We already have Metrolinx Lands

The land is already dedicated to rail use; whether it is along the Lakeshore, Humber Bay Shore community or the Rail way lands that are using diesel technology that made the news last week with protests about additional trains. Georgetown to Union. How about downtown to the Airport? Downtown to the airport in 30 minutes .... be still my heart.




OK, So its a flash monorail. We're in a recession. We need manufacturing jobs. Employees pay taxes and buy houses. Who makes it Bombardier!

Makes ya wanna take out a Canadian flag and wave a little huh.

It began with a brilliant idea...
The Monorail was originally envisioned as a joint venture between MGM Grand and Bally's Hotel, with the idea to create a one-mile transportation system linking the hotels.This exciting and forward-thinking idea took flight in 1993 and soon included plans to expand to other locations along the Strip. In 1997, the State of Nevada passed Expansion plans evolved and a professional team, including Nevalegislation that enabled a private company to own, operate and charge a fare as a public Monorail system. da-based Liaise Corporation, Granite Construction Company, Gensler & Associates, Carter-Burgess and Salomon Smith Barney, was assembled to develop the Monorail system.

Bombardier Transportation, a Canadian company and one of the world's largest transit system manufacturers experienced at turnkey operations, was contracted with operating and maintaining the trains, automatic train controls and other control subsystems.

Lets Recap.

Environmentally Friendly, Promotes regional and local employment. Creates Employment, Saves Hydro, reduces car pollution and traffic. A hotel(s) had the foresight to plan, organize and implement a transit system.

Lets get our fingers off these silly petitions to (please) stop the huge tax rip off of the HST that people do not yet comprehend and get your fingers dialing (pushing buttons) your member of parliament and elected official. Call your Member of the Ontario Legislature.

Buzz Hargrove on the CFRB was recently overheard to say that 250 k Ontario employees have lost their jobs. Lets focus on the important issues. Employed people buy houses, furniture, appliances, TV's. electronics, landscaping, pools, flooring, carpeting. Add something to the list.

We need serious people for serious issues; Who cares about WHO's riding the Olympic Torch is being displayed in. It's being Displayed in a Canadian Riding! Lets address employment and power generation issues instead.

What do you think? Do you agree? Add your comments here.

Is green roof bylaw valid or cash grab?

Late last month, Toronto became the first city in North America to adopt a bylaw requiring the construction of green roofs on new developments. It comes into force Jan. 31, 2010.
A green roof is a system where a vegetated area becomes part of the building's roof. It includes plant life, a growing medium, a filter layer, a drainage layer, a root resistance layer and a waterproof membrane.

Under the new rules, a green roof will be required on all new buildings with more than 2,000 square metres of gross floor area. The area of the green roof will range from 20 per cent to 60 per cent of the roof, depending on the size of the development.

Green roofs have been used for years in Europe and the United States, but they are relatively new to Canada.

They are said to reduce stormwater runoff, energy consumption, the local ambient temperature and associated cooling costs. As well, they have been touted as beautifying the city, creating more green spaces and providing opportunities for food production.

Unfortunately, however, there are significant problems with the city's efforts to legislate environmental policy. From a legal point of view, it seems to me that Toronto is improperly using the City of Toronto Act to mandate building standards, a legislative area reserved exclusively to the provincial legislature. As such, it could well be exposed to a legal challenge.

The idea that the very shallow growing medium on green roofs can be used for food production may well be wishful thinking.

Fire is also an issue. According to a report last year in Property Week magazine, Swiss insurer Zurich, the third-largest insurer in the U.K., warned that green roofs could dry out and become flammable.

The City of Toronto is aware of the fire issue and is currently reviewing safety issues with Toronto Fire Services. A staff report last month noted that "there is no standard, establishing minimum requirements" with respect to fire safety.

Structural failure is another issue with green roofs. A presentation at the American Institute of Architects (AIA) convention in 2007 reported that in one U.S. case, a green roof failed and the water leakage caused significant structural damage.

The AIA presentation also forecast insurance claims and litigation resulting from failure to deliver promised energy savings, mould or other environmental hazards as a result of poor maintenance of the roof, or a roof collapse resulting from improper construction, maintenance or installation.

Wherever green roofs and green buildings are found, green building litigation is sure to follow. The United States has already seen its first green building-related litigation and its Canadian counterpart cannot be far off. An article in Green Real Estate Law Journal earlier this month predicted that "green building-related litigation will remain on the horizon for the near future."
Green roofs present serious issues for condominium corporations. Owners face significantly higher maintenance costs for green roofs to minimize the risk of fire and to ensure proper drainage.

The typical lifespan of roof membranes, with or without a green roof, is estimated at 25 years. When a membrane has to be replaced, condominium reserve funds will be hit with huge costs.
Locating a roof leak is challenging even where there is no green roof, but when the source of a leak is concealed by tons of vegetation and a growing medium, the costs can easily skyrocket.
I'm not sure that adequate study has been given to the green roof initiative in Toronto.

I also wonder why, if green roof technology is such a laudable goal, the City of Toronto stuck a "cash in lieu" provision in the bylaw, allowing builders to pay the city $200 per square metre instead of simply building the roof. Or is this just another city cash grab?

Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer and a director of the Tarion Warranty Corporation. He can be reached by email at bob@aaron.ca, phone 416-364-9366 or fax 416-364-3818. Visit the column archives at http://aaron.ca/columns/toronto-star-index.htm for articles on this and other topics.

David Pylyp. There are wiser people to deal with these issues but I do see challenges beyond fire hazards on the rooftops, What about weight loading from snow and water retention in the roof lawns.

Why not legislate something that has a benefit to the Condominium Owners rather that a political ECO green hot topic. Why does the city not mandate energy self sufficiency. There are currently viable hydro co generation programs that could be used with Solar Panels installed on the out of sight roof tops.

I would personally welcome a reduction in my long term bills and passive income from hydro regeneration. Isn't it about time?

Your comments are always invited.

Wind Turbines on the Toronto Humber Bay Shore?

Wind farm would be another ugly mistake
Urban Compass by April Lindgren

Toronto is unique in its diversity, abundant in talent and full of people who care about the quality of urban life. But even ardent fans admit the city is a bit of an Ugly Betty and unlikely to win any beauty contests.

So why is Toronto Hydro flirting with the idea of spoiling one the few truly beautiful natural features we have left?The utility is considering installing as many as 60 wind power turbines off Toronto’s eastern shoreline. If tests show there is sufficient wind to justify the project, a string of turbines could soon dominate the waterscape from Leslie Street eastward to Ajax.Scarborough residents are raising questions about noise, the impact of the turbines on bird populations and whether the project could alter wind patterns and affect the Scarborough Bluffs.

Expensive consultants’ reports and competing scientific opinions are clearly on the horizon. Also on the horizon, if the project goes ahead, is a collection of ugly industrial clutter destined to haunt generations to come. The wind farm would be located two to four kilometres off shore. That may sound like quite a distance, but wind turbines are huge so we’re not talking about a few little specks off in the distance.

Balance of Article And Some comments

The Truth, Please
Ms. Lindgren writes that “A wind farm glistening on a ridge of land in rural Ontario or southern Alberta can be a beautiful sight...” Sadly, too often, near to those glistening turbines, live people – in some cases, people with 10 turbines within 1 km of their home. Many of those people are suffering from the effects caused by the turbines placed too near to them by those who would profit, and the suffering people are dismayed that no one listens. Comments like we need wind turbines to “save the world” by those who do not understand the truth of the situation are particularly hurtful. Some who think that turbines 2 km away will be tiny specks on the horizon should come to rural Ontario, and see that rows of turbines more than 2 km away dominate the landscape, and become the only thing seen. Let’s set aside the mindless rhetoric and look at the truth, please

EarthedJan 30, 2009 2:03P
Clean air should trump aesthetics
These turbines, if found a suitable investment after the wind speed tests, would bring jobs to Toronto, provide pollution free power, and help the City of Toronto become a sustainable city. If these turbines are placed 2 to 4 km off-shore, how much visual and audible impact would they actually have? It would appear the author is attempting to spread misinformation rather than truly attempting to speak for future generations.

HogtownheroJan 30, 2009 A Toronto with turbines
This article continues the campaign of misinformation about the current proposal and offers no options for how Toronto is going to do its part to protect our species and our special part of the world. The proposal that is being considered is not for a wind farm (we are too far behind for that kind of forward thinking, thanks Mel!). It is for a two meter tall testing facility to look at wind speeds in the lower atmosphere. The proposal and the potential turbines are going to be barely visible. The “Scarborough residents”, only represent a small proportion of people living in the area. “Haunting generations to come”. Maybe you should look at the potential effects climate change will have on the region. Lower water levels in the Great Lakes, destroyed habitat, invasive plants and animals and decreasing water quality, these are the problems we will face if we don’t act. I would rather Toronto do its part for the next generation instead of worrying about our view.

What are your views?

How would you respond to seeing the wind turbines from your condo along the water? Is the Hydro greening Project the way to go?

Your comments are Invited