|
Why clubs are being torn down: Adam Vaughan's agenda looks like it has finally been busted
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Looks like the missing link as to why there is so much zeal to tear everything down including clubs and landmarks has finally come to light! I REMEMBER WHEN PEOPLE USED TO CALL ME CRAZY ON THIS CHAT BOARD BACK WHEN I USED TO WARN ABOUT THIS!
ALSO: News from city hall: Adam Vaughan has denied the expansion of 2cats; denied the Fifth Pub House Café & Market (225 Richmond); denied Brioche Doree (small cafe with patio); approved the demolition of Wayne Gretzky's, Second city, Oasis patio, restaurant row (now appealing with OMB) & Maison on Mercer.
Now, see the first story below and prepare to get angry:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/0...-2yxho.facebook
City plays 'Let's make a deal'
SHAWN JEFFORDS AND JOE WARMINGTON TORONTO SUN
FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 08, 2012 05:32 PM EDT | UPDATED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 08, 2012 07:31 PM EDT
Some call it a shake down.
Others refer to as “Lets Make a Deal” planning and a “slush fund” for city councillors.
And it’s perfectly legal.
Toronto collects millions of dollars from developers every year, cash extracted in exchange for permission to build bigger projects.
Fuelled by the city’s condo boom, that fund has grown (as described by some councillors) into a $300 million political slush fund.
It’s intended to provide “enhancements to the public realm,” in other words community improvements such as public art or parks.
But city councillors often negotiate deals with developers and decide where the money should be spent — despite the fact few are qualified to handle such negotiations.
Some, critics maintain, direct the cash to pet projects.
Prior to 2008, money collected from developers wasn’t properly tracked and the rules and practices surrounding negotiations remain sufficiently sloppy that it’s still not clear taxpayers are being well served.
“With all due respect to councillors, most of them do not have training in land use planning or these type of issues,” said Toronto real estate lawyer Patrick Devine. “They should give greater weight to the advice they get from staff.”
Two sections of the Planning Act are involved.
Devine has been working on these cases for more than 30 years. The system has become so flawed, he maintained, only massive changes to the way the city elects council can alter it.
Under Section 37, city staff should lead negotiations with developers and councillors may participate.
In practice however, some councillors lead the negotiations.
Others leave everything up to city planners.
Section 45 is less clear, and instead of trained, qualified and experienced planners negotiating with developers, councillors often direct negotiations.
Both have led to bad deals for the city, created potential conflict for councillors and forces developers to participate in negotiations that leave many feeling used and manipulated.
One landlord, who asked the Toronto Sun not to use his name because he fears reprisal, applied for a minor variance a year ago and called the cops on Councillor Joe Mihevc because he figured he was being hustled.
The developer planned to demolish an existing three-story addition and replace it with an updated three-storey addition over the existing structure.
Mihevc, without any obvious participation from city staff present, contacted him and demanded $30,000 in “fees” in exchange for a quick, speedy approval.
The developer was led to believe the fee would support “public art” near the property, the Wychwood Barns art house project Mihevc supports in his riding.
He was also left with the impression that if he refused, local residents would oppose the project and face a potentially costly OMB hearing.
The developer retained a lawyer who negotiated with Mihevc and managed to lower the fee.
“We settled on $10,000,” he said. “I am told how this was done is the norm.”
Rankled over what he felt was a shakedown, the developer contacted Toronto Police who launched an investigation.
“I was interviewed by two detectives who kept saying to me, ‘Were you blackmailed, were you blackmailed?” he said.
He wasn’t sure what to call it.
“I was scared sh--less,” he said, adding that he hasn’t heard from the police since. “You know how things work at the city. One hand washes the other.”
Toronto Police confirmed a complaint was made against Mihevc. “Police have investigated and there was nothing to justify further action,” said Const. Tony Vella.
Mihevc maintained that what took place between himself and the landlord was nothing out of the ordinary. He also said the cash is not headed to support Wychwood Barns.
“I wasn’t contacted by police because everything was on the up and up,” he said. “He’s a new developer and didn’t realize this is how it works.”
City officials agree that Mihevc didn’t necessarily break any rules.
Peter Langdon, acting manager of community policy in the city planning division, said Toronto staff spent three years reviewing the Section 37 program and recommended a series of changes that were implemented in 2008.
“It was a bit haphazard (before that) I have to admit,” Langdon said. “There wasn’t a formal tracking system. So, notes were kept in various development files or with respect to various reserve funds. But there was no centralized tracking system.”
“There is nothing to preclude a councillor from having discussions with a developer about benefits,” he said. “The guidelines do suggest, and they are council adopted guidelines, that city planning staff should take the lead in negotiations, but they are only guidelines.”
In Mihevc’s case, he led negotiations with the developer and insists the deal struck was fair.
“Every councillor does it,” he said. “It’s not a staff function, it’s a councillor function.”
This particular deal was vetted by the city’s legal department and based on numbers worked up by planners, he said.
“There is nothing that I did that was not totally transparent and totally consistent with council’s policies and procedures. Nothing.”
But after looking at the minor variance decision in this instance, Councillor Peter Milczyn, head of the city’s planning and growth committee, said while he did nothing wrong, he disagrees with Mihevc’s approach.
He said the requested changes were too minor to demand $30,000 from a small developer.
“In my view, if it was my ward, I wouldn’t have hit the guy up for that kind of money,” he said, adding, “You don’t go after someone and say ‘Oh, and by the way, give cash to the local community group.’”
Former city councillor Kyle Rae said he likes Section 37 but not all councillors take their cues from city planning staff who have expertise.
He cited the example of a Scarborough councillor, who he did not name, who used the section to secure a sound system for a community centre, and in his opinion, got taken.
“There were lots of councillors, who were not familiar with the development industry (and) could be completely snowballed by developers,” he said. “They would lowball them.”
David Amborski, a professor in Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional Planning, said Section 37 should be reformed to help make development more transparent.
“Developers like certainty,” he said. “They say ‘Give us the rules of the game. Tell us what we’re going to have to pay so we can build it into our pro forma and analysis, so we know whether or not we can make a profit on the site.’”
Devine, the real estate lawyer, said some developers have fought back against what they view as an extra tax levied on top of development charges. If it’s “good planning” the charges shouldn’t be levied at all, Devine said.
He cited a case he fought with the city between 1999-2000.
His client, a major developer, was building an apartment complex at Bay and Yorkville Ave. City planners approved the project and but later came back and told the company it owed $2.6 million in Section 37 fees.
The company refused and took the city to the Ontario Municipal Board.
“The funny part was the city would phone back every month before the hearing saying, ‘Okay, so your client won’t pay $2.6 million, how about $2.4? No. How about 2.2? No’,” Devine said. “By the time we got to the hearing the city said ‘Our final offer is $1.26 million. You must pay that.’ We had a four day hearing and the OMB said there is no planning rationale for this money.”
The city got nothing. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
SECOND STORY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ADAM VAUGHAN AND THE COMFORT ZONE LAWSUIT:
Lawsuit flies under radar 6
BY JOE WARMINGTON ,TORONTO SUN
FIRST POSTED: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 09, 2012 11:16 PM EDT
Councillor Adam Vaughan (QMI AGENCY PHOTO)
If Mayor Rob Ford was nailed for jaywalking, it’s a safe wager that that minor indiscretion would end up front-page news.
So how is it that his main critic, Councillor Adam Vaughan, could be named in an $11-million lawsuit from a business in his ward more than two years ago and almost nobody caught wind of it?
It’s part of the public record and not secret.
Yet, it seems, there was no interest in the press gallery at City Hall, some of whom would scout out the mayor’s backyard when checking out a minor land issue.
Maybe the fact that Vaughan, sources say, will be called to take the stand Oct. 24 in a University Ave. court in defence of a lawsuit filed by the proprietor of Spadina Ave.’s legendary Silver Dollar Room, and its adjacent Comfort Zone lounge, will pique their interest?
A claim against the Trinity-Spadina (Ward 20) councillor and the City of Toronto states: “The defendants have exceeded their lawful mandate and authority of protecting the public” and have “wrongfully used the police and other governmental agencies” to “injure the plaintiff and its licensed businesses, The Comfort Zone, and have endeavoured to permanently shut it down as part of a concerted political agenda — ‘a war on clubs/restaurants.’ ”
Nothing has been proven in court.
Vaughan said it was based on a raid that happened three or four years ago. He charged that the claim is designed to limit the amount of law enforcement on the club.
But down on “restaurant row,” some feel, in essence, the same thing is happening to them, with new plans to knock down half a block of buildings and replace them with a 47-floor condo project.
“This is a special area in Toronto and they are killing it,” said Al Carbone, owner for 25 years of the popular Kit Kat Restaurant on King St. “It’s going to end up like a wall of condo buildings like on Wellington St. with no character.”
If you go to save
restaurantrow.com, you’ll see the plans to effectively eliminate the businesses from 321 to 333 King W. in favour of the development.
Another thing I didn’t read anywhere is that this battle is going before an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in January.
“It would have been rubber-stamped if we didn’t make noise about it,” Carbone said.
If successful, gone will be some famous Toronto landmarks like The Red Tomato, Fred’s Not Here and Z-Teca.
“Once those great restaurants are gone, how long before the domino effect occurs?” Carbone said. “Where are the tourists going to go?”
It’s an excellent question, because this restaurant row is a Toronto gem and among the last of the historic buildings in the city.
Why are zoning restrictions not protecting what precious little there is left.
“They talk about saving the facades and heritage designation, but everybody knows it’s just window-dressing,” Carbone said.
Linda Pinizzotto, president of the Condo Owners Association (COA), said her group will be expressing these worries at the OMB hearing.
“It’s really sad to see an overcrowded haven of new condominiums skyrocketing well over the planned height restrictions of the area, demolishing the beautiful character of King W.,” Pinizzotto said. “The disregard of our natural heritage and the unbelievable traffic congestion proves that these new condo developments are completely out of control.”
Tony Elenis, president of the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association, adds: “Its iconic neighbourhoods like that one that make a city great.”
But there’s another thing at play. It’s the fever of this insane Section 37 development money that councillors and city staff are able to negotiate with developers to boost density, adding dozens of floors to planned condos.
For example, more than $600,000 was negotiated to be put into this so called “community development” fund.
This will put the kitty in this fund in Vaughan’s ward to almost $51 million.
But Vaughan said the $600,000 figure is actually higher if you consider the negotiated deal also included “affordable housing” to be part of it.
As for Carbone’s concerns, Vaughan said that all of the restaurants leaving will “come back as part of the new development” and that “all of the concerns of the other restaurants have been addressed.”
He said Carbone’s complaints are “more to do with his history with the developer and previous lawsuits that did not go his way.”
Well, at least it’s now all out there.
Now back to what Ford is having for lunch. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
And the next story on this article:
Vaughan in legal fight with bar 7
BY SHAWN JEFFORDS ,TORONTO SUN
FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2012 12:12 AM EDT | UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2012 01:09 AM EDT
Councillor Adam Vaughan (QMI AGENCY PHOTO)
Councillor Adam Vaughan has been accused in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit of “conspiring” with city officials to “destroy” a downtown Toronto restaurant.
Vaughan gave a statement earlier this month in a bid to defend himself and the city from an $11-million suit, which alleges he pressured police and city inspectors to shut down The Comfort Zone restaurant after a 2008 raid.
Vaughan and the city have been in litigation for three years with 1631651 Ontario Inc., the numbered company that owns the restaurant.
In a statement of claim obtained by the Toronto Sun, Vaughan and the city of Toronto are named as defendants in the suit, filed March 6, 2009.
In the document, the company alleged that Vaughan leaned on city regulatory agencies and law enforcement officials to effectively shut down the restaurant.
The document said the “harassment” began on March 16, 2008, when more than 100 police officers raided the establishment, at 480 Spadina Ave., as part of Operation White Rabbit.
Police were responding to the death of 26-year-old Burlington man Andrew Fazio, who suffered a lethal drug overdose after allegedly purchasing an illegal substance at The Comfort Zone in January ’08.
“From that day on, The Comfort Zone began to receive repeated visits, harassment and charges under provincial licensing laws from Toronto Police and licensing agencies, under the direction, with the knowledge and approval of the defendants,” the statement of claim said.
Vaughan said the lawsuit has been going on for so long he thought it “had gone away.”
He denied wanting to see the restaurant closed down.
“The restaurant has created disturbances in the neighbourhood,” Vaughan said. “There have been problems with it. But those problems are typical of any nightclub in the neighbourhood ... They haven’t been singled out in any way.”
He said he gave a statement several weeks ago and a discovery — where lawyers representing the city and the restaurant will review each other’s evidence — is scheduled for Oct. 24.
Vaughan isn’t sure whether he’ll have to testify in the suit, but added that he’ll co-operate.
“The lawsuit is with the city, and while I’ve been named as the councillor, many of the events took place before I was even elected, so it is a bit of a strange suit.”
The last straw for the restaurant appears to have come in ’08, when, after 12 years as a licensed restaurant, The Comfort Zone was charged with not having an “entertainment/club” licence.
Owners held a “restaurant” licence and maintained they had satisfied all the legal requirements to hold it, the statement of claim said.
It said a moratorium placed by the city on new “entertainment/club” licences in Ward 20 had boxed in the owners.
“In effect, the defendants have orchestrated events so that the permanent closure of the plaintiff’s business, The Comfort Zone, is inevitable.”
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Comfort Zone manager Dave Yarmus declined comment when contacted by the Toronto Sun.
— With files from Joe Warmington |
|
|
| smuncky |
AND HE'S BAAAAAAAAAAACCCKKK!!!
missed you buddy. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
LOL!
Thanks. I couldn't resist a little self vindication :) |
|
|
|
|
