Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Filling
In Some Blanks":
Anne Bartley Smith, wife of the late Matthew Smith,
a well known developer in the area, refused all attempts to have her property
developed.
Further to this point, the Town's outside lawyer, Ms.
Kimberly Morris, advised that development of the property would have been
problematic for the Town, given that it was held in trust for the benefit of the
people of Ontario by the OHF.
The OHF's mandate was to acquire properties
of significance for protection. They acquired the whole of HighTor and gave the
estate a charitable donation receipt in the amount of approximately $10 million
dollars.
Everything indicated that this property was best left undeveloped.
The fact that Mayor Jones, Councilor West, Bill Hogg and others decided to
advance the development of HighTor with the knowledge of the history of this
property is beyond comprehension.
You see, it wasn't about the traffic at
all. It was about respecting the will of a generous woman and her final wishes.
***********************
The comment above produces answers and arguments. Thank You.
My understanding of the situation is different.
Since property development applications are made by property owners.It's not clear what attempts might have been refused by the late owner of High Tor Farm.
The late Ann Bartley Smith supported several different charities.
Transferring title to Ontario Heritage for $10 million allowed her to allocate the proceeds between them.
I asked Ontario Heritage about the figure. She wouldn't tell .
A tax benefit of $10 million illustrates better than anything I can say and have said in the past, that title transfer to the Heritage Foundation is not " a generous donation" to the community.
It is a business transaction to the benefit of both parties.
The municipality cannot provide income tax receipts We do not collect a tax on income. .
If the land could have been transferred to Aurora through the same arrangement, it would have. It is now in the ownership of a provincial agency who have shown no willingness to allow community use or any other use of the property.
Note that the beautiful home on the property has had to be demolished because of abandonment.
Ontario Heritage has the right to sell the land. They are the legal owners.
There is no moral stricture. The land is not donated in trust.
The argument offered in the comment has a false premise. The argument is contrived.
Capital Gains tax would also have been avoided as well as income tax.
In the circumstances it is unlikely a competent town solicitor gave the advice referred to about development being "problematic".
Ontario Heritage needed the resources from the sale of land for development.
They would have benefited. As would the town ,in receiving ownership of the remainder of the property and increased assessment from new homes.
Sheppard's Bush was transferred to Ontario Heritage years earlier in a similar arrangement.
The owner approached the town first and learned we could not exchange market value of the land in tax relief.
The town advised how to go about obtaining the tax advantage.
Ontario Heritage had no resources then either to take care of the property.
They put it in the hands of Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority. They didn't have staff resources either.
So guess who takes care of Sheppard's Bush.
We do.
But at least, in return, we have use of the fields and trails through the property.
It's good to know the farm is enjoyed by Aurora families.
It is clear now why the last Council, including former Councillor Mac Eachern, sought a one-sided agreement for the Town to take responsibility for maintenance of the property with nothing in return.
Development apparently is not all that's unwelcome. Residents who have discovered the amenity are threatened with having their cars "keyed"
Tuesday 5 June 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Is the town or anyone else in possession of any actual correspondence from Ms. Bartley Smith herself on the subject of the future use of the lands?
Your poster wants us to believe that the pristine preservation of these lands was the benfactor's last earthly wish. Following the money, or the tax receipts as it were, might suggest otherwise.
Perhaps there is a paper trail that might shed some light on this. That sure is an obvious piece of land for development and a substantial increase of the tax base.
Interesting comment -- possibly skewed by their own memories or bias. The statement should properly read;
The fact that Mayor Jones, Councilor West, Bill Hogg and others decided to investigate (vs advance) the development of HighTor with the knowledge of the history of this property is beyond comprehension.
Is it really beyond comprehension to investigate before making a decision.
I believed then -- as I do now -- that options must be investigated before coming to any conclusion. Investigation of options often uncovers a solution not previously known. This is particularly important when you are charged with the responsibility of making decisions that affect the entire community -- not just the people in one neighbourhood. That's called NIMBYism.
The fact that the SWAT group could come to a final conclusion before any investigation suggests that their minds were made up long before all the information was available. Their motto was probably "Don't confuse me with the facts -- my mind is already made up."
A closed-minded decision is not a wise decision. I make no apology for trying to remain open-minded until all the facts are known. Investigation of an idea is not to be confused with support for that idea -- it's just the responsible thing to do.
Councilor Buck,
Your claim the donation of HighTor to the OHF was not "a generous donation" but rather a "business transaction" that benefitted both parties demonstrates that you have fialed to fill in all the blanks or deliberatedly spin the story to suit your needs.
To put things into context, in 1987 Anne Bartley Smith's estate was worth aproximately $16 million. She left all of it to variious charities, save a couple of hundred thousand dollars that went to her family. The facts show that it was anything but a "business transaction". I'm sorry, I don't see the benefit for Anne Bartley Smith or her estate as you claim.
Councilor Buck, as a person of advanced age, who as amassed considerable life experience and reflects on what has been and the inevitable we must all face - surely, you have communicated your final wishes, formally or otherwise, to your trusted ones.
Anne Bartley Smith's generosity benefitted the youth in a learning environment (Ryerson Media Centre), the sick through medical treatment and medical research (Princess Margaret Hospital, York Central Hospital & University of Toronto) the enjoyment of natural unspoiled lands (Hightor & Anne Bartley Smith Greenway in Vaughan)to name a few.
What will your legacy be?
Very impressive blog for those who are looking for same kind of information. Relevency always matter whether you are in the same field or not. Singapore property law firm
Post a Comment