Comment 84469

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 27, 2012 at 14:31:15 in reply to Comment 84459

Woah woah woah - let's slow down a bit.

How are these buildings "a hazard to yourself and neighbours"? That is hyperbolic nonsense and you know it. They are not hazardous.

We have basically no property standards bylaw. But if we did, if a building "does not meet property standards", is the answer to tear it down?

Blanchard bought these in I believe 1999. They have had operational businesses in them for most of the time since. They are not vacant, nor crumbling.

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain building safety. And if the owner doesn't, are we to reward him with a demolition permit and a tax break?

Why are you defending this move? He has no investors and no anchor tenant. I interviewed him for Hamilton Magazine and from his own mouth he told me he has "no real plan there" and that he would like to see "a grocery store or a Target or... I don't know" as an anchor tenant. Yes his list of prospective tenants includes the phrase "I don't know".

So we have to assume that the "development plan" is not actually going to happen. At least not in the foreseeable future.

Do you really believe that an empty lot in the interim is the best thing for downtown?

Are you arguing just for the sake of the fight?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds