Jan16
Boho goes condo as developers rule on Queen West
Hume goes on yet another ranty and slanted article. Although I don't agree with the decision to allow an 18 storey building abutting the street in West Queen West, Hume fails to point out the importance of the OMB to take the politics out of planning-- which is sometimes necessary.
Comments (2)
1
matt
There's continued discussion from Ram's blog:
http://funkaoshi.com/linklog/link-5675
2
tiff
one must wonder if good planning is monochromatic, for lack of a better word. Is good planning intending to yield only one result? can 18 storey building in queens west be said to DEFINITIVELY destroy the community? if we are to appreciate planning as a discipline a combination of both arts and science, are we to be surprised that planning experts sometimes arrive at conflicting opinions? Precisely becuase planning is a multi disciplinary field, there will be different opinions of what is in fact good planning. To reduce planning principles to a one-sided argument is to try to turn the planning philosophy into rules and laws rather than the science that it currently is.
Reasonable people can disagree. Disagreeable decisions are by no means reasons to dismantle the entire procedural system that produce the forum that gives us the chance to debate these decisions in the first place. IT's easy to take our frustration out at the messenger without addressing the real source of our discontent. My answer to OMB's critic is that elimination of the OMB may not yield their desired result, that is, an environment favourable for good planning in Toronto.
One must respect the procedural framework that one works within. If the city had responded within 180 days as set out by the LAW of the Planning Act, they would have avoided the OMB altogether, as the developer would not have had a ground to appeal to the OMB.
Even if the decision is wrong and represents bad planning principles, does that justify removal of the OMB? If it was the error of the individual Board member, why don't we reprimand the individual instead of the entire Board? If a Supreme Court Judge makes a huge mistake, we don't dismantle the entire Court, but we instead would correct the error through legislature as there is no appeal measure from a Supreme court decision.
