Save Union Station

Bulletin

SAVE UNION STATION, Bulletin No. 19, July 14, 2003.

*****

In this issue:

****

1. Special Administration Committee meeting

2. Our letter to the councillors

3. Resignation from the Public Advisory Committee

4. The story draws to an end

****

1. Special Administration Committee meeting

Chairman Doug Holyday has called a Special Meeting of the Administration Committee for Friday July 18, 9.30 am in Committee Room 2, second floor, City Hall.

The purpose of the meeting is to receive the final reports from city staff so the contract with the Union Pearson Group can be recommended to City Council. Most of the terms of the contract were outlined in reports before the committee on June 17. The only issue which seems to remain contentious for councillors is the length of the lease – whether it will be for 100 years, or for something a bit shorter.

The rumour around City Hall is that Union Pearson has agreed to a 60 year term on condition that its financial offer is substantially reduced. If this rumour proves anywhere near correct, then the bidder who didn’t offer the best money to begin with is now proposing to give even less money, and is walking away with the contract. Where’s the public interest in this kind of arrangement? However, it could be this rumour is incorrect, and that instead something surprising is happening, such as Union Pearson agreeing to increase its offer to match that of LP Heritage +. None of this will be clear until city staff reports are made public, which will probably occur on July 17, the day before the meeting.

The meeting is open to the public, and members of the public are permitted to address the committee. Save Union Station will be presenting (see Item 2 below.) To indicate to the secretary your wish to speak, e-mail Pasty Morris at pmorris@toronto.ca or call her at 416 392 9151. This will probably be the last occasion when members of the public will be permitted to address councillors on this issue. A majority of the committee have indicated they wish to recommend that council finalize the contract with Union Pearson when it meets on July 22.

2. Our letter to the councillors.

On July 10 the Save Union Station Steering Committee wrote to each councillor, and to the Administration Committee, as follows:

This letter urges you to vote against the proposal to award a long term lease to the Union Pearson Group, a proposal resulting from a process that has been severely compromised. We urge you to start again and do it right.

Here is what we know about the bidding process that the city has undertaken to find a developer for Union Station:

1. LP Heritage + won the bid, 2952 points to 2753 points for Union Pearson.

2. The financial offer submitted by LP Heritage + was judged by the Selection Committee to be higher than that of Union Pearson, 440 points to 400 points.

3. City council was never told that LP Heritage won the bid. This came to public knowledge only in the report of Coulter Osborne.

4. The day after LP Heritage + won the bid, a process kept secret from council - a process not contemplated in the RFP documents - was established to award the bid to Union Pearson.

5. The Selection Committee took a second vote. The votes of Paula Dill were defined by Coulter Osborne as being `patently unreasonable.’ If Paula Dill’s votes are excluded, LP Heritage + again wins the vote, 2366 to 2188.

Why then is a contract being offered to Union Pearson? It did not win the vote. It’s financial offer was judged inferior to that of LP Heritage +. Why give a contract to an inferior bidder? Why should the city accept a lower financial offer when a higher offer is on the table?

Toronto City Council has an obligation to be fair to bidders. It has an obligation to protect the city’s reputation and the taxpayer’s money. Not giving the contract to the winner is wrong. It creates the atmosphere that city council is not playing on a level field, that there is a hidden agenda.

The fact that the public has not been permitted to see the competing proposals only heightens this perception. The bids themselves would tell the story plainly and clearly. Why is the public not allowed to see them? The Selection Committee saw both and concluded the LP Heritage + bid was the best. We suspect the public would agree.

In these circumstances, awarding a contract to Union Pearson is unreasonable and irresponsible. It should not be done. We urge you not to support a long term lease to Union Pearson, but to implement a process that is fair, public, and in the best interests of the city.

Imagine you are a candidate in the next election. Imagine that you get the most votes but you – and the public - aren’t told. Imagine that people secretly arrange to scramble things so the prize goes to the second candidate. If you give a contract to Union Pearson, that’s exactly what you are endorsing. This is not the way elections or the city’s business should be conducted.

Union Pearson has not won this contract. Signing a contract with Union Pearson will constitute an unreasonable and irresponsible action, and will do irreparable damage to the city’s reputation. It may open the city to a law suit from those arguing the process was unjust and inequitable.

We urge you to vote against a contract with Union Pearson. Instead, we urge you to vote to start the process anew and get it right.

Signing the letter for the committee are: Laura Cooper, Cathy Nasmith, Alison Reid, John Sewell, Linda Sheppard, Bobbi Speck, and Noelle Zitzer.

We urge members of the public to also take this opportunity to write to the committee and to councillors.

3. Resignation from the Public Advisory Committee

Late last year councillor Doug Holyday and several of his colleagues decided to form a Public Advisory Committee dealing with Union Station matters. This was a matter of considerable interest to Save Union Station, and, as described in Bulletin No. 7 (December 5), we proposed terms of reference for the committee. It proved impossible to get either city council or the Administration Committee to discuss our proposals for the terms of reference but the PAC was set up anyway (as described in Bulletin No. 8 (January 13).

John Sewell attended the three or four meetings of the PAC. It has proved to be an ineffective group, yet Councillor Holyday and others have touted its existence as yet another good reason to continue negotiations with Union Pearson. In fact the PAC’s only rationale seemed to be to lend credence to the flawed city process.

After consulting with other members of the steering committee, John Sewell has submitted his resignation from the PAC, effective July 10. His letter reads, in part:

`I am not willing to be part of a group which is used as an excuse to sign a contract with Union Pearson, as the PAC has been. Further, the committee has had no power or influence on the future of Union Station, nor do I believe it will have in the way it is currently established. Last year our group outlined the conditions under which we thought an advisory committee could function. The current PAC meets few of those conditions.’

4. The story draws to an end.

When City Council meets on July 22, it seem likely it will approve a long term lease with the Union Pearson Group. This will be the effective termination of any direct and decisive public say in how the Station might be developed into a prominent transportation hub serving downtown Toronto well for many decades to come. As is well known, the city did not request, and the Union Pearson plan does not include, improvements to platforms, tracks, roof over the tracks, and connections to concourses, so that the Station will more readily serve an increased number of rail commuters and rail inter-city travellers. Instead, those important elements of the Station will remain as they generally are now for about 30 years.

This is a very sad fate for a structure which probably holds more memories than any other Toronto building (with the exception, perhaps, of Maple Leaf Gardens). Awaiting council’s decision is a bit like waiting for the fate of a dear friend to be decided. Nor does it help that this decision is reached after such a flawed process.

It is a discouraging time, representing a significant missed opportunity for the city.

We also expect it will signal the end of these Bulletins. Thanks for being a part of trying to protect and enhance Union Station. The Station deserves better than city council seem about to give it.

*********

Our Email address is signup@saveunionstation.ca and please visit our website at http://www.saveunionstation.ca