Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
I actually don't think he's a troll. I think he is truly passionate about his idea and wants to promote it any way he can. Unfortunately he has a somewhat tenuous grasp of internet etiquette and the principles of civilized debate (i.e. address points made directly, present evidence in balanced manner).
I do think that there is a valid point at the core of his posts. However, that point gets lost due to a distasteful tendancy to hurl accusations about the motives and interests of those who disagree with him.
The suggestion that he has an in-depth knowledge of the legal system isn't helpful either. Anyone who has even a minimal amount of legal experience would not be claiming certain victory before a complex case has gone past the pleadings stage. I can guarantee you that the legal opinion they obtained is written in terms that are not nearly as certain.
|
All 24 pages of the Friends of Lansdowne application to the Superior Court of Ontario has been online on the Lets Get It Right website for all to read since September
http://www.letsgetitright.ca/legal
For those who prefer a summary, it reads as:
Legal Challenge Summary Sep13-2010
Friends of Lansdowne Inc., Gary Sealey and Doug Ward
v.
City of Ottawa
On September 9, 2010, Friends of Lansdowne Inc., Doug Ward and Gary Sealey made application to the Superior Court of Ontario for orders setting aside City of Ottawa resolutions and bylaws approving a development scheme for Lansdowne Park. According to their application, the City’s actions are illegal because they fail to comply with the requirements of municipal bylaws and/or the Municipal Act, and because Council failed to act in good faith in approving the development scheme.
At issue is Council’s decision to enter into a complex public private partnership scheme with the Ontario Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), a consortium of local developers and sports entrepreneurs. Under the scheme (the Lansdowne Partnership Plan or LPP), more than a quarter of Lansdowne Park would be converted to private commercial and condominium development, and the City would spend $130 million to refurbish Frank Clair Stadium and build related parking facilities.
In particular, the Application asserts that the City acted unlawfully by:
i.suspending, without justification, a procurement process for soliciting competing proposals for the redevelopment Lansdowne Park in an open, fair and transparent manner, and doing so to award OSEG a sole source contract to redevelop and lease Lansdowne Park, contrary to the requirements of City and Provincial procurement rules;
ii.according preferential treatment to local developers contrary to the open and competitive bidding requirements of the Agreement on Internal Trade, and the General Procurement Agreement of the World Trade Organization;
iii.approving the sale or long-term lease of City-owned properties, including parkland, without complying with the Surplus Lands By-law, or achieving the two-thirds majority vote of Council required to sell a public park;
iv.violating s.106 (1) of the Municipal Act by according OSEG disproportionate advantages or “bonuses”, including by giving it:
a 30-year lease to the entire Lansdowne Site for $1.00 per year and a similar lease to Frank Clair Stadium and related parking facilities, which the City will spend $129,300,000.00 to rebuild;
50-70 year commercial leases to several acres of Lansdowne Park for retail development purposes at $1 per year for the first thirty years;
exclusive contracts to manage the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park, and to program and operate Frank Clair Stadium and all concessions there;
priority rights to revenues or profits generated by the commercial developments and activities on the Lansdowne Site; and,
the right to capitalize their investment in sports franchises, as well as construction cost overruns, and to earn an 8% return on such investments and costs.
The City’s Failure to Act in Good Faith
The Applicants also claim that the City failed to act in good faith or with appropriate due diligence, and in particular failed repeatedly to meet the standard of candour, frankness, impartiality, and fairness that is required of municipal government when it:
unlawfully solicited, and provided preferential treatment to the OSEG redevelopment plan, while a public procurement process was underway to invite, in an open, fair and transparent manner, competing proposals for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park;
unlawfully authorized a sole source contract with OSEG to redevelop Lansdowne Park on the grounds that OSEG had received a conditional CFL offer to establish a football franchise in Ottawa that was contingent on the use of Frank Clair Stadium, when in fact that offer made no reference to, and was not dependent upon locating the franchise at Frank Clair Stadium;
consistently misrepresented the fiscal consequences of borrowing at least $164 million dollars to fund its obligations under the LPP by claiming the scheme will produce a surplus for the City when in fact none of the revenues generated by LPP through its “waterfall” scheme will be allocated to the City to service the interest on or repay the money the City plans to spend on the Stadium, parking, urban park, and tradeshow and exhibition space;
advised Ottawa residents that it would use as much as 75% of the tax revenue to be derived from the commercial developments on the Lansdowne Site to “cover” its costs under the LPP, when no such appropriation or dedication of these tax revenues is intended;
failed to provide a proper accounting of the basis upon which tax revenues from the commercial developments on the Site were calculated, or identify that portion which is assessed as the school tax and must be transferred to the Province;
claimed the City would maintain ownership of the Lansdowne Site while committing to a scheme that represents a de jure or de facto privatization of a significant portion of the Site through the sale of land and fee-simple condominium rights, or by granting leases for as long as 70 years;
claimed that OSEG will be at risk for construction cost overruns when in fact OSEG can capitalize such costs and earn an 8% return on this ‘investment’, even before the City is compensated for the land it is committing to the scheme;
misrepresented the role of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was retained to prepare the LPP Business Model but expressly did not carry out an audit, or provide any other form of assurance on the financial or other information provided to it by the City and OSEG on which that business plan was based;
failed to consult with the Ontario Heritage Trust in a timely manner with respect to the protection of heritage values and assets on the Lansdowne Site, including those protected by an easement held by the Trust and under which its approval for such development is required;
failed to commission an independent audit of the LPP to assess whether it represents value for money by comparing the cost of the LPP against the City developing Lansdowne Park through an open and competitive procurement;
misrepresented the character of the limited financial review of the scheme carried out by the Auditor General for the City of Ottawa, who did not conduct either a financial or value for money audit of the LPP in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards or in accordance with the standards established by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants;
exposed the City and the Province of Ontario to claims under federal-provincial and international procurement agreements that prohibit the City from providing favourable treatment to local suppliers of goods and services, including those it has procured under the LPP;
failed to: consult with Ottawa residents about the LPP before it was approved by Council in April, 2009; engage in bone fide consultations subsequent to that approval; respond to requests from Ottawa Community Associations for meetings to discuss the Plan; properly report on the views of those who were consulted; and take the views of the public into account in making decisions about the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park; and
presented a proposal for rezoning Lansdowne Park in August, 2010, that would permit residential and commercial densities far in excess of those represented by the schemata and drawings that provided the basis for Council’s approval of the LPP two months earlier.
A complete copy of the Application can be found at:
www.letsgetitright.ca.
The full record of the evidence that will be presented in support of the Application will also be posted to the Let's Get it Right website over the few weeks.
The Applicants are represented by Steven Shrybman, a partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell:
[email protected]
Powerpoint Nov 28
http://www.letsgetitright.ca/blog
Prev
Linear Mode
