Comment 123224

By andrew.martin (registered) | Posted July 05, 2018 at 10:14:16

"No developer is going seriously to enter into dialogue and negotiation with us until we have had the heritage designation issue resolved."

Have you even tried? This article is a long meander through congregational history with a frisson of human rights somehow linked to a statute of general application that prejudices the church about as much as the highway traffic act does. Does the church also lament the zoning by-law and official plan? Is the church opposed to the municipal act? All of these acts also limit what the church can do with its lands. How does the church reconcile the prejudice of the heritage act with the benefits given to churches through the assessment act? And yet after all that, it doesn't seem like the church has done a single investigation into all of the designated churches that have been repurposed. Nor has the church apparently considered the development of the site as a mixed use building with rental housing. Hidden under all this seems to be basically the same concern every other developer has with heritage: that it makes things really complicated, a little more expensive, and how dare the government tell me what to do with my land. Guess what? That's called planning. Hire a planner or partner with a developer. This isn't 1990. That stretch of Main is going to absolutely take off in the next few decades and where the church sees impediment they should see opportunity.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds