are you happy yet? Something tells me the answer is no.

quote:
I don't know if Islanders run city hall, they have a city counsellor as do you. City council was not responsible for the Docks loss of their license it was the Alcohol and Gaming Commission who had over a month of hearings on the subject. Theirs was a finding based on the laws dealing with liquor licenses.


you and i both know that the decision is politically motivated and heavily influenced by the city. So both you AND the mayor can stop hiding behind the "pass the buck" answer. Thanks...


quote:
As for the idea that islanders simply should move, well sure, except that does that mean if someone opens a noisy club within earshot of any other residential area the residents should move?


If the area is a mixed use residential/commerical area then the answer is YES. But in this case the only reason its in earshot is because of the water. On dry land you wouldnt hear the docks at 1 km away. The reason the sound travels into your neighbourhood is simply because of your choice to live next to the water across from a major city. As i said before its called trade offs.

quote:
There are families living on the islands who have been there literally for generations. It doesn't seem like a particularly fair or reasonable solution to tell people who have such strong historical links to a community to move in order to make way for an entertainment facility. So your point about the pub owners being there first could be seen in a different light when it comes to the islanders in question seeing as they were there before the docks.

And so they have been there for generations, good for them. Then they should know what its like to live across from a major city and they should know that they are in fact living in downtown toronto, not some cottage outpost in muskoka. Read below for some history on the past generations of islanders. Seems that they actually knew how to have a good time.


quote:
I know that there are actually a few islanders who work on the party boats, and that the Empire Sandy is owned by a fomer islander, so it would seem counter intuitive to suggest that they want the party boats out of the picture. So I can't really comment on that.


And i bet they are the ones that think their whiner neighbours are nutjobs. If i am not mistaken, its only a portion of the islanders that are screaming about this. Again its my understanding that there are quite a number of islanders that what nothing to do with the complainers when it comes to these matters.

quote:
As for the airport, if i am not mistaken the question is about jets and airport expansion. I think that if there are intercity jets flying into the airport, the waterfront will be pretty unpleasant, including the docks patio and drive-in. This is not opposed just by islanders but by pretty much everyone who lives on the harbour and by the film studios along the water and east as far as Pape. The rock in that snowball is that without expanded commuter air service the airport will continue to bleed money in perpetuity. I think if you support a vibrant waterfront, you should think carefully about whether the amount of air traffic proposed makes sense.


yes so you NIMBYS dont want an airport downtown. The NIMBYS along the airport link to pearson dont want the train noise. The NIMBYS that moved in next to pearson complain about jet noise there. So Which NIMBYS do we appease and which do we ignore? Can you see the problem if we appease everyone who opposes something?

Again, if the mainlanders dont want to live next to an aiport, they should have thought of that when they moved into their new condo. And if the islanders dont like it, they should think about living somewhere where no one else lives and where there is absolutely minimal chance of any development happening in their lifetime.

Progress in a major city is to be expected. We cannot keep toronto sounding like a small town just because a few islanders want to feel like they live in cottage country.


Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.