The Art of The Rant

Celine Dion’s manager-husband Rene Angelil, was so upset that Paul McCartney got a bigger venue to perform at Quebec City’s 400th anniversary, that he basically forced organizers to expand the capacity of his wife’s venue to accommodate another 100,000 spectators.
I recognize that Celine is an important figure to some Quebec fans but lets get real, She hasn’t really lived in Quebec for many years unless the province has somehow annexed Las Vegas or Miami. She does not have the history in music that Paul McCartney has unless you have some Idea that the Beatles really didn’t affect rock music. I realize that she should have a greater role in the celebration as she is of French Canadian origin, but of greater importance than Paul McCartney. If she had a commitment to the province she would spend more time living there, and if she isn’t that committed to the province why should she get any preferential treatment this is simply Diva behaviour.
Celine in recent years has been more the brut of Jokes about neocrooners than the lauds of fans. If she wants to prove to Quebec fans she is deserving of their praise she should wrap herself in the Provincial flag, spend more time in the province and less time singing to geriatric Americans in tacky casinos in Las Vegas or sunning herself in Florida.

I have to say this is one passing I will not mourn. I thoroughly disliked senator Jesse Helms.

A nastier fighter for the right never existed once a Helms campaign commercial showed a white fist crumbling up a job application, these words underneath: “You needed that job … but they had to give it to a minority.”

He opposed every step forward the US ever tried to make. Sorry but I don’t mourn for Jesse Helms.

Recently CTV ran an article on a dating services called Beautifulipeople.com. The service is controversial because it bans so called ugly people. They define ugly by voting on who is ugly. The whole thing is repulsive it reeks of Adolf Hiltler’s master race ideology. Most people would laugh at this service, but to laugh at it would be to belittle the fact that it is a symptom of a larger problem in society that is that we are devolving to more basic instinctual behaviour, when it comes to dating. If we decide our sexual partners based on looks we will be creating a race of pretty but stupid people. That said beauty is a product of personality and physical appearance anyone that decides on a person to date based on one side alone will likely get what they deserve, a person that is truly ugly. If all you are concerned with is who to jump tonight then this service is for you. Some have said humans are animals and this is just a product of instinctual behaviour, if this is true then we haven’t progressed much above the eat sleep and procreate level. In the past people like Greg Hodge where labelled as Dogs, this wasn’t a compliment. If you want to succeed you have to distance yourself from these guys. Just think what would happen if it was discovered that a politician was using this service? From the comments on the CTV article it is evident that using this service would place you in a category that no one with aspirations of any sort would want to be in. Being labelled one of the pretty people may seem like a good idea, but from a career point of view or a success point of view the words on your CV or the diplomas on your wall are of more value unless you’re a model. Remember money can buy you a new face a new body a new look, but your stuck with your personality and if it is ugly you’re ugly like it or not. The patrons of this service at least give Hollywood directors characters to make fun of. Welcome to the land of the shallow people.

.

Although Mr Harper’s apology to Indian Residential School victims yesterday seemed sincere I doubt it was, given that he is not going to boot Pierre Poilievre out of the party as he rightly deserves to be.
Pierre Poilievre’s claims that native people need to learn the value of hard work more than they need residential schools compensation just tells me that if this wasn’t a minority government there may not have been an apology.
I am however impressed that Stephane Dion did not use the words “the government” when making his final apology but said “I apologise” a much more personal apology than Mr. Harpers.
The so called new Government of Canada, has some remarkable backwards and old fashioned ideas.

See the article at;
Tory MP apologizes for ‘hurtful’ remarks
Canadian Press and Globe and Mail Update

The Conservatives have started a campaign claiming that the proposed Liberal tax on Carbon emissions is “Dion’s Tax on Everything. I usually ignore ads of this sort all parties run them before an election and most intelligent people know they are bogus scare tactics.

This one more so than most, but really who acres. Just one thing though some of the ads were to run at gas stations in southern Ontario, but Fuelcast, the company that operates the pump-side advertising network, said Monday it won’t run the ads.

Once again the Conservatives have spun the rumours around that they will sue Fuelcast for breach of contract. If I were Fuelcast I would publish the ads with a foot high byline that read “Fuelcast does not guarantee the accuracy or validity of the claims mentioned above” thus fulfilling their contract and protecting their right not to be associated with fictitious claims.

There is one good thing about being a blogger you can be honest if you so choose.

CTV reported on a woman who was fired from her job as a waitress because she participated in a charitable event and shaved her head.

She told her employer that she was going to do this and the day she returned to work with a shaved head he fired her.

Just so you know I am not advocating that you refrain from going to Nathaniels’s in Owen sound, run by Dan Hillard, but I won’t be going there as I tend not to frequent establishments with ethics I do not agree with.

Might I suggest that as a reputable establishment that the Dan Hillard shave his head an apologize to Stacey Fearnall

This post is just to point out that Blogs are not entirely democratic nor should they be. Like democracy Blogging has its limits.

Assuming you are the typical blog reader you will undoubtedly have read miles of comments on posting. In your reading you will have either seen a person banned from commenting, banned someone, or been banned. Swim in this pond long enough and you will bump into this log some time or other.

The general reasons that will get you banned on most blogs are as follows;

1. Being abusive to any poster
2. Spamming
3. Abusive language
4. Too many comments
5. Unusually long comments

While the last two generally won’t get you banned they often get you a warning but if you ignore the warning then you might get banned. I apply this to only the most active of the blogs I edit, most of the time I will ignore verbose posters for the sake of content.

Spamming is offensive plain and simple it is the internet equivalent of tele-marketing and billboards. Those that do this are determined to make the world an ugly place, and don’t care as long as it gets them a few more bucks in their pocket and who cares if it works (which it doesn’t) some one will still pay you to do it.

On my blogs I generally ignore abusive language, unless it is vulgar for the sake of being vulgar and serves no purpose to the comment. Swearing or cussing is an integral part of ranting it is an emotional expression that has its place. That said I rarely allow swearing at a person. If you say something like “that is B—-S—” I don’t mind but if you say “you’re an A–H—“ you will likely find yourself banned.

The main reason that I will ban some one from posting a comment is personally attacking some one. It is an issue of respect. I accept that not everyone will like everyone else. I had two bloggers get into a fight on my social issues blog, and I banned both. If one of the two parties had waited for me to ban the other, only one of them would have been banned, but NOOOO you had to get just as nasty as your opponent and you know who you are both of you children. (Side note - If you decide to apologise I will let you both back in to play in the Sand Box.)

That said there are two Bloggers I know do not get along and have banned each other from posting on their respective blogs, but I let post and debate on mine. I don’t stop people from fighting I just wont let you scratch each others eyes out.

I have one more reason for banning people and many won’t like this (I have rarely used it).

6. Because I feel like it.

This is a catch all just to point out that the Blog owner is God and in the case of multiple editors part of the pantheon of Blog Gods.

Respective of this point I don’t use this reason on “The Art of the Rant” Blog as I have co-editors fellow Immortals who must agree before some one is banned.

Here are a few arbitrary reasons that I have banned people.

I used to have a blog on Blogger.com that was on health issues (by invitation only) and there was one issue I would not allow to be debated, abortion because the topic is so emotionally charged that fighting and abusive behaviour was inevitable. (It is the reason this blog is gone).

If you posted a comment on the topic pro or con I banned you, no questions asked. That said the pundits did not listen and so I had to shut it down. In that pond if the sharks don’t get you the piranhas will so I don’t swim there any more.

Another reason is because the person posting posted comments unrelated to the article in question. I banned a guy for posting on hockey during the play offs, I let him back on when the play offs were over.

A typical posting from this guy went something like this (paraphrased)

- “I agree there needs to be control over bidding on public contracts…. Hey did you see the Sens v the Pens last night Alfredsson kicked ass that was an amazing goal in the second period, but Grapes got it all wrong in his view of the goal etc… (and three more paragraphs on hockey)”

If you are going to write a response a three word comment on the topic followed by a 2000 word essay on needle point, hockey or navel lint is not appropriate, unless you are discussing needle point, hockey or navel lint.

So as you can guess this post was really to lay out the rules of debate on my blogs.

I am posting it on the Art of the Rant as an example - If the pantheon (Mike Abdul or Jim) disagree let me know.

And even with all these rules over the 7 or 8 years I have been blogging I think I have banned less than 6 people (not counting spammers)

I tend toward a referees position on blogging, I get the parties in the ring have them join hands in the middle and yell fight as they break and head to their respective corners. A fair fight is all I ask.

Many people have said it, in the media and out of the media, other parties have noticed it and the media has felt the burden. The current Government of Canada has closed the door to the media on many occasions. They want to control the flow of information out the door as to not be misinterpreted, but when does this control limit the openness and transparency that the Conservatives promised? Well the answer is it has from day one.

If you preach openness and transparency and control the flow of info to the media then you are a liar. To be truly open you want everyone in the choir singing the same song, and that song to be song from every street corner. The problem is that the conservative government seems to think that only one or two voices virtuoso soloists are capable of singing for the government. The problem with this is when those soloists screw up the whole audience hears it. In a chorus if one voice is flat then most people won’t notice it. If the conservatives are tired of being singled out for mistakes maybe Harper should take the muzzle off of his government. The problem is in doing so we may find out that his government is something we don’t want. Democracy needs many voices without it we have a soloist often called a dictator is this what we want?

Affection; a deliberate pretense or exaggerated display .

I was at a wine tasting in a commercial winery in France some time ago, enjoying the experience more than anything else as I have no idea of good wine from great wine. I know what I like and I know what is bad wine. In reality this winery produced some adequate wines or so I am told, but there was this one tourist from Britain that was going on about the different flavours he could taste in the wine the body the bouquet the legs etc… He puffed out his chest and exaggerate his expressions as he waved his hand over his glass, and pontificated.

An Ausi on the tour made a comment on the Australian wine industry being very good and producing wines like some of the better French and German wines. To which the affected Englishman responded that “ the grapes used in Australia didn’t have the quality to produce the variety of aromas needed as the base for good viticulture and that the vintners could use to learn a bit about viticulture from the Germans who have produced wines almost as good as the French but with wider appeal.”

It has been a number of years since I was in France and I have learned a bit about wines in those years so, was the affected Englishman telling the truth or was he blowing smoke? Well after a bit of research the answer is blowing smoke. Why? Australian wines are often made with the Syrah or Shiraz grape which is noted for having one of the most varied results when it comes to Aromas, producing when blended or on their own some of the most popular wines. And as for learning from the Germans one of the most influential vintners in Australia is Wolf Blass, who studied and worked in the European wine industry for 13 years before he migrated Australia in 1961.

Don’t take my word for it look it up yourself and never believe someone who sounds full of himself, because often as not, he is full of something else as well.

Warning this is a rant (AKA emotionally charged opinion)

How do you know the difference between disagreeing because you believe something is wrong and disagreeing because you don’t like the person or party that is talking?

On many news media websites the site allows you to comment on the article. Many of these comments are simply tirades against the media or the right or left sides of the political perspective.

Which is fine, but when you are disagreeing because you don’t like the source of the material then you are simply being a blow hard.

Today there was a posting on CTV about a simple gaffe made by a spokesperson from the Harper Government. The spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted that “Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had just issued a statement saying Italy would remove the caveat that restricts what their soldiers can do in Afghanistan,“ which was not the case he had said he was going to do so. The Spokesperson quickly rectified the situation, but not before some media published the mistake. A dumb mistake but nonetheless a mistake.

The critics in the comments section quickly jumped on this some as to how bad the government was for making this mistake and some for how bad it was that the media reported on the mistake. Idiots on the right blame the media for not checking the fact that Berlusconi had actually said it, and idiots on the left criticised the government for releasing a dinner time conversation inaccurately.

Here is my opinion on the matter, and you can call me the idiot in the middle if you like. It was a dumb mistake. Big hairy stupid deal ! Obviously the spokesperson screwed up, but it happens, this is no signed that the harper Government is hopelessly incompetent we know this by their policies not their gaffes. Also why the hell would the media need to verify a source when it comes directly from the press office of the Prime Minister.

To me this was a Big SO WHAT ! Now can we go back to concentrating our efforts on fighting the incompetent policies of this government.

Jumping on minutia like this makes us look as dumb as the conservatives.

The Unreallty of Facebook, and some of the people that use it, makes me laugh and cringe.

I have had a few odd people (you know who you are) send me emails on the way I use or don’t use Facebook. To this point I have ignored your comments, because I’ve respected the fact that to you Facebook is an important means of social interaction. I can respect that. If you are inclined to communicate via a virtual reality that is your prerogative. I know there are many people who use Facebook all the time like my Brother-in-law and my Brother-in-laws brother (I guess this makes him a Brother-in-law once removed). That said, both these guys have a life outside Facebook, though I often wonder about how they find time, and they don’t get twisted out of shape if you pass on the invitations they send. My Brother-in-laws Brother who I really only know via Facebook has suggested we get together for drinks/coffee next time I am up, which is cool and I might just do. So Facebook to him is only one element of social interaction. Facebook is socially healthy if mixed with other real world social interaction. It is a fun way to interact with people at a distance.

That said there are those that don’t do anything more than facebook. They spend hours on it and have created complex social rules, which God help you if you break. In the real world we choose to participate in activities we like, we also know our limitations and don’t participate in what we find beyond our capacity. These sort of rules differ from those in Facebook. For example there was a Facebook app that someone passed on to me, it was a game that required Video capacity. I joined this game and found that my video capacity on my computer did not work so I left a note to the other participants saying sorry I can’t continue as my computer is not fast enough. If I was playing soccer and I told my team I had to drop out because my knee gave out or I was sick, no one would object I’m sure, but this is not the case in Facebook. I got the following note from one participant in the game;

“Thanks ASSHOLE now none of us can finish this game”

Okay let’s give people the benefit of the doubt there is bound to be one idiot in a crowd, and I am not going to get bent out of shape over this guys comment, but Facebook seems to be spawning this sort of nonsense. I have this one person that sent me hundreds of invitations a week (not anymore thank God) and occasionally I accept an invitation from Him/her no big deal as far as I am concerned. The other day I get a note that says;

“if you do not plan to participate in Facebook why do you have a Facebook page”

Also I like some of the apps that allow you to compete with others or share your interests or take quizzes etc.. but then there are these weird apps that allow you to rank your friends or buy and sell them or apply derogatory names to them. These apps to me are borderline bullying apps so I generally ignore them. I have best friends and mediocre friends and associates as all do, but the last thing I want anyone to think is that they don’t matter to me. Imagine being the last person on everyone’s friend ranking, how would you feel. If someone posted a ranked list of their friends on their locker at school The first thing I would think is what a elitist Ass that person was.

So in conclusion those of you that are Facebook Nazi’s Bullies addicts, GROW UP it’s a toy, a game, a pass time it is many things but not real life. For all we know like Myspace or BBS’s this means of electronic social interaction could be gone in a couple years, it is not that important to get angry about. I am not angry at those persons I mentioned above, I just find them annoying. They make me furrow my brow and think Hmmm another Facebook nutjob. If you are angry enough to send hate mail, to Facebook users you really need to see a Mental Health professional of some kind.

In a recent article on on CTV’s website entitled Drug spending reaches $27 billion in Canada: report, a reader made the best advice on medication that I have ever read so I thought I would pass it on here……

Carolina writes……
80% of the most common diseases today: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, heart disease & stroke, and some cancers can be treated or prevented through diet and lifestyle modification! Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food. Know what you’re eating, and get off the sofa. Talk to your friends, laugh, be passionate and positive. Your health will improve, and you won’t have to worry about side effects. Sad part is big pharma doesn’t want you to know or do this. They’re making too much money because you don’t.
My husband works for big pharma.

Although the Conservative Party of Canada is not the Progressive Conservative Party, both parties leaned toward a laissez faire style of politics that inevitably leads to a capitalist runaway train, and we all know the outcome of a runaway train either the train reaches the end of the track or flies right off it. In 1993 the Progressive Conservatives under Kim Campbell found the end of the track. Dissatisfaction was so great that a train wreck was inevitable and the Progressive Conservatives died as, only 2 MP’s seats on the train were spared. The problem was that the death of the PC’s was their own making, many of the hard working MP’s that were keeping the train going jumped onto another accelerating train, that of the reform party.

“The time has come to put the country back on the right track,” Mr. Chretien told cheering supporters as the Liberals started their engine and began moving down a very similar track. The problem is that the party in order to avoid the colossal collapse that is inevitable, it needs to learn one thing, and I hate to say it but only one party seems to have done this, and it is not a party I would have ever voted for.

The reform party used the momentum of dying Progressive Conservative to accelerate into a powerful position but knew that without a substantial shift it could not prevent itself from a different but inevitable train wreck. So what did they do? They shifted gears and paused just long enough to drag on the remnants of the conservative train wreck. The problem is that as the new party evolved with a new PC bent it twisted back to that same over powered under controlled train.

Although I am a dyed in the wool Liberal I wonder if Chretien was wrong and it was not the “right track” that is needed but the right gear. Do we need to pause and let the Greens join in the Party?

Recently there has been a great deal of Blog Action and news on the Brenda Martin Case while I do not like the Mexican form of justice (or Lack of) I think this issue may come back and politically bight us in the backside.

The more I read about the case the more it stinks What I know of con-men/women is they tend to travel in groups and these groups are really good at self preservation. I think there is more to Ms Martin than meets the eye, and although there may be little or no proof that she is guilty but this does not mean that she is innocent. What most people do not know is that there is a considerable amount of missing money and the Mexican government may just be waiting out Ms Martin to see if she knows where this cash is and will use it to leverage leniency as she did when she turned in another of the member of the group to authorities.

If you want to read some of this from an insiders view slide on over to Roger Harrison’s website and your image of Ms Martin may change somewhat.

(http://www.thewantednovel.com/brenda_martin.html)

It seems that a number of Canadian’s share my concerns as I recently posted some comment’s on the CBC website, what is interesting is that out of 308 comments mine were in the top ten most recommended and the first one I posted was the #1 recommended post.

That said the media is flaunting Ms Martin as the innocent victim, my concern is that they might be in for a whole heap of embarrassment when Ms Martin’s act comes crumbling down.

117 recommended

BillArends wrote:

Posted 2008/04/22

Normally I am on the side of the accused, when it comes to Mexican justice, but something here smells so bad it would send skunks running.

She looks like she is acting and to be honest she is not good at it.

84 recommended

BillArends wrote:Posted 2008/04/22

Here is an interesting piece of news. According to Roger Harrison a novelist who spent time with Alyn Waage and this crew of Miscreants none of them are all that innocent while Brenda Martin was little more than a cook according to Harrison who supports her as innocent, he has a few interesting things to say about her.

“Rebecca Roth is also serving time in the same jail as Brenda. Rebecca worked for Alyn as well. Brenda was arrested in February of ‘06, Rebecca in March. According to Rebecca’s sister, Brenda gave Rebecca up in exchange for leniency.” (http://www.thewantednovel.com/brenda_martin.html)

I suspect that Ms Martin will do most of anything to avoid prison. Like I said before this whole situation stinks and any political party that wades into this sewage is going to come off smelling

like it.

Yesterday the House of commons passed a motion calling for the flag on the peace tower to be lowered whenever a Canadian soldier dies abroad. As a non-binding motion the conservatives have decided to ignore this motion and continue to lower the flag only for politicians and on remembrance day. Of course the death of a politician is more important than a soldier. A politician risks his reputation for Canada, a soldier only risks his life.Jason Kenney, secretary of state for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, told CTV’s Canada AM on Wednesday that the current policy, which sees the flag lowered for every soldier’s death, hurts the flag’s status as a symbol of national pride. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080401/flag_peacetower_080402/20080402?hub=TopStories)

Its Seal hunting time again in Canada. Seal hunting is a marginal if not somewhat vain and antiquated industry. Personally I find it as acceptable a means of earning a living as growing tobacco. So in a nut shell I am saying it is an industry that should die out. I don’t think we should waste a nickle defending it or abolishing it. No money to prop up the industry and no money to abolish it. Just let it die , as I am sure it will.

But one thing that annoys me is that people keep saying that the anti seal hunters are taking away the living of sealers. To that I say; So what ? There are many trades that have died out. What about Slaving, Whaling, Wheelwrights, legal drug den attendants, (yes they were once legal) spittoon manufacturing and to some degree coopering (barrel making). Life goes on and people adapt, much quicker than the environment.

I doubt that seals will ever become extinct, they are pretty hardy creatures, but if an animal is hunted to extinction it is gone never to come back. The human race didn’t die out because we stopped making wagon wheels. When I was 37 I went back to school and went from being a building janitor to an analyst. I know many people that changed jobs people adapt well the environment doesn’t.

Do I feel sorry for sealers that will lose their jobs? Yes sure, but they will live, no one said life was fair. I think the seals have a tougher time, at least we don’t have to worry about some 20 foot giant coming along to beat us to death with a club.

Just a quick note. Recently The Brookings Institution* a prestigious U.S. think-tank proposed a common market for the Great lakes area of North America. It noted that
“If it stood alone as a country . . . it would be the second biggest economic unit on Earth, second only to the U.S. economy as a whole and larger than Japan, the rising powers of China and India, and the traditional heavyweights of Germany and the U.K.”

Canada.com went so far as to say that the “Think-tank call[ed] for a United States of Great Lakes.” This is a gross exaggeration of the Think Tank’s position but it is not a bad idea.

I would take this one step further and say, that since many of the states that border the great lakes tend to be Democrat blue states and the Democrats tend to resemble Canadians politically, that rather than forming a new United States of Great Lakes, why not just have them join Canada. Hey, universal health care, improved welfare and stronger beer (not to mention better hockey)

Come join the True North Strong and Free eh?

*The Brookings Institution is a non-profit public policy research organization based in Washington, D.C.

Many

Years ago I was on a blog and debating a topic I have long since forgotten. However during the comment conversation, one participant noted that Arthur C Clarke was not much of a writer and was likely dead so we shouldn’t be expecting any new Sci Fi from him. I had follow Mr Clarke’s career for some time, and of the Sci fi genre he was one of the best so I responded in defence and noted that he was still alive and living in Sri Lanka.

Shortly after this I got an Email from Mr. Clark that read “thanks for defending my humble works, and yes you are correct I am most definitely NOT dead.” (Roughly quoted as I can remember it) I checked the ISP and it was from Sri Lanka.

That said Unfortunately Mr Clark has now passed away at the age of ninety in his adopted home of Sri Lanka.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080320/clarke_burial_080320/20080320?hub=Entertainment

Before the Iraq war On Page 4 of the National Intelligence Estimate, dealing with terrorism sent to the Whitehouse on Oct 1 2002 The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:
• had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,
• was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,
• and was not a terrorist threat to America.
George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that “The stated policy of the United States is regime change… However, if [Hussein] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed.”
The invasion happened and for months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on “good, solid intelligence.”
Later Colin Powell said on MTP, “it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.”
Weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991, which proved the National Intelligence Estimate to be correct.
Either Bush was stupid in believing bad intel over good intel or he lied I suspect that because as Bush stated “The stated policy of the United States is regime change” that he lied.

So should anyone trust his word?

The leases which were issued in the late 1970s were farely decent. However, since then this area has exploded with population and have turned into prime real estate. So the leases paid by companies like McDonald’s to the city for their restaurant opposite the Royal Ontario Museum now seem pretty paltry. McDonald’s now has a honey of a deal by paying a mear $15,500 annually ($1291 per month) for decent sized McDonald’s restaurant on prime land across from a major children’s attraction (the Royal Ontario Museum), easy subway access from the Museum Subway station and St. George Subway stations) and just down the street from the tony Yorkville. In fact I doubt that a Yorkville bought Gucci bag would sell for less than McDonald’s is paying for a monthly lease payment.

McDonald’s, eying the contract renewal within it’s 99 year lease with the city, made an offer of $3.38 million to purchase the property from the City of Toronto. The City had some options:

1. Accept the bid from McDonalds.

2. Reject the bid and propose a counteoffer to McDonald’s to purchase the property.

3. Negotiate with McDonald’s for a higher lease payment.

Option one would mean the City of Toronto would be basically giving the property to McDonald’s for peanuts without realizing that much of a return. This is because, as the Toronto Star noted in it’s article: “Some estimates had suggested the site could be worth $7 million to $9 million,…”

Option two would mean the city might be able get more money from McDonald’s for the property. However, the city is constrained by the 99 year lease with McDonald’s, so the city cannot put the property on the open market in order to get the best value. So really McDonald’s holds all the cards in this option.

Option three city staff proposed to raise the lease money to $195,000 per year ($16,250 per month). McDonald’s, however, would obviously want a lower lease payment and negotiations would, thus, drag on a for some time.

The city chose Option one and sold the property to McDonald’s $3.38 million for the property. Now considering all the constraints the original 99 year lease had placed on the city, one would think this deal was fairly good. Well the deal could eventually get much worse and leave the Toronto taxpayers feeling as bad as waking up the next morning after consuming one too many Big Mac’s.

McDonald’s, after closing the deal with the city, could turn around and sell the property for a much higher value to a developer who owns the surrounding properties. The developer could then merge all the properties acquired together and build a significant condo or business development on the prime land with a brand new McDonald’s restaurant on the ground floor. So in the end, McDonald’s would realize from the sale of this property by the city about six million dollars and a brand new modern restaurant facility. The developer, at the end of this deal, would be able to build the twenty something floor condo or business tower as well have a coveted ground floor tenant in McDonald’s who would be counted on for lease payments well into the future.

The City taxpayer, who has been milked for a 3.25% 2008 property tax increase and major user fee and other tax increases, would loose millions of dollars in what the property could have been sold for. City council for years has been begging for dollars from the provincial and federal governments as well as cutting services, letting infrastructure crumble and eying even more service cuts. However actions like selling out to McDonald’s instead of attempting to drive a hard bargain have cost the city millions of dollars. As it has been said by many of the more fiscally conservative councillors on Toronto city council, Toronto has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Except in this case, there does seem to be a revenue problem, the deal failed to get the revenue it should of before selling out to McDonald’s. So instead of city councillors getting the equivalent of steak to eat on this deal, they received a #3 Big Mac Meal with a fries and medium coke, no upsize please!