Raise the Hammer
As of this morning, the parking lot at 20 Jackson Street West, on the site of a recently demolished office building, is still open to the public. Two signs advertise parking by the day or by the hour.
Parking lot at 20 Jackson Street West (Image Credit: Jon Dalton)
David Blanchard of property owner Wilson-Blanchard claimed in a Spectator article that the parking was provided for tenants in the neighbouring office buildings, which he also owns (presumably 25 Main Street West). As such, Blanchard argued the new lot is exempt from the City's bylaw prohibiting new surface parking in the downtown core.
However, the public parking signs clearly indicate that the lot is for public use, and not dedicated to the tenants of Wilson-Blanchard's other properties.
This claim itself has been discredited by RTH writer Nicholas Kevlahan in examining the text of the parking bylaw, and at last night's Council meeting, city staff confirmed that the parking lot does contravene the zoning bylaw.
Whether or not Wilson-Blanchard's defense held any water, what we have clearly before us now is a willful contravention of the City's rules and a brazen defiance by the owners of the City's and community's efforts to rein in their harmful practices.
By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted December 12, 2013 at 17:40:52
I wonder if this is one of those cases where the city will just hold off acting until someone files an official "complaint" or whether they will be proactive in taking action.
By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted December 12, 2013 at 19:16:39
This seems like a Wilson-Blanchard consolidation strategy. Since they own and manage so much office property, they can end leases knowing the tenants aren't going far. This way they cut down on vacancies and tax expenses without losing much if any rental income. It's a sound business decision, but a less destructive way to divest oneself of surplus property is to sell it.
By jeffreygeoffrey (registered) | Posted December 12, 2013 at 21:21:53 in reply to Comment 95906
So what now? City staff has confirmed the parking lot is in violation of the bylaw. Any ideas what next steps might be?
By jeffreygeoffrey (registered) | Posted December 13, 2013 at 11:34:39 in reply to Comment 95929
I presume the lot will continue to operate in the interim.
Why?
By Noted (anonymous) | Posted December 13, 2013 at 14:36:35
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/city-charges-developer-with-operating-illegal-parking-lot-1.2462828
By Noted (anonymous) | Posted December 13, 2013 at 14:39:04 in reply to Comment 95967
https://twitter.com/Mattatthespec/status/411557759125975040
By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 13, 2013 at 15:05:20 in reply to Comment 95971
this is awesome
By kevlahan (registered) | Posted December 13, 2013 at 15:18:11 in reply to Comment 95976
Why can't they re-inspect tomorrow? It's not like it takes a month for the owner to stop allowing cars to park there!
And it is pretty clear that WB has no intention of complying with either this order, or the heritage designation of his Gore Park buildings.
I predict he will take the City to the OMB over the parking (like Vrancor did) and then fail to show when his appeal is actually heard, thus buying himself months of extra parking revenue.
On the Gore Park buildings WB is going to argue that, just like the James St Baptist Church, these buildings are "shot" "in imminent danger of collapse" "a threat to the public" "unreasonably expensive to renovate".
This is just round 2.
Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-12-13 15:22:11
By jeffreygeoffrey (registered) | Posted December 14, 2013 at 11:43:03 in reply to Comment 95955
So, according to the CBC article, Wilson-Blanchard has until the end of December – but actually into the new year because the city won't check until after the holidays – to stop running this illegal parking lot. (Which, they demolished a building to create, but that's another story.) But until then, keep on going!
Kudos Ryan and Raise the Hammer for bringing this story to light and staying on it.
I wonder if more can be done to stop it now. Wilson-Blanchard has clearly flouted the law. Councillor Farr said this in May: "They would never be able to put a surface parking spot there. As you know, we have a moratorium. I would never endorse a surface lot if they asked for an exemption."
http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1947/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...
By you aren't (anonymous) | Posted December 18, 2013 at 00:03:04 in reply to Comment 95973
Not really, we don't have enough surface parking downtown. How am I supposed to shop at your bike store if I can't park my car somewhere?
By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 18, 2013 at 09:51:03 in reply to Comment 96075
Bike Hounds would have waaaay more customers if Jeff Feswick had demolished treble hall and put a parking lot there
By highwater (registered) | Posted December 18, 2013 at 10:29:30 in reply to Comment 96075
O/T, but I hope that photo was taken on a Sunday afternoon. What a tragic waste of space. Even for a Sunday that's sickening.
By highwater (registered) | Posted December 18, 2013 at 10:59:10 in reply to Comment 96086
That's crazy. Yet when it comes to metered street parking, a 15% vacancy rate is considered ideal. What gives?
By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 18, 2013 at 11:36:28 in reply to Comment 96086
You have to put lots of unused parking spots around the "real" ones at the mall, so that even those parked farthest away still feel like they "got a good spot" and are in a good mood as they go in to shop!
By MORE PARKING! (anonymous) | Posted December 18, 2013 at 18:24:52 in reply to Comment 96075
Yeah, but I need one right near city hall and his bike store so that I can hit up both with minimal walking or cycling. Boo to shutting down parking. Knock down all buildings in the core! Pave it over and let me park wherever I want, whenever I want!
You must be logged in to comment.
There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
