Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by phil235

At least they need the leave of the court to appeal to the Supreme Court. The odds are against them getting it.

Yes, but it can take some time to hear back about leave.

In any case, I will repeat what I've said from the beginning: the court case alone is not enough to stop construction. It is a good excuse for the City and for OSEG to blame whatever delays they already had, but short of an actual injunction, the project can go ahead even while it's in court.

If the Friends are truly complaining about process, then an injunction against construction may not be related to any remedy ultimately available to them, and would probably not be granted.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Ottawan wrote

Yes, but it can take some time to hear back about leave.

In any case, I will repeat what I've said from the beginning: the court case alone is not enough to stop construction. It is a good excuse for the City and for OSEG to blame whatever delays they already had, but short of an actual injunction, the project can go ahead even while it's in court.

If the Friends are truly complaining about process, then an injunction against construction may not be related to any remedy ultimately available to them, and would probably not be granted.

I agree with Ottawan.

The new constuction schedule calls for the stadium to be completed by the end of 2013 They had better stick to this. I believe it has been stated that if the city can not show an actual stadium-- Not just blueprints--- by then---the City will lose the chance to host any of the FIFA women's soccer games.

[eternallyme]

Who all is represented in the Friends of Lansdowne? Union groups?

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Who all is represented in the Friends of Lansdowne? Union groups?

And businesses. Mayfair Theatre is listed among them. Seems like a natural fit, since they'd be eager to block competition from Empire cinemas.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by citizen j

And businesses. Mayfair Theatre is listed among them. Seems like a natural fit, since they'd be eager to block competition from Empire cinemas.

I find this odd people are up set because they claim there was no open compeition yet at the same time they seem to be aginst any competition comming into the glebe.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

Yes, but it can take some time to hear back about leave.

In any case, I will repeat what I've said from the beginning: the court case alone is not enough to stop construction. It is a good excuse for the City and for OSEG to blame whatever delays they already had, but short of an actual injunction, the project can go ahead even while it's in court.

If the Friends are truly complaining about process, then an injunction against construction may not be related to any remedy ultimately available to them, and would probably not be granted.

It can definitely take a while for the Supreme Court to decide on leave. Added to that is the fact that the FOL probably won't have to pay lawyers fees to go to the Supreme Court. Someone will take it on for free.

I'm not sure about the City proceeding with construction before the court case is decided. Sure they could go ahead, but what if they lost? The entire financial basis for their deal would be undermined. They could still go out to builders for bids on the development portion afterwards I suppose, but if they aren't allowed to tie the development to the teams and the stadium management contract, then the City would be assuming risk that it hadn't intended to assume and the deal is very different from the deal council approved.

Don't get me wrong, if the City wins at the Court of Appeal, I think they can safely go ahead without worrying about the slim possibility that the Friends will win in the Supreme Court. But at this point I think they do have to wait for a decision. The whole point of this project is that the risk is shifted to OSEG in exchange for a crack at the profits from the project. If the deal is scuttled, that rationale falls apart.

[Nepean]

For those who are interested, the following link contains a summary of when the Supreme Court grants leave: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/role/index-eng.asp

According to the summary, "Leave to appeal is given by the Court if, in the opinion of the panel, the case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or a combination of law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court."

From what I have gathered, it would be difficult to argue that the legal issue at play here is one that involves a question of public importance. In fact, if I had to make a prediction, I would say that if FOL lose at the Court of Appeal their case will be effectively finished.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Nepean

For those who are interested, the following link contains a summary of when the Supreme Court grants leave: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/role/index-eng.asp

According to the summary, "Leave to appeal is given by the Court if, in the opinion of the panel, the case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or a combination of law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court."

From what I have gathered, it would be difficult to argue that the legal issue at play here is one that involves a question of public importance. In fact, if I had to make a prediction, I would say that if FOL lose at the Court of Appeal their case will be effectively finished.

It's no more than 1 in 10 cases that is granted leave, so that works in the City's favour if the FOL lose.

Unfortunately the bonusing provisions of the Municipal Act haven't been interpreted very often in the past, so there may be some grounds to proceed there. But any decison is only applicable to Ontario, and if the provincial Court of Appeal does a thorough job, the Supreme Court may not see a need to hear the case.

[Davis137]

I'm still trying to grasp just what exactly the FOL seek, what outcome they are after, and who or what does their desired outcome benefit, both longterm, and short-term. I can't understand why the property being converted into a giant park would financially benefit the city in the long run.

[citizen j]

Do you want the official answer or the real answer?
Ultimately, they don't want anything in Lansdowne except a reduced stadium, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building.

[AuxTown]

The FOL will tell you that they are looking out for the best interests of society to ensure that the city is transparent in its decision-making and that no large contracts are sole-sourced.

In reality, they just hope to delay this project long enough that it is no longer financially feasible for OSEG to continue. In which case, no one in their right mind will propose anything for Lansdowne so they don't have to deal with this NIMBY nonesense. As state above, they want a small stadium (not big enough for anything important like CFL, FIFA, MLS, large outdoor concert tours, etc.) and us to leave the aweful concrete jungle that is the Aberdeen and the Horticulture buildings currently.

[Davis137]

I just find the conquest by FOL to be a waste of time. I get it that a few people are convinced that there has been sole-sourcing for the design and development plans for this property. In reality, I think the OSEG stepped in with a proposal at the right time. The property, it's buildings, and outbuildings are outdated and were in disrepair, and let's be honest...nothing whatsoever was being done with the property until all of this development started spooling up 2 plus years ago. Where were the people so against this redevelopment when the property was going downhill? Where were they when the cost to maintain the property was outweighing the revenue being brought in?

To me, some people should at least be willing to embrace change and progress in any shape or form with this property,rather than be content with it's gradual demise.

[McC]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

As state above, they want ... to leave the aweful concrete jungle that is the Aberdeen and the Horticulture buildings currently.

I would disagree that this is what the Friends want, (many, at least, want something like Tivoli Gardens created), but I agree that it is the most likely result if the Friends are successful, since there is no money or business case to create what they really want in the absence of new developments, so we get the status quo, minus the south side stands. Are we getting the best new developments we can? I don't think so, but is this the best new development we are likely to get? unfortunately the answer is probably yes, and so it's time for opponents to stop fighting this thing holus bolus, and time to start fighting to make details the best they can be!

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by McC

I would disagree that this is what the Friends want, (many, at least, want something like Tivoli Gardens created), but I agree that it is the most likely result if the Friends are successful, since there is no money or business case to create what they really want in the absence of new developments, so we get the status quo, minus the south side stands. Are we getting the best new developments we can? I don't think so, but is this the best new development we are likely to get? unfortunately the answer is probably yes, and so it's time for opponents to stop fighting this thing holus bolus, and time to start fighting to make details the best they can be!

Exactly right, and fortunately the stance that the area's current city councillor has taken as well.

[Acajack]

Although they might never admit it, I also think the FOL would probably be content if things stayed exactly they are today. Deep down, their main preoccupations are probably related to noise and traffic, and not so much about making Lansdowne Park an attractive space (of whatever type), and even less about having the city respect "due process".

[S-Man]

A commenter on the Sun site (grain of salt) said the FOL will appeal if they lose at the court of appeals. No amount of court losses will stop this group. When Lansdowne is still crumbling and sprouting small trees a decade from now, they'll know they did everything in their power to stop the property from being 'ruined'.

Oh yeah, the heritage buildings will by them be beyond repair - if they're not already...

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by S-Man

A commenter on the Sun site (grain of salt) said the FOL will appeal if they lose at the court of appeals. No amount of court losses will stop this group. When Lansdowne is still crumbling and sprouting small trees a decade from now, they'll know they did everything in their power to stop the property from being 'ruined'.

Oh yeah, the heritage buildings will by them be beyond repair - if they're not already...

I think we all have to admit landsdown live will not happen we will end up with a park that cost the city just as much as landsdown live does but very few want.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Although they might never admit it, I also think the FOL would probably be content if things stayed exactly they are today. Deep down, their main preoccupations are probably related to noise and traffic, and not so much about making Lansdowne Park an attractive space (of whatever type), and even less about having the city respect "due process".

I can't speak for FoL, but noise and traffic are certainly among my very legitimate concerns. The proponents have to mind never convincingly demonstrated how the additional baseload of traffic from the shopping centre + condos + offices x major events will be accommodated on existing thoroughfares, and where everyone will park. Projections for higher than normal modal split with more people riding transit, walking and biking are fanciful.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I can't speak for FoL, but noise and traffic are certainly among my very legitimate concerns. The proponents have to mind never convincingly demonstrated how the additional baseload of traffic from the shopping centre + condos + offices x major events will be accommodated on existing thoroughfares, and where everyone will park. Projections for higher than normal modal split with more people riding transit, walking and biking are fanciful.

You're so right. Everyone does and will always drive. Also, all traffic engineers are corrupt and/or unprofessional. We should keep it as is for the sake of VERY NECESSARY parking.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I can't speak for FoL, but noise and traffic are certainly among my very legitimate concerns. The proponents have to mind never convincingly demonstrated how the additional baseload of traffic from the shopping centre + condos + offices x major events will be accommodated on existing thoroughfares, and where everyone will park. Projections for higher than normal modal split with more people riding transit, walking and biking are fanciful.

I am sorry but this is tiresome whining. Traffic and noise is a fact of life if you choose to live in the centre of the city. While we continue to build new traffic generators everywhere else on Bank Street, we scarcely hear a word. Did you see the new condo tower planned for Catherine and Bank? The difference being that elsewhere is private property. This limits the whining. Lansdowne Park is the lightning rod because it is public property, a unique park that always served commercial and sporting purposes. While we add new traffic as described, we also must recognize that we have reduced traffic by removing the Ex and trade shows. As a football season ticket holder for years, I repeat again that Lansdowne Park can handle the traffic much better than Scotiabank Place ever has. And if we want to diffuse traffic further and increase pedestrian and bike access, then let's get moving on that new pedestrian bridge.

The fact of the matter is that Lansdowne Park is an eyesore and a shameful dead zone and disgrace to the city. It is time to move on and get this thing built.