|
Great Article about the Toronto Island noise whiners
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Blowing smoke on the water
We'd like to register a noise complaint. We understand how sound carries across the water, so sometimes what seems a perfectly reasonable decibel level on one shore sounds like an overwhelming cacophony when it reaches the other. It's possible the noisemakers are decent people, but really: we've got to live here, so could they please shut up?
We're speaking, of course, of the residents of the Toronto islands, whose self-righteous, high-pitched whinging has been making it impossible for the rest of us to concentrate for more than a generation.
Most recently, the little cottage community raised an almighty shriek on May 4, when they discovered that the Wakestock Festival -- a four-day, daytime-only festival of wakeboarding, skateboarding, motor-cross racing, bands and bikinis expected to draw 40,000 visitors -- would be coming to Centre and Olympic Islands in August. Island residents and the city councillor who represents them, Pam McConnell, cried that the boisterous festival would be too much for their little community to handle. "I can tell you there is no way this is going back to the Toronto islands next year," McConnell was quoted as saying in the Toronto Star.
These complaints come from faces already red from screaming about the noise from the summertime sports and drinking theme park that is The Docks nightclub on the waterfront, at the foot of Cherry Street. There are some things we don't love about The Docks -- the drunken jocks who dominate the patio, for a start -- but when they opened 10 years ago in the nearly deserted industrial ghost town of the port lands, we never imagined noise complaints. After all, no one lives down there, right? Except, of course, the 600 privileged souls paying a buck a day to lease public parkland on the islands across the eastern gap. The thumping bass of The Docks, the islanders say, is tortuous, keeping them up all night. In response, the city has supported their contention that The Docks' liquor licence should not be renewed.
A little background may be helpful here: once, the Toronto islands were busy and well populated, housing "Canada's Coney Island," a baseball park and hundreds of homes. In 1956, ownership of the islands was transferred to Metropolitan Toronto for the purpose of being transformed into a public park. The businesses and homes on Hanlan's Point and Centre Island were demolished as leases expired. Then in 1973, after having already granted a one-time lease extension, Metro Council voted to evict the remaining residential tenants -- those on Ward's Island and Algonquin Island -- so that plans for a parkland oasis for all Torontonians could be completed. The residents, however, fought. And fought. Finally, in 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the issue, upholding the eviction and ordering the residents out. Still, the residents refused to move.
In 1981, the province passed a law juggling jurisdiction so that the islanders could stay. But because of disputes over leasing terms, the residents paid no rent (or city taxes) for several years, forcing Toronto taxpayers to pick up the tab for them.
For some reason, this lawless recalcitrance was rewarded by the provincial government in 1993, when the residents were given 99-year leases on their property for about a dollar a day.
So the legal question was resolved: island residents have a contractual agreement to lease the land. Some may say they got too good a deal, but a deal they have, and no one recently has suggested we renege.
Still, the islanders don't have to be such sore winners. At every turn, they protest any use of the public parklands around them that upsets the bucolic feel of their community. They opposed the construction of a wave pool on Hanlan's Point in the '80s, they opposed the construction of a new residential co-op on the island (!) in the '90s, they oppose The Docks and they oppose Wakestock.
Even when we agree with their position -- as we did when they led the fight against the island airport expansion in 2003 -- we doubt their motives are the same as ours. We were worried about maintaining the possibility of a harbour, island and mainland that all Torontonians could enjoy. We suspect the residents of the Toronto islands were worried their neighbourhood would get noisy.
We don't begrudge them their homes, nor the fact that they rent land from us at a price significantly lower than market value. But it'd be nice if they keep in mind that they live on land owned by all of us and set aside for community use, surrounded by land set aside for community use, across the water from land we very much want to develop into a vibrant part of Toronto. Sometimes the community will want to build a nightclub. Sometimes the community will want to give noisy kids a place to play. And if the island residents can't handle the decibel level, they can always move to the suburbs. Things would sure get a lot quieter on the waterfront if they did. |
 |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| That article is excellent. My sentiments exactly. Where did this article come from? |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| Absolutely spot on. One dollar per day? That can't be true... |
|
|
| Nikitha |
I don't even live in TO and i totally agree.... honestly what do ppl expect!
its TORONTO for s sake! one of Canadas busiest cities
i say turn up those speakers at the Docks and give every drunken-loud-mouth a microphone!!
Nikitha |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
That article is excellent. My sentiments exactly. Where did this article come from? |
Eye magazine |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| They should have just sent in the bulldozers when the supreme court ruled that they had to leave. Look at whats happening today in the gaza strip. We should have sent in the army if needed and evicted those squatters back in the early 80s. |
|
|
| Halycon |
bravo!!
well said
whining bitches |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Absolutely spot on. One dollar per day? That can't be true... |
kind of...that's prorating the lease cost over 99 years...it's a clever way of playing the #s to show that residents do pay *substantially* less than market value for their leases. The same way charities will ask for monthly donations and call it "less than a cup of coffee per day". ;)
"Islanders paid $36,000 and $46,000 for their lot leases, which run until 2092"
source: http://torontoisland.org/CommunityA...86/Default.aspx
a "biased" source, perhaps...but before anyone becomes involved in the island residence deabtes, they'd do well to understand exactly what's involved with living there...lots of info to be found on that page.
I do think they need to chill the out a bit...and I do think they should have been "evicted" when the courts ruled against them. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
kind of...that's prorating the lease cost over 99 years...it's a clever way of playing the #s to show that residents do pay *substantially* less than market value for their leases. The same way charities will ask for monthly donations and call it "less than a cup of coffee per day". ;)
"Islanders paid $36,000 and $46,000 for their lot leases, which run until 2092" |
Yes, that's true, but it's not as much of a spin as you seem to be implying. At $46K they don't even need a mortgage, just a regular loan will suffice. It's not just "substantially less" than market value - it's literally a tiny fraction of what everyone else pays for a house, or even a condo. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Yes, that's true, but it's not as much of a spin as you seem to be implying. At $46K they don't even need a mortgage, just a regular loan will suffice. It's not just "substantially less" than market value - it's literally a tiny fraction of what everyone else pays for a house, or even a condo. |
no...the lease represents just the land component of the property value, not the whole property.
They still have to pay for the structure (house) itself. So they will have a mortgage unless they can pay cash for the entire thing.
They also pay property taxes...have fees for ferry travel (since there's not much on the island iteself)...management fees for the island authority (since the authority is self-sufficient and not subsidized by the city AT ALL), etc.
it's still much cheaper to live there...not as ridiculously cheap as some people are implying though. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
if i ran this city id find a way to evict them and then proceed with finishing the park. Then i would make the portlands an all purpose reacreational zone including family content such as an aquarium etc as well as nightlife with liberal liquor laws and areas for festivals. I certainly would NOT make it just another section for more condos as is the current proposal.
Wouldnt it also be nice to have lakeside cafes and pubs in which you could enjoy a nice scenic vista of the skyline and have a drink?
We really do squander so many opportunities in this city due to lack of vision, too many regulations and too many whiney NIMBYS.
Its very sad. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
no...the lease represents just the land component of the property value, not the whole property.
They still have to pay for the structure (house) itself. So they will have a mortgage unless they can pay cash for the entire thing.
They also pay property taxes...have fees for ferry travel (since there's not much on the island iteself)...management fees for the island authority (since the authority is self-sufficient and not subsidized by the city AT ALL), etc.
it's still much cheaper to live there...not as ridiculously cheap as some people are implying though. |
I was under the impression that:
(a) they *don't* pay property taxes; and
(b) the housing already existed before the evictions started, therefore the islanders who were already there at the time of evictions paid nothing for them (unless of course they rebuilt them, but they weren't forced to do that).
I could be wrong, though. That's just what I remember finding out. |
|
|
|
|
