Parkland Dedication
Here we are back again, fighting the same issue.
The staff report says, approach should be simplified, should be fewer categories for reductions, and incentives for higher development. The incentive for higher development, is that they sell more units and charge a floor premium. We don’t need to give up parkland that we should be entitled to!
Per your report, most of the development in Markham is below 3.0 FSI, So why are we even having this conversation, there is no need to discuss a reduction, as it would never be used. Or is it that once it is adopted, the flood gates will open and we will see much more higher density and less and less park land.
Reading through both reports and on page 23 on the recommendation report states: BILD indicates that the majority of Markham higher density development sits within 3.5 to 5.0 FSI range (something a little different than what the Towns report states.. who are we supposed to believe??) and that the proposed graduated scale provides real relief only at density rates higher than this. They would like to see the lowering of the threshold in order to allow more developments to take advantage of the reduction incentive.
The incentive that was originally to start at 2.5 FSI has been raised to 3.0 FSI, which you may say great- we have a compromise, However the incentive rises to 30% from 25 %...
Whose interest are we looking after the developers or the residents?
Development charges are outrageous in York Region, and we seem to keep asking the developers to contribute here and donate here, maybe we need to stop asking for extra money for anything and everything. Maybe then they will stop asking us to give them a break with the parkland. The extra monies that they spend have to come from somewhere.. nothing is free! However, parkland should not be an option and should not be up for discussion. This is vital to the well-being of every resident, it’s important for our real estate values and the quality of all our lives.
There have been many studies comparing the health of people related to the green space that surrounds them.
Many of us know intuitively that green space, parks, forests and trees make us feel better. They refresh and recharge our batteries, bringing peace and tranquility. It improves our well-being by reducing stress and fatigue and improving mental health and longevity. The closer the green space is to our homes, the more benefit we derive from it. In fact, there’s a growing body of research on green spaces and their positive impacts on the health and wellness of children and communities.
The percentage of green space inside a one kilometre and a three kilometre radius had a significant relation to perceived general health. The overall relation is somewhat stronger for lower socioeconomic groups. Elderly, youth, and secondary educated people in large cities seem to benefit more from presence of green areas in their living environment than other groups in large cities. Yet we would like to discard these people from having adequate green space.
Exemptions for retirement homes and affordable housing and non-profit is not acceptable. Everyone needs green space and everyone has the right to have some fresh air, a place to relax, read a book, walk a dog or just spend some quality “me time” in an open air park, square, or a park bench, regardless of age.
The developers are going to build, regardless of whether you change the parkland dedication. As in a real estate transaction, you ask for everything when you send over an offer and in the end you may get nothing and you pay the full asking price.
The builders are not going to lose money if they do not get an “incentive” They all charge floor premiums of an average of $1000.00 per floor, which more than covers what they have to pay for the parkland. A unit on the 20th floor is essentially $18000 more than the identical unit on the 2nd floor. Buyers don’t get a discount or a break to purchase on a higher floor. They pay more… yet the developers want to pay less?? Where is the fairness in this equation?
Parkland is a high quality public realm that has a tremendous value for all.
As citizens, residents, taxpayers of Markham, we urge city staff and the City Council to not lower the required amount of parkland dedication required by builders. We should be actively conserving, protecting, restoring, enhancing, and expanding natural areas and green space for public enjoyment, community health, and ecosystem resiliency.”
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
Stormwater Funding -- from Grandview Area RA to General Committee June 10, 2013
Good morning Councillors Burke, Shore, and other members of Council:
I too was made aware of this issue late yesterday and would like to thank
Toinette Bezant for submitting her comments so expeditiously.
GARA was also taken by surprised by the recommendation to remove the Gas Tax
from storm water infrastructure funding.
We were very encouraged, earlier this year, by Council's apparent
understanding of the importance of this issue when it passed the motion for
storm water infrastructure to be funded on a city-wide basis.
Now, this report that recommends the exclusion of one of the most important
ways to fund that work seems inconsistent and inconceivable. We fail to
understand the rationale for this recommendation, especially since the Gas
Tax was specifically meant to be used for municipal infrastructure projects
and other cities are doing just that.
What is the logic of the majority of Council (a large majority) agreeing to
fund storm water infrastructure on a city wide basis and then voting to
remove a major source of funding to permit that to happen? June is too late
for an April Fool's joke.
I am sure that Markham can come up with many ways of using the Gas Tax, but
I doubt that they are more important than keeping raw sewage out of our
basements and our waterways, keeping our roads, bridges, and other public
assets from flooding, or keeping our residents safe in their homes and
businesses.
Thank you for considering our views.
Marilyn Ginsburg,
Grandview Area Residents Assoc.
I too was made aware of this issue late yesterday and would like to thank
Toinette Bezant for submitting her comments so expeditiously.
GARA was also taken by surprised by the recommendation to remove the Gas Tax
from storm water infrastructure funding.
We were very encouraged, earlier this year, by Council's apparent
understanding of the importance of this issue when it passed the motion for
storm water infrastructure to be funded on a city-wide basis.
Now, this report that recommends the exclusion of one of the most important
ways to fund that work seems inconsistent and inconceivable. We fail to
understand the rationale for this recommendation, especially since the Gas
Tax was specifically meant to be used for municipal infrastructure projects
and other cities are doing just that.
What is the logic of the majority of Council (a large majority) agreeing to
fund storm water infrastructure on a city wide basis and then voting to
remove a major source of funding to permit that to happen? June is too late
for an April Fool's joke.
I am sure that Markham can come up with many ways of using the Gas Tax, but
I doubt that they are more important than keeping raw sewage out of our
basements and our waterways, keeping our roads, bridges, and other public
assets from flooding, or keeping our residents safe in their homes and
businesses.
Thank you for considering our views.
Marilyn Ginsburg,
Grandview Area Residents Assoc.
Stormwater Funding -- from Bayview Glen RA to General Committee June 10, 2013
June 10, 2013.
Dear Councillor Burke and Councillor Shore,
Re: General Committee: Stormwater Rate Study, Final Report Funding Option (5.0),
On behalf of the Bayview Glen Residents Association, I wish to raise a concern with the Stormwater Funding report to be presented to General Committee on Monday, June 10th.
The Bayview Glen Residents Association supports the recommendations of the report, however, cannot support item number five (5), which recommends that the Canada Gas Tax Fund be removed from consideration as an a potential funding source to offset stormwater funding costs.
The purpose and intent of the Canada Gas Tax Fund is meant to assist municipalities in meeting the challenge of a growing infrastructure funding gap.
In 2008, a joint municipal and provincial study identified that within a ten year period, Ontario municipalities will experience a $60 billion infrastructure investment funding gap (Source: The Province-Municipal Fiscal Service Review, PMFSDR, 2008).
Many Ontario municipalities have utilized the federal Gas Tax Fund to cover the cost of stormwater infrastructure projects otherwise not possible through current funding methods.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), in a 2011 Gas Tax Expenditure Report, identified 42 federally funded municipal wastewater projects (of which stormwater is included); of the 42 Gas Tax funded wastewater projects, over half of the projects, 27 projects in all, were stormwater infrastructure projects.
Any consideration by Council to endorse the recommendation to remove Gas Tax Funding from inclusion as part of the long term stormwater funding strategy would not be consistent with the manner in which Ontario municipalities have utilized the federal Gas Tax Fund nor do we believe is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the federal Fund.
Prior to any decision as to allocation of the federal Gas Tax Fund beyond 2014 , a full review of the City’s priorities and justification of the manner in which the federal Gas Tax fund will be allocated would be warranted.
Thank you,
Toinette Bezant, on behalf of the Bayview Glen Residents Association
bayviewglen@yahoo.ca
cc: Thornhill Stormwater Liaison Committee
Marilyn Ginsburg,
Evelin Ellison
Eileen Liasi
Dear Councillor Burke and Councillor Shore,
Re: General Committee: Stormwater Rate Study, Final Report Funding Option (5.0),
On behalf of the Bayview Glen Residents Association, I wish to raise a concern with the Stormwater Funding report to be presented to General Committee on Monday, June 10th.
The Bayview Glen Residents Association supports the recommendations of the report, however, cannot support item number five (5), which recommends that the Canada Gas Tax Fund be removed from consideration as an a potential funding source to offset stormwater funding costs.
The purpose and intent of the Canada Gas Tax Fund is meant to assist municipalities in meeting the challenge of a growing infrastructure funding gap.
In 2008, a joint municipal and provincial study identified that within a ten year period, Ontario municipalities will experience a $60 billion infrastructure investment funding gap (Source: The Province-Municipal Fiscal Service Review, PMFSDR, 2008).
Many Ontario municipalities have utilized the federal Gas Tax Fund to cover the cost of stormwater infrastructure projects otherwise not possible through current funding methods.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), in a 2011 Gas Tax Expenditure Report, identified 42 federally funded municipal wastewater projects (of which stormwater is included); of the 42 Gas Tax funded wastewater projects, over half of the projects, 27 projects in all, were stormwater infrastructure projects.
Any consideration by Council to endorse the recommendation to remove Gas Tax Funding from inclusion as part of the long term stormwater funding strategy would not be consistent with the manner in which Ontario municipalities have utilized the federal Gas Tax Fund nor do we believe is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the federal Fund.
Prior to any decision as to allocation of the federal Gas Tax Fund beyond 2014 , a full review of the City’s priorities and justification of the manner in which the federal Gas Tax fund will be allocated would be warranted.
Thank you,
Toinette Bezant, on behalf of the Bayview Glen Residents Association
bayviewglen@yahoo.ca
cc: Thornhill Stormwater Liaison Committee
Marilyn Ginsburg,
Evelin Ellison
Eileen Liasi
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Deputation MSECC April 15, 2013 by Donna Bush
April 15, 2013
Good morning Mayor and Councillors,
The information contained in this deputation is Without Prejudice and it has been researched from various Internet websites using google searches. It is provided in good faith, and every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that it is accurate. I provide no warranty as to the accuracy of the information. It is for information purposes only. In no event shall I be liable for any damages arising, directly or indirectly, from the use of the information contained in this deputation, including damages arising from inaccuracies, omissions, or errors. Any person relying on any of the information contained in this deputation or making any use of the information contained herein, shall do so at their own risk.
I am here this morning to once again convey my concerns regarding the obvious lack of due diligence on the proposed arena project. How do I know about the lack of due diligence? Because if ANY due diligence was in fact done, this project would have been killed 11 months ago. Since we are still here, it is quite obvious that something has gone very wrong with the process.
In the COUNCIL MINUTES, April 26, 2012, 7:00 p.m., (Special Meeting) at
Council Chamber, Meeting No. 8
Item #4. REPORT NO. 25 – SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE (APRIL 20, 2012)
Moved by Deputy Mayor Jack Heath
Seconded by Regional Councillor Gord Landon
That Report No. 25 – Special General Committee comprised of 1 item be received and adopted.
(1) MARKHAM SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT
AND CULTURAL CENTRE (6.0)
AND CULTURAL CENTRE (6.0)
1) That the report entitled “Proposed Sports, Entertainment, and Cultural Centre in Markham Centre” dated April 19, 2012 be received; and,
2) That Council approve the partnership and financial frameworks described in this report, to construct a Sports, Entertainment and Cultural Centre in Markham Centre, with approximately 20,000 seats, subject to due diligence results satisfactory to the Chief Administrative Officer, Council approval of final terms, and execution of final agreements satisfactory to the Town Solicitor and Chief Administrative Officer; and,
3) That Council endorse the development contribution amounts as outlined in this report; and,
4) That the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to continue with due diligence investigation and to finalize negotiations with GTA Centre, LP and its limited partner(s) and bring a report forward to Council on the final terms; and,
5) That staff review and report to Council on any additional offers to contribute to the capital cost of the Town of Markham Sports, Entertainment and Cultural Centre that are brought to staff's attention; and further,
6) That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
(See Motion 1)
CARRIED BY A RECORDED VOTE (11:2)
(See following recorded vote)
YEAS: Mayor Frank Scarpitti, Deputy Mayor Jack Heath, Regional Councillor Gord Landon, Councillor Valerie Burke, Councillor Howard Shore, Councillor Don Hamilton, Councillor Carolina Moretti, Councillor Colin Campbell, Councillor Alan Ho, Councillor Logan Kanapathi, Councillor Alex Chiu. (11)
NAYS: Regional Councillor Jim Jones, Regional Councillor Joe Li. (2)
Almost one year ago -- April 2012, I presented a deputation regarding my concerns around the financial framework of the proposed arena. I outlined a little bit of due diligence l had done on my own -- with just a few google searches. My searches were to learn more information about our prospective partner/promoter Mr. Graeme Roustan.
This time, I have made hard copies of just a tiny piece of Mr. Roustan’s history and will ask that the Clerk please have the information sheets copied and distributed to the full council, commissioners, and CAO and attach them to the minutes of this meeting.
You will see that Justia.com, which I referenced one year ago, shows the Plaintiff as Touristic Enterprises Company (Kuwait City, Kuwait) v Defendant Roustan United LLC. In this case, the court awarded the Plaintiff a judgement in the amount amount of $482,419.14 and references “fraud in the inducement”. I cannot comment on whether or not Mr. Roustan is associated with this defendant.
In The Tribune Democrat, Johnstown, PA, February 15, 2010 Ms. Reabuck wrote an article titled, “Hockey team owners sue former managers”. The Johnstown Chiefs corporate owner Neil Smith alleged defendants Roustan United Inc, and related companies, Arena United, Roustan Planet Ice, and Roustan Ice along with company executives, W. Graeme Roustan and Scott Branovan for allegedly failing to pay operating bills totaling nearly $300,000.
It goes on to say, “Roustan breached the terms of the contract and failed to carry out its fiduciary duty...” and “Branovan and W. Graeme Roustan allegedly are liable because the corporation were used to further their personal interests...”.
Apparently, the defendants have refused to pay. The article also states that bills from 2008 and 2009 in amounts ranging from $20 owed to Ear Nose and Throat Associates, up to $70,948 owed to Reebok-CCM Hockey US Inc remain unpaid.
A Toronto Star article, written by Tony Van Alphen, October 7, 2012 quotes me as saying, “ When government is using taxpayers’ money, it is incumbent upon them (council) to perform the utmost due diligence...”It goes on to say, Roustan brushes aside the nay-sayers, stressing that everyone wins in the deal. Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti agrees, adding the city has conducted backgrounds checks on Roustan and Bratty and concluded “we have a strong project team”.
Through the Chair, my question to the CAO and CEO is have you done any due diligence on Mr. Roustan and IF you have done ANY due diligence on Mr. Roustan, why are you still wasting our tax dollars continuing this project?
Why are some of you waiting for an MOU, when it is just a piece of paper that you must agree is unenforceable -- just like the others that I have referenced here today?
As a taxpayer, I implore one of you Councilors to please put forth a motion to stop this arena process from continuing.
Donna Bush
Markham resident
Deputation MSECC April 15, 2013 by Karen Rea
Without Prejudice
Good Morning Mayor and Council,
The information contained in this deputation is provided in good faith, and every reasonable effort is made to ensure that it is accurate.
The information has been researched via Internet from different sites, and I provide no warranty as to the accuracy of the information. It is for information purposes only. In no event shall I be liable for any damage arising, directly or indirectly, from the use of the information contained in this deputation including damages arising from inaccuracies, omissions or errors.
Any person relying on any of the information contained in this deputation or making any use of the information contained herein, shall do so at their own risk.
Here we are again, 12 months after the Arena has been announced and we are still fighting to get information released to the public.
Again, we have no issue with an Arena being built:
The two major issues are:
The Financial Framework
The Business Partner
There is no proof that the Arena will be viable and profitable, the reports are still under lock and key.
I have asked Town Solicitor, and Andy Taylor if they can let me know the breakdown of what the 130 events consist of:
Ice skating shows, monster truck, concerts, trade shows, family events. Apparently this information is also top secret.
I have researched and found a list of 40 Arenas worldwide, (in 2010) and it looks like our Arena will be on the top of the list for the shows. We will have even more shows than the 02 Arena in London, England.
They top the list at 125, next after them is Madison Square at 71 shows.
So where did Global get the figure of 130 events from? the same information that was passed on to Raymond James to verify, from the company that will benefit if the Arena gets built. In my opinion this is a conflict of interest.
I also asked the Town Solicitor last week, if we had hired anyone to do the due diligence, I was told it was never adopted by Council, even though the motion was on the agenda and you all went in Camera, last Nov/Dec.
Mr Roustan told a resident that if this project did not get approved that he would sue 2 of the councillors, I have been told one of Mr. Roustan’s associates told a few different residents, that they couldn’t believe that the Town now wanted to do due diligence this late in the game, and if they wanted to due diligence on them, then they would start to do the due diligence on all the Councillors.
And this is who we want as a business partner, someone that would do that to our Council, even if it’s not true, why would one say something like that.
Due diligence should have been done prior to signing the confidentiality report back in Oct 2010. We wouldn’t be in this situation today, if this was done.
In simple terms it would be like me asking my client to sign a waiver on a home inspection, before the inspection was done.
Negotiations are ongoing, we are being told. Why? we may not have the right partner. We are wasting staffs time when they could be dealing with other pressing and more important issues that relate to our quality of life within the Town.
You have ignored the deputations of residents, you turn a blind eye to the newspaper articles, one Councillor telling me it “it was all crap” on what was in the Toronto Star about the Promoter, yet they have never been asked to put in any retractions.
Today, we are going in camera again, for what? property acquisition, discuss personal matters about identifiable individuals ?
Nothing about the Promoter should be held in camera… everything is available on the internet including the many judgements that are outstanding or have been settled. We all know about Texas and Kuwait. But what about the others: The Toronto Star reported about unpaid commission and unpaid taxes.
Reported in the Tribune- Democrat. Chiefs Professional Hockey filed a suit, for almost $300,000 defendants were Roustan United, and related companies Arena United, Roustan Planet ice, and Roustan Ice along with company executives Graeme Roustan and Scott Branovan, bills dated in both 2008 and 2009 range from small amounts, including $20.00 owed to Ear Nose and Throat Associates, up to $70948 owed to reebok-CCM Hockey according to the exhibit attached to the lawsuit.
According to TMCnet.com/news tribune democrat via acquire media Newsedge.
Roustan United settled another lawsuit for $12612 by Lakeland plastics, Advantage staffing Inc of Altona obtained a $49944 default judgement against Roustan United and Burleys rink supply of Salix.
Unemployment compensation fund $3734.00
Adex of Westbank filed a suit for $45580.00 for glass panels. EDC is suing for $21010. for merchandise allegedly supplied to Roustan, and the list goes on.
The Promoter, needs to stand in front of the residents and explain why these people and many more have not been paid, or if he has now settled these debts.
So for Council to keep going in camera… there is nothing to hide, it’s all available for free on the internet.
A motion should be considered to squash this project, let’s put it on hold till 2014, when those of you that still have no problems with it being paid for whether directly or indirectly with tax payer’s dollars and you have no problem with the Promoter, you can use it as your platform in the next election, and let’s see how much support, those of you that are still sitting waiting for more information, will get. The question remains now, who is responsible for the wasted time and money spent on this project.
The alternative, since Mr Roustan said he was trying to buy the Montreal Canadiens, I’m sure he will have no problem coming up with a measly 325 million dollars to build the Arena on his own, considering the Montreal Canadians were sold for close to 600 million. This should be pocket change for him.
So let’s stop the In Camera meetings, be honest, open and transparent and let the public decide on what is in the best interests of Markham. The Arena if to be built, needs to be built, owned and operated with private funds
Karen Rea
Markham resident
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Eileen Liasi
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Eileen Liasi
Dear Council Member,
I don't believe in creating different, reduced or graduated parkland
dedication standards for high density areas, not for centres or for corridors,
nor do I believe in cash in lieu for this commodity. How can you put a price on
fresh air, sunshine and green space?
People are people no matter where they live. The people who live in high
density areas deserve just as much fresh air, sunshine and grass beneath their
feet as do people who live in low density areas. In fact they may very well
require more as they likely have very limited balcony space, ground space which
is urban concrete and for those living on the north side of buildings and in
the shadow of other buildings they likely receive little if any sunshine. To
deprive this population of the quality of life their fair share of these
factors provide is inhuman.
I don't believe the City will not be able to achieve urban structure
without these reductions. We have enough incentives in place already to achieve
urban structure. This is obviously the development industry pushing for these
reductions so they are able to reduce their costs and increase their profits.
The developers will not be living in these units so what do they care. They
have their mansions set in beautiful parkland settings where you can't see the
house for the trees and where they have ample access to fresh air and sunshine.
Yet they want to deprive ordinary folk of their quality of life.
People should not have to use their cars or take transit to get to green
space. Parks should be within a reasonable walking distance for everyone. To
purchase more suburban land with urban cash-in-lieu only makes the distribution
of parkland more unequal, less available for use by urban dwellers and provides
parkland for suburbanites which has been paid for by urban dwellers. How fair
is that?
Great cities of the world have great parks. Let's put parks for people
instead of casinos for gamblers and arenas for millionaires and billionaires in
our public spaces.
Eileen Liasi
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Karen Rea
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Karen Rea
There have been many studies comparing the health of people related to the green space that surrounds them. Many of us know intuitively that green space, parks, forests and trees make us feel better. They refresh and recharge our batteries, bringing peace and tranquility. It improves our wellbeing by reducing stress and fatigue and improving mental health and longevity.
The closer the green space is to our homes, the more benefit we derive from it. In fact, there’s a growing body of research on green spaces and their positive impacts on the health and wellness of children and communities. A classic study demonstrated that patients with views of trees vs. views of a brick wall had shorter hospitalizations, less need for painkillers, and fewer negative comments in the nurses' notes.
The percentage of green space inside a one kilometre and a three kilometre radius had a significant relation to perceived general health. The relation was generally present at all degrees of urbanity. The overall relation is somewhat stronger for lower socioeconomic groups. Elderly, youth, and secondary educated people in large cities seem to benefit more from presence of green areas in their living environment than other groups in large cities.
This is not hard, and the complicated math that is shown in the reports is not necessary.
The higher the building the more people, the more people the more parkland and green space is needed, not less. All builders charge a floor premium- the same unit on a higher floor is more money. Floor premiums range from $500 to $2000 per floor.
For example Greenpark, on Markham Rd is charging $1000 per floor after the 2nd floor.
So a unit on the 20th floor is essentially $18000 more than the same unit on the
2nd floor. Builders are charging more and making more- it doesn’t cost them anymore
money to build the same unit on a higher floor, yet they are asking us to give
them a discount.
It is interesting, that we are asking the developers for money to build an Arena,
and now the developers want a break on the development charges, I guess they
want to cut the costs somehow, even though all charges are passed on to the new
homeowner. Exemptions for retirement homes and affordable housing and non-profit is not
acceptable. Everyone needs green space and everyone has the right to have some
fresh air, and a place to relax, regardless of age.
Parkland is a high quality public realm that has a tremendous value for all
As citizens, residents, taxpayers of Markham, we urge city staff and the City
Council to not lower the required amount of parkland dedication required by
builders. We should be actively conserving, protecting, restoring, enhancing, and
expanding natural areas and green space for public enjoyment, community
health, and ecosystem resiliency.”
Karen Rea
There have been many studies comparing the health of people related to the green space that surrounds them. Many of us know intuitively that green space, parks, forests and trees make us feel better. They refresh and recharge our batteries, bringing peace and tranquility. It improves our wellbeing by reducing stress and fatigue and improving mental health and longevity.
The closer the green space is to our homes, the more benefit we derive from it. In fact, there’s a growing body of research on green spaces and their positive impacts on the health and wellness of children and communities. A classic study demonstrated that patients with views of trees vs. views of a brick wall had shorter hospitalizations, less need for painkillers, and fewer negative comments in the nurses' notes.
The percentage of green space inside a one kilometre and a three kilometre radius had a significant relation to perceived general health. The relation was generally present at all degrees of urbanity. The overall relation is somewhat stronger for lower socioeconomic groups. Elderly, youth, and secondary educated people in large cities seem to benefit more from presence of green areas in their living environment than other groups in large cities.
This is not hard, and the complicated math that is shown in the reports is not necessary.
The higher the building the more people, the more people the more parkland and green space is needed, not less. All builders charge a floor premium- the same unit on a higher floor is more money. Floor premiums range from $500 to $2000 per floor.
For example Greenpark, on Markham Rd is charging $1000 per floor after the 2nd floor.
So a unit on the 20th floor is essentially $18000 more than the same unit on the
2nd floor. Builders are charging more and making more- it doesn’t cost them anymore
money to build the same unit on a higher floor, yet they are asking us to give
them a discount.
It is interesting, that we are asking the developers for money to build an Arena,
and now the developers want a break on the development charges, I guess they
want to cut the costs somehow, even though all charges are passed on to the new
homeowner. Exemptions for retirement homes and affordable housing and non-profit is not
acceptable. Everyone needs green space and everyone has the right to have some
fresh air, and a place to relax, regardless of age.
Parkland is a high quality public realm that has a tremendous value for all
As citizens, residents, taxpayers of Markham, we urge city staff and the City
Council to not lower the required amount of parkland dedication required by
builders. We should be actively conserving, protecting, restoring, enhancing, and
expanding natural areas and green space for public enjoyment, community
health, and ecosystem resiliency.”
Karen Rea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)