Dirty Doug’s Den of Deplorable Developer Deals

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, it looks like lots of people in Ontario are quite pissed off at the spectacle of lobbyists getting behind closed doors with a politician to cook up a sweet deal for themselves.

Also, people seem to think that conservative politics is always scandal free ?

[ExFlyer]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, it looks like lots of people in Ontario are quite pissed off at the spectacle of lobbyists getting behind closed doors with a politician to cook up a sweet deal for themselves.

But like you say, they're probably just jealous it wasn't them.

No, they are pissed that a non elected chief of staff for the housing minster made a deal.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also, people seem to think that conservative politics is always scandal free ?

What scandal? I get the distinct sense the only real scandal here is the spectacle of public anger over their betters decisions and the methods they use to arrive at those decisions.

 

 

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

No, they are pissed that a non elected chief of staff for the housing minster made a deal.

Do you think they're pissed off at the deal because it was a bad one or because of the way it was made?

[SpankyMcFarland]

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, it looks like lots of people in Ontario are quite pissed off at the spectacle of lobbyists getting behind closed doors with a politician to cook up a sweet deal for themselves.

But like you say, they're probably just jealous it wasn't them.

Of course, even if that were true it would be irrelevant if actual wrongdoing is discovered. Lobbyists, their backers and politicians are all well aware of lobbying legislation and how to get round it. Unless we are constantly vigilant bad things will happen behind closed doors. That is just human nature. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[ExFlyer]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Do you think they're pissed off at the deal because it was a bad one or because of the way it was made?

I think it is both.

It is a bad deal and by who made it.

Sorta like Gerald Butts making deals for Justin.

[CdnFox]

On 8/15/2023 at 8:57 AM, ExFlyer said:

I think it is both.

It is a bad deal and by who made it.

Sorta like Gerald Butts making deals for Justin.

How it was done could tick people off for sure - but i'm not so sure it was a bad deal.

Remember the OP tends to get a little excited and isn't entirely truthful when he "explains' the deal   but the deal is "you get started and build these homes right now without worrying about preselling all of them before starting the next phase on LAND YOU ALREADY OWN for the most part and we'll greenlight that space for development.

So - Ford has committed to building a million homes within a period of time.  There is NO driving reason for developers to play ball with that normally, in fact the system penalizes them for it.

So one way or another you have to incentivize them.  Many of them own land in protected greenbelts they can't develop on. Giving them the opportunity to do so is pretty huge. Even if they may less profit than normal it's profit they wouldn't have had.

I"m not so sure the level of development would be there with another method.  In light of how badly the homes are needed to keep rents and housing more affordable - is it REALLY a bad deal?

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

How it was done could tick people off for sure - but i'm not so sure it was a bad deal.

Remember the OP tends to get a little excited and isn't entirely truthful when he "explains' the deal   but the deal is "you get started and build these homes right now without worrying about preselling all of them before starting the next phase on LAND YOU ALREADY OWN for the most part and we'll greenlight that space for development.

So - Ford has committed to building a million homes within a period of time.  There is NO driving reason for developers to play ball with that normally, in fact the system penalizes them for it.

So one way or another you have to incentivize them.  Many of them own land in protected greenbelts they can't develop on. Giving them the opportunity to do so is pretty huge. Even if they may less profit than normal it's profit they wouldn't have had.

I"m not so sure the level of development would be there with another method.  In light of how badly the homes are needed to keep rents and housing more affordable - is it REALLY a bad deal?

No the OP presented the details of the AG report accurately whereas the most recent post right above this one did not.  
 

The developers didn’t just happen to “already own” this protected land:  they bought much of it recently, after Ford came to office some of it just months before it was removed from the greenbelt even though Doug had vowed publicly not to develop it. Obviously it was an inside deal. 
 

This greenbelt land was also not part of the Ford government’s plan to build a million homes as that plan and the land involved was already finalized prior.  Furthermore the AG and municipalities confirm that they have plenty of non-greenbelt land available for development and nobody was consulted on these greenbelt deals. 

[BeaverFever]

And now the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff has resigned….the first patsy has been offered up for sacrifice in the hope that this scandal will just go away.
 

Of course nobody’s fooled, this corruption clearly goes all the way the Premier’s office and a criminal probe has now been referred to the RCMP (at OPP request, to avoid any potential conflict of interest or political interference).

Edited August 23, 2023 by BeaverFever

[ExFlyer]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

And now the Housing Minister’s. Hief of Staff has resigned….the first patsy has been offered up for sacrifice in the hope that this scandal will just go away.
 

Of course nobody’s fooled, this corruption clearly goes all the way the Premier’s office and a criminal probe has now been referred to the RCMP (at OPP request, to avoid any potential conflict of interest or political interference).

He should have resigned and I do think he should be investigated but, Proof of your claim please.

Edited August 23, 2023 by ExFlyer

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

He should have resigned and I do think he should be investigated but, Proof of your claim please.

Why would some salaried staffer be secretly rigging this land deal for no reason?  The developers gave handsomely to Doug and even attended his daughter’s wedding. Much of the land given away under this deal was bought as soon as Doug was elected.  Doug refuses to revisit the deal despite seemingly admitting it was rigged. Doug tried to prevent the AG from examining the deal. Doug was caught on tape telling developers he was going to do this then tried to explain it away to the public as some sort of misunderstanding….the he went and and did this after all. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

On 8/21/2023 at 8:34 PM, BeaverFever said:

No the OP presented the details of the AG report accurately whereas the most recent post right above this one did not.  
 

The developers didn’t just happen to “already own” this protected land:  they bought much of it recently, after Ford came to office some of it just months before it was removed from the greenbelt even though Doug had vowed publicly not to develop it. Obviously it was an inside deal. 
 

 

Did ford sell them the land without offering it to others? No?  Well there you go.

And it doesn't change the point i made at all. What you seem to be saying is they believed that it would  become available to develop if they bought it.  SOME of it was bought recently. And they're developing on it at a very fast rate which will allow ford to make his promise of a million homes - which they DESPERATELY need to have happen.

I'll tell you what i think happened - they had some land, they realized ford was unlikely to hit his targets, they went to him and said 'If you free this up, we'll build like mad even tho it's not how we do things normally. "  And he started to listen, and when he realized it's the only way he'll get it done without subsidizing someone to do it eslewhere he started to get serious about it.  When they saw that they snatched up more land and sold him on the idea and he went ahead.

They'll make money - he gets the housing he needs, and that will take pressure off of the rental an housing markets.

LIke i said - how it was done is shady but this is not necessarily a bad deal.

Quote

Doug was caught on tape telling developers he was going to do this then tried to explain it away as some sort of misunderstanding….the he went and and did this after all. 

And?

Ontario liberal voters supported FAR worse examples of corruption under wynn and dalton - that bar has already been set low.  Too late to complain  about it now.  But what IS a valid question is "is this a good deal for the province"?   Which is what i was quesitoning in the first place. 

And i'm not sure it IS a bad deal.  The province needs those homes and they weren't getting built the old way.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 Ontario liberal voters supported FAR worse examples of corruption under wynn and dalton  ...

WORSE than selling Greenbelt land to ones' friends ?  This makes the Liberals look good in comparison...

[BeaverFever]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Did ford sell them the land without offering it to others? No?  Well there you go.

Lol What point are you trying to make here? Follow along:  they donated generously to his campaign and in return he made a secret deal that if they bought protected greenbelt land under his watch then he would un-protect it   He did not make that deal with other developers  

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What you seem to be saying is they believed that it would  become available to develop if they bought it. 

I’m saying they KNEW it would become available because they had had an illegal secret insider deal, which they purchased through generous campaign contributions. 
 

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

SOME of it was bought recently.

ALMOST ALL of it, not “some”

 

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And they're developing on it at a very fast rate which will allow ford to make his promise of a million homes

No, that’s the opposite of the facts. T AG actually said there is NO evidence it will be developed in the near future. The AG also said this land deal was NOT part of the land parcels included in the million home plan which was already finalized at time this dirty deal was done. 
 

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ll tell you what i think happened - they had some land, they realized ford was unlikely to hit his targets, they went to him and said 'If you free this up, we'll build like mad even tho it's not how we do things normally. "  And he started to listen, and when he realized it's the only way he'll get it done without subsidizing someone to do it eslewhere he started to get serious about it.  When they saw that they snatched up more land and sold him on the idea and he went ahead.

That doesn’t align with any of the known facts or timing of events 

 

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ontario liberal voters supported FAR worse examples of corruption under wynn and dalton

Whataboutery and subjective

 

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And i'm not sure it IS a bad deal. 

Corruption is always a bad deal  for democracy n

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

WORSE than selling Greenbelt land to ones' friends ?  This makes the Liberals look good in comparison...

He didn’t sell it, the land was already privately owned, just had restrictions. 

[PIK]

Typical lefty whinning. They want housing, but complain when someone tries to build. Like 2 apt buildings in ottawa on the line because it throws shade onto a field on the experimental farms. And what happened to all the OPP investigations from the last Gov.

[I am Groot]

On 8/11/2023 at 9:56 PM, BeaverFever said:

My problem with that line of argument is threefold:

1) There are REAL consequences to developing this protected land, its not just a few inconsequential and random empty fields we are talking about here, these are creeks, waterways, wetlands and heritage crop land that are vital to local ecosystems

Meh. It's a tiny percentage of the greenbelt. And the greenbelt is going to be paved over soon anyway. According to the Century Initiative Trudeau has clearly adopted Toronto's population is to grow to over 33 million due to immigration by the turn of the century. Only Trudeau is bringing in people so fast and furiously that will probably happen by 2050.

If you're going to grow the GTA from 8 to 33 million the greenbelt will have to go.

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Meh. It's a tiny percentage of the greenbelt. And the greenbelt is going to be paved over soon anyway. According to the Century Initiative Trudeau has clearly adopted Toronto's population is to grow to over 33 million due to immigration by the turn of the century. Only Trudeau is bringing in people so fast and furiously that will probably happen by 2050.

If you're going to grow the GTA from 8 to 33 million the greenbelt will have to go.

There’s plenty of land and plenty of vertical space without paving the greenbelt 

[CdnFox]

On 8/23/2023 at 10:18 AM, Michael Hardner said:

WORSE than selling Greenbelt land to ones' friends ?  This makes the Liberals look good in comparison...

Far worse.   But - again he didn't sell greenbelt land to people behind closed doors or the like  - at most he may have told them he'd open the land for development and they went and bought land knowing that - but agreeing to develop it.

 

[CdnFox]

On 8/23/2023 at 10:34 AM, BeaverFever said:

Lol What point are you trying to make here? Follow along:  they donated generously to his campaign and in return he made a secret deal that if they bought protected greenbelt land under his watch then he would un-protect it   He did not make that deal with other developers  

Sigh. Sometimes you're so slow, it's like explaining things to a 6 year old.

You are now repeating what i said. Initially you said something different.

My point was that they were not given the land or somehow granted it or the like.  They bought the land and while the methods may be skanky the result for ontario probably isn't.

Quote

I’m saying they KNEW it would become available because they had had an illegal secret insider deal, which they purchased through generous campaign contributions. 

And i'm saying they knew it would become open for development because they promised to develop it quickly in return.  It's slimy but it's actually a good deal for ontario who desperately needs homes built now - and developers don't normally develop ahead of need. But these ones are.
 

Quote

No, that’s the opposite of the facts. T AG actually said there is NO evidence it will be developed in the near future. The AG also said this land deal was NOT part of the land parcels included in the million home plan which was already finalized at time this dirty deal was done. 

Ummmm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/duffins-rouge-agricultural-preserve-1.6937144

I wonder what else the AG is wrong about?

Quote

That doesn’t align with any of the known facts or timing of events 

Well i think some of your facts are a little less 'known' that you think they are.  Just like the "they don't plan to develop the areas' 'known fact'.

Quote

Whataboutery and subjective

Sorry kiddo - it's not whataboutery - it's real life and precedent.  IF you say corruption is fine, then you can't be upset when someone else says it, even if they set the bar in a differnt place.  Whine to your heart's content but nobody cares. I've been saying for years this is what will happen - it's going to happen federally too so hold on to your socks   The people's refusal to punish corruption leads to more corruption and if the left doesn't care about it sooner or later the right doesn't either.

Quote

Corruption is always a bad deal  for democracy

 

Too late to take that position now.

When the PC party was corrupt - conservatives blew it up. When the liberal party was corrupt - the libearls voted them back in.  Now the CPC and their supporters are realizing that if they're the only ones worried about it then the liberals will tend to win.  SO - ford made a deal, too damn bad - suck it up buttercup.  He didn't delete any hard drives did  he?  

[I am Groot]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

There’s plenty of land and plenty of vertical space without paving the greenbelt 

Really? There's plenty of land within the existing GTA to quadruple its population? Maybe if everyone lives in 60-story buildings. But people want more space. They want a backyard, even if it's a little one, so they can put junior out there to enjoy the sun.

[BeaverFever]

22 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Really? There's plenty of land within the existing GTA to quadruple its population? Maybe if everyone lives in 60-story buildings. But people want more space. They want a backyard, even if it's a little one, so they can put junior out there to enjoy the sun.

So the 33 million is not the existing GTA but a proposed “Toronto Megaregion”. While they don’t define the exact borders its basically all of central southern Ontario and Niagara between and interlocking with an “Ottawa Megeregion” and a “Southwestern Ontario Megaregion” so I think we can safely say it’s at least something like Barrie in the North to Niagara in the South, Guelph in the West and maybe Peterborough or Belleville in the East.

Note that the existing growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (which is just the GTA and adjacent communities along Lake Ontario shoreline between Oshawa-Niagara) is already forecasting 14 Million by 2051

We have very low housing density compared to Europe and the age of thoughtless urban sprawl is long over for a number of reasons  

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So the 33 million is not the existing GTA but a proposed “Toronto Megaregion”. While they don’t define the exact borders its basically all of central southern Ontario and Niagara between and interlocking with an “Ottawa Megeregion” and a “Southwestern Ontario Megaregion” so I think we can safely say it’s at least something like Barrie in the North to Niagara in the South, Guelph in the West and maybe Peterborough or Belleville in the East.

Note that the existing growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (which is just the GTA and adjacent communities along Lake Ontario shoreline between Oshawa-Niagara) is already forecasting 14 Million by 2051

We have very low housing density compared to Europe and the age of thoughtless urban sprawl is long over for a number of reasons  

 

 

But at the end of the day the cities and gov't can plan to their heart's content  but its the developers who build and set the pace.

Fact is that with the existing land and challenges with it there was no motivation for developers to speed up building lWhy would they? If they complete a place before it's completely sold out then they pay taxes on it, strata fees ,etc.

What you're suggesting is that somehow - if they keep just doing what they were doing that didn't produce enough homes... it'll produce enough homes.  How?

[BeaverFever]

On 8/25/2023 at 1:02 PM, CdnFox said:

But at the end of the day the cities and gov't can plan to their heart's content  but its the developers who build and set the pace.

Fact is that with the existing land and challenges with it there was no motivation for developers to speed up building lWhy would they? If they complete a place before it's completely sold out then they pay taxes on it, strata fees ,etc.

What you're suggesting is that somehow - if they keep just doing what they were doing that didn't produce enough homes... it'll produce enough homes.  How?

What is it you think I’m suggesting?

[CdnFox]

Me:

Quote

What you're suggesting is that somehow - if they keep just doing what they were doing that didn't produce enough homes... it'll produce enough homes

Followed by You:

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What is it you think I’m suggesting?

Me again:   Sigh. 

 

 

[eyeball]

On 8/24/2023 at 11:27 PM, CdnFox said:

The people's refusal to punish corruption leads to more corruption and if the left doesn't care about it sooner or later the right doesn't either.

Bwahahaha!

What a pile of ?