Quote:
Originally Posted by gasman
I can't believe people are taking the city's side on this, this is completely crazy to me. Do you think because someone has commercial property they have an endless amount of cash or credit to just "realize the opportunity".
It is their property, the zoning hasn't changed, why should they have to accept anything.
They owned a property, the zoning allows the building, the owners have insurance. The insurance will replace the building - same as before not something different, not something bigger. And you guys are ok with the city just coming in and saying, "actually we changed our mind, you can't rebuild the same building, you need to come up with a few extra million and see this as an opportunity to invest." People should be outraged - this is private property, not public property.
If the city wants to change their mind, they need to make the owners completely whole, buying the lot at full fair market value as if the building were still there in the same shape.
|
If this is how redevelopment works now I'm going to blowtorch the entire north side of 16th Avenue from 4th Street NE to 10th Street NW with a special detour to charbroil Peters for making eastbound 16th a pain in the a** on weekends.
All kidding aside, when I lived in Toronto there were more than a few mysterious fires that led to opportunistic condo developments. Not saying anything about the origins of the fire in this case but maybe curb the central planning impulse a little or look to buy these properties out and resell to developers if you're that committed to some grand vision.