The Baby Point Heritage Foundation (BPHF)August 20,2010 as an incorporated entity under Industry Canada guidelines.
http://www.babypointheritage.ca/indexbph.html
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Baby Point Heritage Foundation
We have completed the incorporation of
http://www.babypointheritage.ca/indexbph.html
http://www.babypointheritage.ca/indexbph.html
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Response to New Bylaw Re:Density Allowance
BY eMAIL
pgmc@toronto.ca
August 19, 2010
City Clerk
Attn: Merle MacDonald
Administrator, Planning and Growth Management Committee
Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West
10th Floor, West Tower
Toronto, ON, M5H 2N2
Dear Madam:
RE: Written Submission with respect to the Proposed City Wide Zoning By-law in relation to proposed Zone RD (x1209) and the exceptions on Baby Point Road from the proposed Zoning By-law
I am writing on behalf of the Baby Point Heritage Foundation, which is a corporation, with respect to the above noted matter which I understand is to be considered by City Council at their meeting of August 25/26, 2010.
The Baby Point area is a truly significant community from a cultural heritage perspective. Originally a Seneca village, the lands were then settled in 1816 by James Baby, a member of the Family Compact, before being developed by Home Smith commencing in 1912. The focus of this area is the ‘Point’ which is located on a peninsula of land or ‘point’ overlooking the Humber River, generally in the area west of Humbercrest Blvd.
The Baby Point Heritage Foundation has recently been formed to ensure that the heritage of this remarkable area is protected for future generations through the creation of a Heritage Conservation District. The Board of the Foundation currently consists of four committed individuals from the neighbourhood including the undersigned.
Based on our review of the proposed By-law, the majority of the ‘Point’ is proposed to be zoned “RD(x1209)” with two properties, one of which is 66 Baby Point Road, being exempted from the Zoning By-law apparently because of recent development approvals.
The proposal for 66 Baby Point Road generated considerable concern in the neighbourhood because of the ‘over sized’ building which is proposed. This building, while it conforms with the existing zoning regulations, is completely out of keeping with the heritage character of the area. It is through the review of this application that we, and others in the neighbourhood, became aware of issues with the existing zoning regulations.
In reviewing the most recent version of the proposed City-wide Zoning By-law, we expected that the concerns with the current By-law would be addressed. Unfortunately, based on our review, that does not seem to be the case. In fact, the regulations do not appear to take into account in any material way the unique character of this area. It is our understanding from a review of the various reports that these regulations have not been developed on the basis of any area study. In the absence of any study, we believe this by-law, if passed, should be very conservative in introducing new standards into any part of the City, and most particularly in a heritage area such as Baby Point. However, that does not seem to be the case.
The specific concerns we have identified with the “RD(x1209)” Zone are as follows:
1. Conservation Overlay
The Bylaw includes a Conservation Overlay which applies to the majority of the land in the RD (x1209) Zone. The Conservation Overlay prohibits development below the stable top of bank or shoreline hazard limit. It also contains a provision in Section 600.30 (4) which states:
"If a shoreline hazard or stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, the portion of the lot below the shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank is not included in the calculation of the floor space index for the lot."
This appears to address an issue with the current zoning by-law. However, the section appears to be flawed in that it refers only to floor space index as a measure of permitted density. This is an issue because the proposed new zoning applicable in the RD (x1209) Zone, does not appear to include a floor space index regulation. Instead the RD (x1209) Zone includes only a maximum coverage requirement. As a consequence of this difference in wording it is questionable whether subsection (4) would apply in the RD (x1209) Zone . This is a concern because if it does not apply, then density from the portion of a lot below the top of bank can be used as part of the calculation of the coverage for any house along the ravine, which includes a significant number of homes on the ‘Point’. This would contribute significantly to the potential for new development which is out of keeping with the heritage character of the area.
2. Coverage/Setbacks
The proposed Bylaw as currently drafted would allow a maximum coverage of 50% of the lot area. Previously the maximum floor space index was 0.4 and there does not seem to be any coverage requirement. The change from the floor space index approach (which relates to the total gross floor area of the building as a percentage of the lot area) to a coverage figure which looks at only the percentage of the lot occupied by a building and with the coverage being a maximum of 50% would appear to allow a significantly larger building foot print then currently permitted.
Further, there does not appear to be any front yard or rear yard setback requirements and the side yard requirement is very minimal at 0.45 for lots under 12m frontage and 0.75 m for lots over 12 m frontage.
The combination of the effect of these new regulations would again appear to contribute significantly to the potential for new development which is out of keeping with the heritage character of the area.
3. Exemptions from the By-law
As noted, two properties are excluded from the proposed new zoning by-law. This area was originally planned in a comprehensive manner. That is a key part of the cultural heritage value of the neighbourhood. It is important that all properties be subject to the same rules with respect to future development.
Based on these concerns, we are requesting that Council defer consideration of this By-law, or at least the RD (x1209) regulations, until appropriate changes can be made to develop regulations for the Baby Point area which will assist in preserving the unique character of the community, rather than allowing for the potential of development which is out of keeping with its unique heritage character. These changes should reflect a more detailed examination of the area and input from the affected community.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and should you have any questions please contact the undersigned.
Please also accept this letter as written confirmation of our request to be notified in writing of any and all further meetings and notices (including the Notice of Decision for the Zoning By-law).
Your truly,
Dr. Robert Galway
Chairman Baby Point Heritage Foundation
62 Baby Point Road, Toronto M6S 2G3
c.c. Councilor Wm. Saundercook
© 2010 Microsoft Terms Privacy
pgmc@toronto.ca
August 19, 2010
City Clerk
Attn: Merle MacDonald
Administrator, Planning and Growth Management Committee
Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West
10th Floor, West Tower
Toronto, ON, M5H 2N2
Dear Madam:
RE: Written Submission with respect to the Proposed City Wide Zoning By-law in relation to proposed Zone RD (x1209) and the exceptions on Baby Point Road from the proposed Zoning By-law
I am writing on behalf of the Baby Point Heritage Foundation, which is a corporation, with respect to the above noted matter which I understand is to be considered by City Council at their meeting of August 25/26, 2010.
The Baby Point area is a truly significant community from a cultural heritage perspective. Originally a Seneca village, the lands were then settled in 1816 by James Baby, a member of the Family Compact, before being developed by Home Smith commencing in 1912. The focus of this area is the ‘Point’ which is located on a peninsula of land or ‘point’ overlooking the Humber River, generally in the area west of Humbercrest Blvd.
The Baby Point Heritage Foundation has recently been formed to ensure that the heritage of this remarkable area is protected for future generations through the creation of a Heritage Conservation District. The Board of the Foundation currently consists of four committed individuals from the neighbourhood including the undersigned.
Based on our review of the proposed By-law, the majority of the ‘Point’ is proposed to be zoned “RD(x1209)” with two properties, one of which is 66 Baby Point Road, being exempted from the Zoning By-law apparently because of recent development approvals.
The proposal for 66 Baby Point Road generated considerable concern in the neighbourhood because of the ‘over sized’ building which is proposed. This building, while it conforms with the existing zoning regulations, is completely out of keeping with the heritage character of the area. It is through the review of this application that we, and others in the neighbourhood, became aware of issues with the existing zoning regulations.
In reviewing the most recent version of the proposed City-wide Zoning By-law, we expected that the concerns with the current By-law would be addressed. Unfortunately, based on our review, that does not seem to be the case. In fact, the regulations do not appear to take into account in any material way the unique character of this area. It is our understanding from a review of the various reports that these regulations have not been developed on the basis of any area study. In the absence of any study, we believe this by-law, if passed, should be very conservative in introducing new standards into any part of the City, and most particularly in a heritage area such as Baby Point. However, that does not seem to be the case.
The specific concerns we have identified with the “RD(x1209)” Zone are as follows:
1. Conservation Overlay
The Bylaw includes a Conservation Overlay which applies to the majority of the land in the RD (x1209) Zone. The Conservation Overlay prohibits development below the stable top of bank or shoreline hazard limit. It also contains a provision in Section 600.30 (4) which states:
"If a shoreline hazard or stable top-of-bank crosses a lot, the portion of the lot below the shoreline hazard limit or stable top-of-bank is not included in the calculation of the floor space index for the lot."
This appears to address an issue with the current zoning by-law. However, the section appears to be flawed in that it refers only to floor space index as a measure of permitted density. This is an issue because the proposed new zoning applicable in the RD (x1209) Zone, does not appear to include a floor space index regulation. Instead the RD (x1209) Zone includes only a maximum coverage requirement. As a consequence of this difference in wording it is questionable whether subsection (4) would apply in the RD (x1209) Zone . This is a concern because if it does not apply, then density from the portion of a lot below the top of bank can be used as part of the calculation of the coverage for any house along the ravine, which includes a significant number of homes on the ‘Point’. This would contribute significantly to the potential for new development which is out of keeping with the heritage character of the area.
2. Coverage/Setbacks
The proposed Bylaw as currently drafted would allow a maximum coverage of 50% of the lot area. Previously the maximum floor space index was 0.4 and there does not seem to be any coverage requirement. The change from the floor space index approach (which relates to the total gross floor area of the building as a percentage of the lot area) to a coverage figure which looks at only the percentage of the lot occupied by a building and with the coverage being a maximum of 50% would appear to allow a significantly larger building foot print then currently permitted.
Further, there does not appear to be any front yard or rear yard setback requirements and the side yard requirement is very minimal at 0.45 for lots under 12m frontage and 0.75 m for lots over 12 m frontage.
The combination of the effect of these new regulations would again appear to contribute significantly to the potential for new development which is out of keeping with the heritage character of the area.
3. Exemptions from the By-law
As noted, two properties are excluded from the proposed new zoning by-law. This area was originally planned in a comprehensive manner. That is a key part of the cultural heritage value of the neighbourhood. It is important that all properties be subject to the same rules with respect to future development.
Based on these concerns, we are requesting that Council defer consideration of this By-law, or at least the RD (x1209) regulations, until appropriate changes can be made to develop regulations for the Baby Point area which will assist in preserving the unique character of the community, rather than allowing for the potential of development which is out of keeping with its unique heritage character. These changes should reflect a more detailed examination of the area and input from the affected community.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and should you have any questions please contact the undersigned.
Please also accept this letter as written confirmation of our request to be notified in writing of any and all further meetings and notices (including the Notice of Decision for the Zoning By-law).
Your truly,
Dr. Robert Galway
Chairman Baby Point Heritage Foundation
62 Baby Point Road, Toronto M6S 2G3
c.c. Councilor Wm. Saundercook
© 2010 Microsoft Terms Privacy
Saturday, May 29, 2010
New Letter to the Villager - May 27, 2010
LETTERS
Preserve heritage, character of Baby Point
Re: Homeowner allowed to demolish Baby Point home, news April 29, 2010
Regrettably, this situation is another example of how modern planning fails to take into consideration the character of an existing neighbourhood. Instead, it permits property re-developers to build out to the limits of the zoning regulations, using their as-of-right to construct modern super-sized buildings that do not fit In with the built heritage fabric of the surrounding neighbourhood.
This is a particular shame when it occurs within an enclave like Baby Point, so closely resembling the original Robert Home Smith tract of architecturally coherent residences, interspersed with later infill development that has for the most part been sensitively designed.
An appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board would achieve little more than a delay for the Project, at monetary expense to the plaintiffs. The proposed building conforms to the existing City of Toronto Official Plan, zoning and site plan regulations, leaving little to no legal grounds upon which to overturn the council decision.
In addition, Ontario's recent Places to Grow-legislation makes the intensification of development in existing neighbourhoods more likely.
Since the current planning framework for they city is unlikely to substantially change any time soon, other approaches may be examined.
Given the distinctive nature of Baby Point ans strong community interest in preserving the distinctive built heritage and cultural heritage landscape, designation as a heritage conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act would be an effective mechanism.
This would permit the identification and definition of specific heritage features that make Baby Point what it is, and in doing so, guide future alterations, demolitions and new construction to conform more closely with the existing built form, architectural styles, and materials.
Heritage Conservation Districts are in use across Ontario to successfully maintain the character of distinctive neighbourhoods like Baby Point, while permitting alterations and development that are sympathetic to the original built heritage.
Given the inevitable development pressures within the city, it may be prudent for this community's members to consider this alternative while there is still a neighbourhood to protect.
Signed:
Joseph Muller
Preserve heritage, character of Baby Point
Re: Homeowner allowed to demolish Baby Point home, news April 29, 2010
Regrettably, this situation is another example of how modern planning fails to take into consideration the character of an existing neighbourhood. Instead, it permits property re-developers to build out to the limits of the zoning regulations, using their as-of-right to construct modern super-sized buildings that do not fit In with the built heritage fabric of the surrounding neighbourhood.
This is a particular shame when it occurs within an enclave like Baby Point, so closely resembling the original Robert Home Smith tract of architecturally coherent residences, interspersed with later infill development that has for the most part been sensitively designed.
An appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board would achieve little more than a delay for the Project, at monetary expense to the plaintiffs. The proposed building conforms to the existing City of Toronto Official Plan, zoning and site plan regulations, leaving little to no legal grounds upon which to overturn the council decision.
In addition, Ontario's recent Places to Grow-legislation makes the intensification of development in existing neighbourhoods more likely.
Since the current planning framework for they city is unlikely to substantially change any time soon, other approaches may be examined.
Given the distinctive nature of Baby Point ans strong community interest in preserving the distinctive built heritage and cultural heritage landscape, designation as a heritage conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act would be an effective mechanism.
This would permit the identification and definition of specific heritage features that make Baby Point what it is, and in doing so, guide future alterations, demolitions and new construction to conform more closely with the existing built form, architectural styles, and materials.
Heritage Conservation Districts are in use across Ontario to successfully maintain the character of distinctive neighbourhoods like Baby Point, while permitting alterations and development that are sympathetic to the original built heritage.
Given the inevitable development pressures within the city, it may be prudent for this community's members to consider this alternative while there is still a neighbourhood to protect.
Signed:
Joseph Muller
Monday, May 17, 2010
Letter to The Villager - May 14, 2010
LETTERS - THE VILLAGER, MAY 14, 2010
Good neighbours are good stewards
To the editor:
Unfortunately, it seems that the butchery of an historically interesting cottage at 66 Baby Point Road is a done deal, along with the degradation of the streetscape that will entail.
As Councillor Bill Saundercook is quoted as saying, the owners are very likely well within their rights." This, of course, is where the problem lies. Owners of such structures need to be made to understand before they buy that, as well as some rights of owner-ship, they are assuming responsibilities of stewardship.
People usually understand this with relation to other types of heritage: would anyone be stupid enough to hand a newly-acquired Rembrandt to another painter (even if the second painter was Monet or Picasso) to paint over it? Would the owner of a Frank Lloyd Wright house ignorantly demolish it to build a modern house, even by the best modern architect?
Robert Home Smith's architectural and streetscaping work in this city, although not world-famous, is remarkable in its style, sense of flow, creation of interlocking vistas, and, apparently, domestic comfort. It is one of the pieces of our urban fabric, which contributes to Toronto's character, in the same manner as the humble bungalow districts in Illinois and California, cottages and townhouses in Britain, and streetscapes or heritage districts in many other parts of the world.
Apparently Toronto doesn't have effective bylaws to protect its buildings from the "rights" of those who don't care about their neighbours, or the character and history of the city as a whole, and who are too self-centered to accept the obligations of steward-ship. We need to start building a framework of more effective by-laws now so that those who come after us don't wonder why they are living in such a boring city.
Megan E. Finlayson
Good neighbours are good stewards
To the editor:
Unfortunately, it seems that the butchery of an historically interesting cottage at 66 Baby Point Road is a done deal, along with the degradation of the streetscape that will entail.
As Councillor Bill Saundercook is quoted as saying, the owners are very likely well within their rights." This, of course, is where the problem lies. Owners of such structures need to be made to understand before they buy that, as well as some rights of owner-ship, they are assuming responsibilities of stewardship.
People usually understand this with relation to other types of heritage: would anyone be stupid enough to hand a newly-acquired Rembrandt to another painter (even if the second painter was Monet or Picasso) to paint over it? Would the owner of a Frank Lloyd Wright house ignorantly demolish it to build a modern house, even by the best modern architect?
Robert Home Smith's architectural and streetscaping work in this city, although not world-famous, is remarkable in its style, sense of flow, creation of interlocking vistas, and, apparently, domestic comfort. It is one of the pieces of our urban fabric, which contributes to Toronto's character, in the same manner as the humble bungalow districts in Illinois and California, cottages and townhouses in Britain, and streetscapes or heritage districts in many other parts of the world.
Apparently Toronto doesn't have effective bylaws to protect its buildings from the "rights" of those who don't care about their neighbours, or the character and history of the city as a whole, and who are too self-centered to accept the obligations of steward-ship. We need to start building a framework of more effective by-laws now so that those who come after us don't wonder why they are living in such a boring city.
Megan E. Finlayson
Monday, May 3, 2010
Proposed Footprint of 66 Baby Point Road
Judge for yourself what a 6500 sq ft House will be like related to the two neighbouring houses and a 1.20 metre set in at the sides.
Hi, I'd like to share a Google Maps link with you.
Link:
Friday, April 30, 2010
Forum Research & Lorne Bozinoff Connection to TTC Revealed
Excerpt from "The Villager April 29, 2009
by Lisa Rainford
After a professional connection came to light between Bozinoff's market research business, Forum Research, and the TTC of which Saundercook is commissioner, the councillor sought advice from the integrity commissioner, who said the information only became known after the entire process had been approved.
Baby Point residents wondered if Saundercook's decision to support the project had anything to do with Forum Research's work for the TTC.
However, Saundercook said he hadn't heard of the connection until April 23. "Had I been aware prior to the application, I would have had to explain, but this was clearly not the case," said Saundercook.
For the complete article in MS Word "click" the Title or
see first letter page above right.
by Lisa Rainford
After a professional connection came to light between Bozinoff's market research business, Forum Research, and the TTC of which Saundercook is commissioner, the councillor sought advice from the integrity commissioner, who said the information only became known after the entire process had been approved.
Baby Point residents wondered if Saundercook's decision to support the project had anything to do with Forum Research's work for the TTC.
However, Saundercook said he hadn't heard of the connection until April 23. "Had I been aware prior to the application, I would have had to explain, but this was clearly not the case," said Saundercook.
For the complete article in MS Word "click" the Title or
see first letter page above right.
Friday, April 23, 2010
April 23, 2010; Inside Toronto Article - OK to Demolish 66 Baby Point Road
LISA RAINFORD
• Apr 23, 2010 - 4:48 PM
• Inside Toronto article
For complete article go to the first "Page" posted opposite or to this link:
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/article/805069--homeowner-allowed-to-demolish-baby-point-home
Homeowner allowed to demolish Baby Point home.
More than 150 people - 90 per cent of the neighbourhood - have registered their opposition against the project, saying its mass and density is greater than twice as large as the homes around it. The adjacent homes average 2,700 square feet. The Bozinoffs house would be two and a half times larger than the average, said neighbour Robert Galway, who has lived in the area for 40 years.
"I don't understand council's decision when you have a fact like that staring you in the face," he said.
Mary Anne De Monte-Whelan, a Baby Point resident for the past two decades, said most homes in the area have been restored to some extent or another.
"Are we against improving homes? No, lots of us have done it, but there is a certain way of respecting the neighbourhood when you do it," she said. "I've lived in two Robert Home Smith homes and they were extremely architecturally strong homes. It can be done if there's a desire. There are many, many places you can go if you want a monstrous home. This isn't one of those places, they're not in Baby Point."
The optimal approach to this project would be to restore the present property to its former glory, said Galway, while retaining its architectural authenticity and the integrity of the streetscape.
"The architectural foresight of Robert Home Smith, the developer of the Baby Point area, was ahead of his time
His principles of property layout are deserving of respect and should not give way to architectural largesse as is the case associated with this application.
Even though the majority of the neighbourhood opposes the project, dubbed a "McMansion," Saundercook said the "chances at the Ontario Municipal Board were not very favourable to the opposition."
Saundercook said he wanted to work with the owner/applicant and not against him.
Asked how he is dealing with his neighbour's disapproval of his proposed new home, Bozinoff said, "We're mulling over the comments."
• Apr 23, 2010 - 4:48 PM
• Inside Toronto article
For complete article go to the first "Page" posted opposite or to this link:
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/local/article/805069--homeowner-allowed-to-demolish-baby-point-home
Homeowner allowed to demolish Baby Point home.
More than 150 people - 90 per cent of the neighbourhood - have registered their opposition against the project, saying its mass and density is greater than twice as large as the homes around it. The adjacent homes average 2,700 square feet. The Bozinoffs house would be two and a half times larger than the average, said neighbour Robert Galway, who has lived in the area for 40 years.
"I don't understand council's decision when you have a fact like that staring you in the face," he said.
Mary Anne De Monte-Whelan, a Baby Point resident for the past two decades, said most homes in the area have been restored to some extent or another.
"Are we against improving homes? No, lots of us have done it, but there is a certain way of respecting the neighbourhood when you do it," she said. "I've lived in two Robert Home Smith homes and they were extremely architecturally strong homes. It can be done if there's a desire. There are many, many places you can go if you want a monstrous home. This isn't one of those places, they're not in Baby Point."
The optimal approach to this project would be to restore the present property to its former glory, said Galway, while retaining its architectural authenticity and the integrity of the streetscape.
"The architectural foresight of Robert Home Smith, the developer of the Baby Point area, was ahead of his time
His principles of property layout are deserving of respect and should not give way to architectural largesse as is the case associated with this application.
Even though the majority of the neighbourhood opposes the project, dubbed a "McMansion," Saundercook said the "chances at the Ontario Municipal Board were not very favourable to the opposition."
Saundercook said he wanted to work with the owner/applicant and not against him.
Asked how he is dealing with his neighbour's disapproval of his proposed new home, Bozinoff said, "We're mulling over the comments."
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
TTC and Forum Research
To view the Word Document with active links click on the above Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain public facts related to the 66 Baby Point Road story have come to the attention of the Concerned Baby Point Residents group. We would appreciate the thoughts of the community on these facts."
Specifically, the owner of 66 Baby Point Rd (Lorne Bozinoff) is owner of Forum Research, a Toronto market research Company with a long-standing relationship with the TTC, for which Bill Saundercook serves as Commissioner. Some residents are concerned that this relationship was not declared.
The facts:
1. Forum Research has a long standing commercial relationship of at least ten years with the TTC. They conducted targeted research projects in 2001 and 2002. Item: TTC Budget $198,320
www3.ttc.ca/search/results.jsp
Enter "Forum Research" in the search box!
2. Described in 2005 as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies.
http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2418/_conv.htm
Scroll down to the Market Research Report Section
3. Forum Research continued in 2008 to be associated with the TTC as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor.
This is confirmed by this blog account posted February 10th, 2008.
http://www.nakedknitgirl.ca/
4. Forum Research continues to be associated with the TTC as indicated in the Forum Research Web site posting April 19, 2010. (Under Public Sector)
http//www.forumresearch.com/experienc.asp
Look under Kudos: "Experience" & scroll down to Public Sector.
5. Councillor William Saundercook has been a TTC Commissioner since 2005, and presently is in the running to be the next Chairman.
http://http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ttc/article/764353---the-ttc-is-a-real-mess
Summary:
It is a matter of public record that the market research firm "Forum Research" has a decade long relationship with the Toronto Transit Commission acting in their words; "as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain public facts related to the 66 Baby Point Road story have come to the attention of the Concerned Baby Point Residents group. We would appreciate the thoughts of the community on these facts."
Specifically, the owner of 66 Baby Point Rd (Lorne Bozinoff) is owner of Forum Research, a Toronto market research Company with a long-standing relationship with the TTC, for which Bill Saundercook serves as Commissioner. Some residents are concerned that this relationship was not declared.
The facts:
1. Forum Research has a long standing commercial relationship of at least ten years with the TTC. They conducted targeted research projects in 2001 and 2002. Item: TTC Budget $198,320
www3.ttc.ca/search/results.jsp
Enter "Forum Research" in the search box!
2. Described in 2005 as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies.
http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comrpt/documents/report/f2418/_conv.htm
Scroll down to the Market Research Report Section
3. Forum Research continued in 2008 to be associated with the TTC as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor.
This is confirmed by this blog account posted February 10th, 2008.
http://www.nakedknitgirl.ca/
4. Forum Research continues to be associated with the TTC as indicated in the Forum Research Web site posting April 19, 2010. (Under Public Sector)
http//www.forumresearch.com/experienc.asp
Look under Kudos: "Experience" & scroll down to Public Sector.
5. Councillor William Saundercook has been a TTC Commissioner since 2005, and presently is in the running to be the next Chairman.
http://http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ttc/article/764353---the-ttc-is-a-real-mess
Summary:
It is a matter of public record that the market research firm "Forum Research" has a decade long relationship with the Toronto Transit Commission acting in their words; "as the Commission’s Marketing and Public Affairs Department’s contractor for Targeted Research Studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)