,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@gordperks And furthermore, there is a very good chance that Ford & co. have no idea just how big the future capital needs of the subway will be and that this represents a substantial net increase in "subsidy" to the city. (1)
@gordperks (2) However, if they wind up "leasing" the subway to us (or whatever scheme is used), that could turn into a revenue stream for whoever owns it to finance capital repairs, to the extent that they even bother to undertake them.
@gordperks (3) I am fascinated by the Minister's comment today that the upload might happen in two steps with new stuff first and existing to follow later. I suspect the are starting to figure out that leaving it in TO's hands might not be such a bad idea.
@gordperks (4) Of course if they do that, they won't be able to pillage the land value around the stations, and that's the real "prize" although one has to wonder why we have not developed that land already.
@gordperks (5) The Spadina subway has been open since 1978 but has not been decked over, possibly because that does not give the kind of base needed for workable development.
@gordperks (6) If I were really Machiavellian, I would think thus: the subway land per se is not developable, but it could represent land with density rights. These could be exploited for other nearby developments.
@gordperks (7/7) I noticed that none of the subway lands were on the City's list of potential sites for development of affordable housing.
