Jump to content

Dirty Doug’s Den of Deplorable Developer Deals


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Nope. You don’t have your fats right. 
 

First of all the Aga Khan was not a lobbyist and did not receive any special treatment from the Trudeau government.

 

Sigh-  yes he was, and yes he did. He was an "unpaid" lobbyist who was lobbying the trudeau gov't at the time.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-aga-khan-lobbying-investigation-1.5100169

And the idea that if someone gives you a vacation worth hundreds of thousands of dollars it woudln't influence your decision is just stupid.

That's why we have the laws.

The rest of your nonsense is equally a failure. "Aga" was actively lobbying trudeau at the time of the trip. That's WHY trudeau got in trouble.

Quote

As for WE scandal: it definitely is the most serious of the JT scandals and seems inappropriate but if it was “a fact” that it was “bribery” which is a crime we would have charges and a conviction  

Not when it's the PM.  Thats why he wasn't charged criminally for the Aga khan incident which was in fact ruled as taking bribes.

The PM has the right to give permission for people to take bribes. Including himself apperently, or at least that's what the cops felt was the case.

And i would disagree that WE was the most serious.  SNC was worse - not just taking money for influence but actively interfering in the justice system DESPITE being told straight out it was illegal to do so. 

 

So. You got it wrong across the board.  Looks like it's not me who needs to check my facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, CdnFox said:

Sigh-  yes he was, and yes he did. He was an "unpaid" lobbyist who was lobbying the trudeau gov't at the time.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-aga-khan-lobbying-investigation-1.5100169

 

None of what you say is supported by the link you provided. It does not say AL was a lobbyist or that he did any lobbying on the trip. 
 

On 9/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, CdnFox said:

And the idea that if someone gives you a vacation worth hundreds of thousands of dollars it woudln't influence your decision is just stupid.

That's why we have the laws.

I didn’t challenge the laws. I said he clearly violated the rules but the intent was innocent. In this case the “vacation” was a visit to a family friend’s house that he has visited many times as a family friend.  
 

It’s not like your corrupt Republican judge Clarence Thomas who is raking in RVs cash, lavish vacations hand over fist year after year. 
 

On 9/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, CdnFox said:

The rest of your nonsense is equally a failure. "Aga" was actively lobbying trudeau at the time of the trip. That's WHY trudeau got in trouble.

Not him personally his staff was lobbying their usual bureaucrat contacts in the applicable department as they often do as part of their regular business. Theres evidence AK addressed it during the trip or that the PMs office got involved in any of it. 
 

On 9/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, CdnFox said:

Not when it's the PM.  Thats why he wasn't charged criminally for the Aga khan incident which was in fact ruled as taking bribes.

The PM has the right to give permission for people to take bribes. Including himself apperently, or at least that's what the cops felt was the case.

Nonsense. 
 

On 9/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, CdnFox said:

And i would disagree that WE was the most serious.  SNC was worse - not just taking money for influence but actively interfering in the justice system DESPITE being told straight out it was illegal to do so. 

Nope again not illegal and 7 requests to have meeting does not constitute interference 

 

On 9/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, CdnFox said:

So. You got it wrong across the board.  Looks like it's not me who needs to check my facts.

Nope as usual conservatives can’t tell the difference between their opinions and objective facts. Its your defining characteristic. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile a SECOND Doug Ford Cabinet member resigns after choking on the supposed “nothingburger” of a greenbelt scandal. Turns out he was partying in Vegas with one of the developers who caught a bonanza under the greenbelt giveaway and the two even got massages together, which he of course lied to investigators about. I bet this isn’t the “happy ending” he was expecting!

Second Doug Ford cabinet minister resigns over Greenbelt controversy
 

Another Ford cabinet minister has resigned — and is quitting the Progressive Conservative caucus to sit as an Independent MPP — over the growing $8.28-billion Greenbelt land swap scandal.

This time it is Kaleed Rasheed, the minister of public and business service delivery, who told provincial integrity commissioner J. David Wake the wrong dates for a trip to Las Vegas three years ago, where he socialized with a developer.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/second-doug-ford-cabinet-minister-resigns-over-greenbelt-controversy/article_528bba22-8818-5341-8651-09fcf4bb0f07.amp.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

None of what you say is supported by the link you provided. It does not say AL was a lobbyist or that he did any lobbying on the trip. 
 

Sure it is.  Do you need me to get a set of crayons out and explain it in terms you can understand? What specifically is still confusing you?

 

I didn’t challenge the laws. I said he clearly violated the rules but the intent was innocent. In this case the “vacation” was a visit to a family friend’s house that he has visited many times as a family friend.  
 

Quote

It’s not like your corrupt Republican judge Clarence Thomas who is raking in RVs cash, lavish vacations hand over fist year after year. 

Ummm.... you realize this is canada right? We're talking about canada?  I don't have any republican judges....
 

Quote

Not him personally his staff was lobbying their usual bureaucrat contacts in the applicable department as they often do as part of their regular business. Theres evidence AK addressed it during the trip or that the PMs office got involved in any of it. 

Riiiiight - and his staff has NOTHING TO DO with him right? I mean it's not like they take direction from him or anything.


Could you please be less of a m0r0n? It's exhausting trying to explain things to you as if you were a gradeschooler.

Quote

Nonsense

. Absolute truth. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change it.
 

Quote

Nope again not illegal and 7 requests to have meeting does not constitute interference 

illegal and she told him so, and definitely interference. the only reason charges weren't laid was that they coudln't compel testimony due to privilege.

Quote

Nope as usual conservatives can’t tell the difference between their opinions and objective facts. Its your defining characteristic. 

Pot - meet kettle.  Kettle - pot.

Sorry kid - your entire echo chamber nonsense is based on "Muh Feels" and not on facts.

And you can't possibly expect to say that there was no problem with SNC and at the same time claim that ford is doing something terrible :)  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Premier Ford announced today he is reversing the Greenbelt development. It is refreshing to see a politician admit he made a mistake and has the courage to correct it.

Oh please. 

Ford is a spineless weakling. He backs down on all policies whenever he faces any kind of sustained anger from the Left and their media allies.

All this means is if we're going to accept the Liberal-created 'green belt' as some kind of sacred, never-to-be-touched land now, that we're going to have to fit tens of millions more people into the core of Ontario cities over the coming decades as Trudeau continues to flood Canada with third world types. Look for China-type overcrowding and much higher prices for rent and housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Premier Ford announced today he is reversing the Greenbelt development.

Very nice to see a Canadian Politician finally owe up to his mistakes. Something you'll never see from the PM...

The biggest problem though wasn't that Ford slightly cut the Greenbelt (while adding more than he took), it's that he favored certain developers in the process. That still reeks of nepotism and elitism, things Ford stood against in 2018.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not admitting his mistake, he's caving to public pressure. And as a result ontario probably isn't going to get the homes he promised, he'll find a way to distract people away from that promise.

Ontario has a long standing tradition of shooting itself in the foot and honestly this can get added to the pile.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's only sorry for getting caught and probably feeling a lot more apologetic towards the poor saps who thought they could cash in on their greenbelt holdings.

The greenbelt is definitely the biggest winner here. It'll be Kryptonite to anyone who even thinks about developing it for a long long time following this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Canadian_Cavalier said:

Very nice to see a Canadian Politician finally owe up to his mistakes. Something you'll never see from the PM...

The biggest problem though wasn't that Ford slightly cut the Greenbelt (while adding more than he took), it's that he favored certain developers in the process. That still reeks of nepotism and elitism, things Ford stood against in 2018.

Seems that the ministers staff were the ones that made the deal. "He" did not favour anyone.

Ford cancelled the land sale so, does that mean the owners of the land have to give the money back to the developers and that the land is again worthless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Seems that the ministers staff were the ones that made the deal. "He" did not favour anyone.

Ford cancelled the land sale so, does that mean the owners of the land have to give the money back to the developers and that the land is again worthless?

The owners won't give the money back - the developers who own it now hold worthless land.

I would guess that it'll slow down their activities elsewhere as their money got tied up for the time being.  Ontario isn't going to get the houses they need.  Sadly it's the low income people who will pay for this the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The owners won't give the money back - the developers who own it now hold worthless land.

I would guess that it'll slow down their activities elsewhere as their money got tied up for the time being.  Ontario isn't going to get the houses they need.  Sadly it's the low income people who will pay for this the most.

I hope so. 

That is the issue with this greenbelt BS. Farmers etc that own the greenbelt land get nothing for it because it is greenbelt. Finally a developer gives them a bunch of cash and they are happy but the others are screwed.

In my mind, greenbelt (everywhere, not just in the "golden triangle) is a waste of time, land and effort!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sadly it's the low income people who will pay for this the most.

Low income people need increased density in already developed areas, to allow for suites and apartments they can rent. Unless there's a startlingly significant drop in prices new houses are and will remain out of the question for most people who need a place to call in home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Low income people need increased density in already developed areas,

Well i've already explained  in detail why that's both wrong and stupid. Low income people aren't going to be affording highrise apartments - they're more expensive to build.

The fastest way to get a startling drop in prices is to build more homes at a faster rate. encouraging that by rezoning some of the green belt would have been a good way to do that.  Now that's gone... and the left doesn't seem to have a plan to replace it.

So ford will say 'i tried' and give up and the poor will suffer.

Well done :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well i've already explained  in detail why that's both wrong and stupid.

Well you need to pay better attention to the news because there's been plenty of stories about nimbyism, density and the need to out pressure on municipalities to do something about the logjam of regulations intended to keep most of our neighborhoods reserved for single residence lots.

Just because only 3% of Canadians think otherwise doesn't mean this isn't the single greatest impediment to development bar none. It's also very much on the the radar.

Get used to it. It'll be coming to a neighborhood near you sooner than you think.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/full-blown-war-of-housing-nimbyism-threatens-canada-s-economy-capreit-ceo-1.1767324.amp.html

https://amp.tvo.org/article/nimby-ontario-where-even-gentle-density-can-be-too-much

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/opinion/les-leyne-nimby-override-is-part-of-provinces-housing-plan-6874452

the “not in my backyard” objections to new housing in the NDP government’s latest push won’t carry nearly the weight they once did.

It's about time too.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of talk about restricting strs and that shutting down illegal BNB's will restore long term rental spaces.  The elephant in this room however is that most of theses suites were also illegal given the rules against second dwellings on single residence lots.

Municipal governments have put themselves in a pretty pickle by not jumping on this issue much sooner.

I doubt many nimby's who finally manage to get rid of some str that's been under their skin is going to suddenly embrace a long term rental in exchange. Some will but many will need to be convinced or over-ridden.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well you need to pay better attention to the news because there's been plenty of stories about nimbyism, density and the need to out pressure on municipalities to do something about the logjam of regulations intended to keep most of our neighborhoods reserved for single residence lots.

 

And you need to stop lying and being decietful.  You ONLY mentioned density. That is what you said THE POOR needed.

So lets look at your strories,

First one - NOTHING to do with density,

Oh - by the way - the whole complaining about teh green belt thing? That's nimby ism.  The thing you say is bad.  Nice when you out yourself as the problem

Second story - not even relevant to the conversation.  complete swing and a miss

third story - nimby -  nimby shut down the greenbelt. It's not nothing to do with density,.

So once again you're wrong and you're too much of a pathetic loser to simply admit it,

Density does NOTHING to help the poor,

And nimbyism just shut down the best chance to build a bunch of excess homes. Sorry kiddo - YOU are the nimby advocate here.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Vancouver reforms single family neighbourhoods

September 15 2023 – Vancouver is evolving its low-density zoning by opening up neighbourhoods across the city to allow for the development of multiplexes that will create homes for families and help more people to build a future in Vancouver.

Last night’s unanimous Council vote will allow up to six strata units, or up to eight secured rental units on larger lots, on lots that were previously reserved for single-family homes or duplexes only, providing more residents the opportunity to call these neighbourhoods home.

New homes in these areas will also be easier and faster to build than ever, thanks to Council also approving significant simplifications to the regulations and the consolidation of nine separate zones into one.

https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/vancouver-reforms-sf-neighbourhoods.aspx

Don't say it can't be done when people are doing it. I noted in a related thread that it's municipal and regional governments that are most effective at taking action against climate change too.  They can get things done where fed/prov governments usually just screw things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Don't say it can't be done when people are doing it. I noted in a related thread that it's municipal and regional governments that are most effective at taking action against climate change too.  They can get things done where fed/prov governments usually just screw things up.

Nobody said it couldn't be done. It's just not the solution to the problem.  Do you know what those those six strata units will go for? A little over a million bucks a piece.  So - how many poor folk do you think will be buying those? The rents will be an average of 3500 per month btw.

And how many units do you think that zoning will result in? the answer is dozens. MAYBE 100.  And how many new homes do we need in canada above and beyond what we normally build? Well over a million.

SO quit being a total bs expert.  Denitrification is solving NOTHING as far as our housing crisis goes.  And while it can have other benefits in SOME places it's not like the metros DON"T have denitrification already. Vancouver has one of the highest population densities in the world - yet its one of the most epensive cities in north america.  SO much for solving the problem for the poor - who are the first to pay for a lack of housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So - how many poor folk do you think will be buying those?

None likely.

As I pointed out in other posts on the topic there will also need to be allowances for suites in existing single residences. These are what's needed to accommodate lower income renters right now. Not 3-5 years down the road.

It's these who are facing the greatest most immediate challenges of the housing shortage. Building new houses for sale is a seperate issue that'll take years to work through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

None likely.

And that's probably on the high end

Quote

As I pointed out in other posts on the topic there will also need to be allowances for suites in existing single residences.

Still doesn't help.  You run into the same problem plus new ones.  First - those people want to get high end dollars for the rent so they're not renting for cheap either. THis ain't the 70's where someone drops in a toilet and shower and calls the basement a 'suit'.

but most of all - people don't want "poor" people in their homes living with them. So they'll screen out all but the most attractive looking tenants and they'll get them because the market is like that.

And finally - most don't WANT to be landlords.  I've heard it a million times - look at how landlords were treated during covid.  Look at how they were treated during the inflation crisis - they're not allowed to raise rents when inflation is low and when inflation goes up... they're still not allowed.  The tenancy branches totally favor the tenant in most cases.  For MOST people it's just not worth it - if it was they'd be doing it already.

If they DO do it a large number rent out on a 'short term' basis.  Furnished suites to executives who are only in town for 3-6 months.

So again - your're potentially adding dozens and dozens of units into  a market that desperately needs a million.

These are what's needed to accommodate lower income renters right now. Not 3-5 years down the road.

Quote

It's these who are facing the greatest most immediate challenges of the housing shortage. Building new houses for sale is a seperate issue that'll take years to work through.

And fords plan for the development in the green belt would have been a big step towards doing just that.  2- 3 years down the road a lot of new homes hit the market on top of the regular builds.

And people like you shut it down.  And the poor are going to pay the price for that. 

As i said - well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

THis ain't the 70's where someone drops in a toilet and shower and calls the basement a 'suit'.

Actually that's close to exactly what's needed.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

For MOST people it's just not worth it - if it was they'd be doing it already.

Most don't do it because it's illegal.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And people like you shut it down. 

It's true a lot of compliance and enforcement is based on there having been a complaint received but I'm not a rat. I've been advocating for increased density for decades on the planning commission that I'm a member of.

You're simply taking through your ass because you enjoy being a dink about everything.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,721
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    paradox34
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • SkyHigh earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • SkyHigh went up a rank
      Proficient
    • gatomontes99 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • gatomontes99 earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...