Return to Bulletin Index Bulletin SAVE UNION STATION, (Corrected) Bulletin No. 18, June 24, 2003. ***** In this issue: 1. Reporting on the June 17th Administration committee meeting 2. TTC’s revised plans for the Union Station subway station 3. Next step ideas ***** 1. Reporting on City Hall The June 17th meeting of the Administration Committee represented a grievous blow for those who hoped City Council would take a strong and reasonable position with respect to the future of Union Station. The Committee had before it a fulsome array of documents. One was the report from Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne outlining the very substantial problems in the bidding process (as analysed in Bulletin No. 14). Another was the letter from LP Heritage+ arguing that it had won the bid, not Union Pearson, and that LP Heritage had never had a chance to see the documents the city had commissioned on its financial status. Two reports from city staff were also available, one dated June 10 on the financial aspects of the bids, and one dated June 12 on the design issues. Both staff reports contain a number of dubious statements that made the reports looked very biased, including dollar figures which were shown under questioning to be widely inaccurate. Also before the committee were briefs and presentations from seven people in opposition to the proposal (John Sewell, Stephen Otto, Lynn Sullivan, Lawrence David, Linda Sheppard, Joan York and Laura Cooper), plus another five letters in opposition. Speaking in favour of proceeding with the Union Pearson bid were, to our great surprise, the national representative of Transport 2000 David Jeanes, and the Ontario representative of the same organization, Dan Hammond. David Jeanes expressed the view that he wished a more expansive approach had been taken (to include transportation issues) but since it had not then the city should continue on. Dan Hammond said the risks of not proceeding were greater than those of going ahead and therefore the city should sign the deal with Union Pearson. David Garon of the Toronto Railway Historical Committee was much more blunt and urged the committee, as he has done on several other occasions in recent months, to proceed promptly with the Union Pearson contract. The Committee hopes to secure space in the Station for a civic museum. Presentations were made by Rick Ducharme of the TTC, and Gary McNeil of GO Transit, both arguing that the city should proceed quickly with Union Pearson. Mr. McNeil made the point, once again, that GO Transit was not interested in widening the platforms for the next 30 years and stairways rather than escalators were the best way of connecting the concourses to the platforms. Mr. Ducharme argued that the TTC’s plans for the subway at Union Station – commented on in Bulletin No. 7 - were perfectly reasonable and would be reviewed at an open house scheduled for June 24 in the Royal Bank Plaza. (See item 2.) Once again Union Pearson had its slide show, displaying all the good things it planned to do, including, as John Barber noted in the Globe and Mail on June 24, pictures of stairways that GO Transit would build. It stated it was not willing to have its financial bid disclosed to the public at large. A qualified third party could see this information, and only on a confidential basis. Councillor Michael Walker (not a member of the Administration Committee) argued that “if these bids cannot stand the light of public scrutiny then the process should be chucked overboard.” Councillor Rob Ford asked about the current rents received by the City (they net about $700,000 a year) and then went on to ask questions regarding Rita Reynolds, former Director of Corporate Access and Information, who was fired several weeks ago. Staff made it clear that they would not answer questions except in an in-camera meeting. Councillor David Miller raised questions regarding the accuracy of the staff report on the financial bids. Staff confirmed that while their report listed Union Pearson investing $95 million, earlier reports showed investments of either $102 million or $146 million. Staff also confirmed that the capital investment by LP Heritage was not $83 million as set out in the report, but $128 million. In short, trying to get accurate information about the financial implications of the bids proved impossible. Those wishing to proceed with the Union Pearson were Councillors Doug Holyday, Paul Sutherland, Frances Nunziata, David Solnacki and Brian Ashton. Ashton had been thought to be opposed, but he apparently came on side after having some assurances that the time of the lease might be reduced somewhat from the 100 years proposed by staff. David Miller, Anne Johnston, and Rob Ford were opposed. Councillor Anne Johnston said she shared the discomfort that some of those writing letters had about the proposal (she particularly mentioned the letter from Ken Greenberg, a former city planner who now has a renowned private practise.) She was worried that “we immersed ourselves in heritage issues rather than transportation issues” and that councillors had given away the authority to assess bids to staff. Councillor Rob Ford said “This does not look or smell right,” and suggested that Council should “start over from square one.” He said “Ninety per cent of the public does not believe this contract is above board.” Paul Sutherland moved the key motion: that Council instruct staff to continue negotiating to finalize the Master Agreement to be submitted to a special meeting of the Administration Committee so it could be approved at the July Council meeting. He agreed to Brian Ashton’s amendment to ask Union Pearson if they would be willing to reduce the time to less than 100 years. David Miller proposed that no further action be taken until both bidders made a public presentation in July, and the lease be for no more than 35 years plus a 15 year extension. “We should have looked at the really big picture rather than coming in in the middle of the process,” said Miller. “The process has not been fair to the importance of Union Station in our city. This is the most important and valuable piece of real estate in the country and it is incumbent on us to get this right.” Doug Holyday said it had been agreed to take the selection process out of the political context – away from the councillors - and that if the City Council tried to start again, “no one would want to deal with us.” He said that many of the opponents were simply opposed to Public Private Partnerships and would oppose a lease whatever the terms were. Sutherland’s motion carried the day, and Miller’s motion to get presentations from both bidders was ruled redundant. Staff will be bringing further reports forward to a special committee meeting that will probably be called in the week of July 14 so that the matter is before Council when its meets on July 22. 2. TTC’s revised plans for the Union Station subway station The Save Union Station Committee made a presentation to the TTC Board in March and staff were asked to review the configuration of the subway station entrance at Union Station. Our group complained that access between Union Station and the PATH system through the Royal Bank Plaza was considerably hampered by the proposal to have pedestrians walk around the TTC entrance rather than through it, as now happens. On June 24, the TTC held an open house (noon – 2 pm, and 4.30 – 7 pm) at the south end of the Royal Bank Plaza to show the new plans. The scheme has been amended by proposing to create a new walkway through the south face of the Union Station concourse to the wets of the current walkway to the subway station. In this way, pedestrians coming from anywhere but due south of the existing station entrance would find a straightforward route to the Plaza and the PATH system. The new entranceway would be located approximately where the MacDonald’s Restaurant is in the concourse. Staff at the Open House indicated that the Union Pearson Group had not been consulted about this proposal. Obviously, it has cost ramifications apart from construction costs, since it takes away space that is in commercial demand. However, it does respond to the concerns about access being too limited in the former scheme. TTC staff promised the details of the proposal would be on the TTC’s web site, but they were not posted as of mid-afternoon June 24. (See http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/index.htm ) The cost of the proposal to install a second platform in the subway station, and make the changes to the station’s entrance are $80 – 100 million. One interesting question: is this the best place to spend $100 million in the vicinity of Union Station? One fears that kind of question can’t be asked today with the hope of canvassing any of the realistic options. 3. Next step ideas It is difficult to know what to do next. It seems that a majority of council are locked into making a long term contract with Union Pearson no matter what anyone says about it. Staff also seem committed to Union Pearson, and have shaped their reports to reflect that commitment, in some cases not fairly presenting information. Worse, it has proven impossible to convince a majority of politicians to make the bids public. The fact that LP Heritage actually won the first bid seems to make no impression on them, nor are they bothered by the fact that staff had deliberately kept this information from them. The daily newspapers have shown only a modicum of interest in this matter. The Star has been a cheerleader for Union Pearson – Royson James’ articles have been embarrassing in their lavish (and often misleading) praise for the Union Pearson side of things. The Globe and Mail’s John Barber continues to focus important light on the big issues. (See, for example, his June 24 column at http://www.globeandmail.ca ) Toronto’s alternative weeklies, eye and NOW, continue to include critical analytical articles. LP Heritage wrote a letter outlining why it think it won the bid, but it did not attend or speak at the June 17th meeting – of course, it was not asked to speak, and Miller’s motion that this occur was pushed to one side. This company has been keeping its distance from City Hall for reasons not entirely clear, although given the evident bias of staff and the closed minds of many councillors, one can understand any reluctance. Is there a large constituency out there which would come to a meeting to again press for public disclosure? Is there something else which should be done in the four weeks until the council meeting which seems ready to approve the contract on the Station? Do people have suggestions as to what the group might propose? It seems a pity if we disappear into the gloom created by City Hall. SAVE UNION STATION - Correction to Bulletin No. 18 Our web site is http://www.saveunionstation.ca This is an apology and correction for two errors in Bulletin No. 18, published on June 24. In that Bulletin we gave the wrong name to the Toronto Railway Historical Committee (which we had tagged as `Society') and we wrongly stated that the organization hopes to obtain space in Union Station for its own purposes. The Committee in fact hopes to obtain space for a civic museum. David Garon, the Committee's secretary states: "We are not attempting to secure space in the redeveloped Union Station for our own activities. We are attempting to secure additional space for a City museum. TRHC has no designs on any space of its own in Union Station." He continues: "Some years ago City Council mandated the establishment of a Toronto railway museum at the John Street roundhouse. This project has been in abeyance for most of the past two decades and we became involved in order to try to get the Council decision implemented. We believe that the establishment of such a museum is in the public interest, as it would provide a unique perspective on the history of technology, labour, immigration and urban development in Toronto. "In our dialogue on museum design with the City, we realized that the type of spaces the roundhouse offers would best be used for purposes other than curatorial offices, archives, a library, small display workshops and certain other types of museum activity which contribute to enriching the historical narrative to be provided by the museum. Last year we proposed to the City that space be provided to the projected City-owned museum for these activities in the redeveloped Union Station, and City officials agreed. The space we seek at Union Station is not for a 'clubhouse'; it is for a City museum." We regret and apologize for these errors. ********* Please consider sending this Bulletin to a friend. If you have not received this Bulletin directly from the site and wish to subscribe, send a short note to to signup@saveunionstation.ca, and please visit our website at http://www.saveunionstation.ca

Contact Us: info@saveunionstation.ca