Vision will somehow justify the expense by selling select parcels off to their developer friends while maintaining a token "greenway" bike path or two through the new condos. They've shown they are not shy when it comes to bending zoning rules for the benefit of developers.
This seems like the most likely eventual scenario.
Nothing will be built elevated along the Arbutus Corridor.
The City by-law creating the "Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan" that CPR fought all the way to the Supreme Court (and lost - therefore the by-law is legal) specifically excludes elevated uses.
City of Vancouver, by-law No 8249, Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan (25 July 2000) [Arbutus Corridor ODP].
...
(a) transportation, including without limitations:
(i) rail;
(ii) transit; and
(iii) cyclist paths
but excluding:
(iv) motor vehicles except on City streets crossing the Arbutus Corridor; and
(v) any grade-separated rapid transit system elevated, in whole or in part, above the surface of the ground, of which one type is the rapid transit system know as “SkyTrain” currently in use in the Lower Mainland;
google
Harris Constructive Taking
for quite a lot of info on the history of the corridor and the CPR fight with the city.
This is also why we won't see any LRT's. This policy was meant specifically to prevent it from being used for anything but a hiking/bike path, in the event that CP wanted to develop it. Even the language in the Mayor's Letter ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/234578226/...butus-Corridor ) reflects this.
It's also rather short sighted, but I know the intent was to prevent CP from selling it to developers who would otherwise just build more inefficient condos (wow the Leaky Condo crisis could have been worse) and the land would be forever lost to any other purpose.
Another candidate for idiot reporters asking idiot real estate agents and making dumb assumptions
The possibility that after purchasing the land the city could upzone and sell it at a profit is probably a big part of CP Rail's reluctance to negotiate. One would think that they could attach some sort of covenant to the sale to prevent that kind of thing from happening, though.
The possibility that after purchasing the land the city could upzone and sell it at a profit is probably a big part of CP Rail's reluctance to negotiate. One would think that they could attach some sort of covenant to the sale to prevent that kind of thing from happening, though.
I would also think there is some sort of legal issue if the city decided to do that.
A legislative body using their ultimate power over the zoning to dictate the price of a piece of land is a pretty disgusting tactic.
If I was CP and the city didn't want to pay fair market value or something close to it OR put some sort of covenant in the sale that if rezoned and sold off that CP would be entitled to a good chunk of the profits I would tell the city to pound sand.
I wouldn't shock me at all if there were some back room meetings going on between vision and the development community about the potential of this land.
As far as I know the city can never force CP to sell it.
But CP apparently wants to sell it, otherwise why would they be stirring the pot? CP must have a price in mind, it's a matter of whether the city wants to pay it.
Port Metro Vancouver gets control of Granville Island, and turns the place into a giant coal terminal. CP reactivates the Arbutus line, and runs huge coal unit trains up the west side.
Terrific, that will give Vancouver that "urban" feel that it really needs...
*shrug* I can't find the direct source anymore but I remember reading many years ago that the land along the stretch was, if capable of being developed, worth near to $500 million. I am sure CP rail wants something at least near $100 million or more for the land give or take.
But CP apparently wants to sell it, otherwise why would they be stirring the pot? CP must have a price in mind, it's a matter of whether the city wants to pay it.
For the CPR its a non-performing asset on which they're paying taxes, so of course they want to sell it. Problem is the city has deprived them of its most profitable use. And now wants to pay the lower price caused by their restictive zoning.
I'm sure Gregor thinks promising to buy it it is a 'win" but if I was a resident of False Creek or East Van, I'd be wondering why the West Side gets another pricey bauble while they're still waiting for parks and rec facilities.
Could the City not just offer to do a short term lease of the land to keep the rail corridor from being reactivated? If the lease was enough to cover CP's cost of holding the land then CP's argument about having a unused asset that should be used would be void. The City could then offer to work with CP to negotiate a long-term land use agreement.
Maybe this is a far too rational approach for the City of Vancouver to take in an election year though.
For the CPR its a non-performing asset on which they're paying taxes, so of course they want to sell it. Problem is the city has deprived them of its most profitable use. And now wants to pay the lower price caused by their restictive zoning.
I'm sure Gregor thinks promising to buy it it is a 'win" but if I was a resident of False Creek or East Van, I'd be wondering why the West Side gets another pricey bauble while they're still waiting for parks and rec facilities.
But that completely ignores CP's position. They want to sell the land (if they can't develop it) and they want as much as they can out of the city, why would they give up their one bargaining chip (annoying residents near the corridor) for a few thousand a year (which they probably don't care about in the long run if they sell the land). It will just keep the status quo which the City has no problem with, pay little or nothing to keep it as a transportation corridor/greenspace.
If the City was paying a fair lease or one favourable to CP then that should still motivate the City to negotiate a purchase. If the City offers to lease the land short term then that would help them win the PR battle. Right now CP can make a fair argument that CoV is trying to essentially expropriate the land through zoning. Right now I side with CP's position and think the CoV needs to be the more reasonable party.
Problem is they'll low ball them for the "fair value" of the corridor and they would do the same for any lease of the land. I don't think CP doesn't loses as the "bad guy" in a PR battle with the city. So what if they're looking to profit from the land, what leverage does the city have against them financially? The CoV's problem will be finding the finances to buy the land and then hold it for a few decades with no revenue from it (as mentioned by another SSPer previously in this thread).
I think we're basically debating two different things. I'm just trying to lay out what the CoV should be doing if they want public opinion on their side (something they need because they are supposed to represent the public's best interest). CP is only accountable to their shareholders so I would say that so far they are playing their cards well. I agree with you that the CoV would probably manage to mess up a lease too but in an election year that might be their best option for coming off as the saviors of the Arbutus Corridor. The last thing Gregor Robinson wants is to have the trains running right as he's starting his re-election bid.
Prev
Linear Mode
