Comment 74806

By A Spire Higher (anonymous) | Posted February 27, 2012 at 23:43:17 in reply to Comment 74751

It may seem arcane, but he's a developer, right?

Think of the setback as a property line or an easement.

If you were in the position of trying to rebuild your worldly fortunes and reassert your bonafides as a Serious Developer, wouldn't you be a little curious about where you stood, literally as well as figuratively?

And if, like Mr. Stinson, you had a long history of getting screwed over the small print, wouldn't you be a litt OCD about all the Ps and Qs?

It's certainly not the lone excuse, and it's not even intended to be a very good excuse, but neither is the city alone to blame any time someone gets buggered over someone's ignorance of the fact that the city has ridiculous zoning and a black sense of humour with regard to urban planning.

I'm sure some people are getting a little tired of "the setback nonsense" being dragged out every time Mr. Stinson cues the tiny violins.

The fact that the head of the property's investment consortium had his wings clipped by the OSC in August 2009 was, to my mind at least, a more significant disincentive. (The setback story came out a year later.)

I stand by my One King West comment. If there was sufficient will and vision and private sector investment interest in the core, the setback would be regarded as a challenge, not a crippling blow.

Instead, we have what is starting to look like capitulation to the status quo. The fact that these are mostly 300 square foot investment properties (ie. rental apartments, 33 a plate) may also have impacted their investment appeal. Perhaps not in an entirely positive manner.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds