Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

And who's that exactly?

Pedestrians and LRT users in the area, and cost to the city(taxpayers) to accommodate a drive through while making it as safe as possible.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by getbak

Why not? The drive-thru there was well-separated from the street and while it handled a steady flow of vehicles, it never backed up onto the street.

I might be misremembering then. I didn’t even think there was a drive-thru there.

[The Yen Man]

So basically for the sake a proposed vision of the area that could be 20+ years down the road, it's justifiable for the city to eff over a business owner who's done all the proper applications and processes to rebuild their business after an unfortunate accident? The city's own policy allows for the submitted structure to be built, but they're still going to deny them based on their feelings of what should be on the site? Then what's the point of even having zoning permits in the first place and set rules for these permits? Just let the city dictate what can and can't be built depending on personal feelings.

It honestly blows my mind that there are some who actually side with the city on this.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I might be misremembering then. I didn’t even think there was a drive-thru there.

There's never been more than one or two cars in it (which could argue the need for it but that's a business decision in my mind). Unless the greenline increases its vehicle customer 10 fold, there really would be no worry about the drive thru. Especially as the entrance for it, if they needed overflow (which they never would) would go down 18th avenue and not centre street.

Again, that's assuming the development is similar to the one burned down.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

So basically for the sake a proposed vision of the area that could be 20+ years down the road, it's justifiable for the city to eff over a business owner who's done all the proper applications and processes to rebuild their business after an unfortunate accident? The city's own policy allows for the submitted structure to be built, but they're still going to deny them based on their feelings of what should be on the site? Then what's the point of even having zoning permits in the first place and set rules for these permits? Just let the city dictate what can and can't be built depending on personal feelings.

It honestly blows my mind that there are some who actually side with the city on this.

Maybe I am swayed by 2 things. One that my in laws are Korean immigrants that came here with nothing and built a tidy little business and are retired. I got to watch what owning that little shop to them meant in a way someone like Druh never will.

Two, Druh is a self absorbed a$$hat and has been for a long time. Reading how she is trying to influence this permit is no surprise. She has her vision and anything that goes against she will mess with. I have grown to despise the lady as her indifference to the small people I have seen and experienced first hand.

You know what is going to happen here? A couple who moved here to make a life, probably worked their tails off, no vacation for years to get a little back, now has Druh screwing with them. A woman who I am sure really can't tell you she really knows what immigrants go through. (oh she will try though)

The result will be no development until these folks run low on personal money, and then a monied developer will come along with a low ball offer that they will need to take. Then the developer will build exactly what Druh wants and the developer will pocket the money. The only loser will be the immigrant family.

and here I thought Druh was the super woke one?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Pedestrians and LRT users in the area, and cost to the city(taxpayers) to accommodate a drive through while making it as safe as possible.

LOL okay. It's a Dairy Queen not a Tim Hortons. There won't be cars lined up to the street.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

So basically for the sake a proposed vision of the area that could be 20+ years down the road, it's justifiable for the city to eff over a business owner who's done all the proper applications and processes to rebuild their business after an unfortunate accident? The city's own policy allows for the submitted structure to be built, but they're still going to deny them based on their feelings of what should be on the site? Then what's the point of even having zoning permits in the first place and set rules for these permits? Just let the city dictate what can and can't be built depending on personal feelings.

It honestly blows my mind that there are some who actually side with the city on this.

Clearly you have limited exposure to the Druh Farrell bootlicker club.

[PsYcNeT]

Okay so I don't really have an opinion on this because I fully expect the greenline to never be built, but how is this decision "ideological" in any way?

[Mull]

I am pretty pro-density but this just looks shady as heck from the City.

On skyrise there is some talk the DQ owners don't even own the land, so they won't see the economic gain from the proposed development, only the loss from the lack of drive through, not sure if legit.

Just shady work from the City.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Okay so I don't really have an opinion on this because I fully expect the greenline to never be built, but how is this decision "ideological" in any way?

Yeah that was bad wording by me after reading it. I edited my post.

[Cappy]

I certainly didn't say "tough luck" when i responded, i'm of the opinion that the issue of future use is one that should be looked at.

I don't know what the insurance company would say in this case, because there is something there that could affect the outcome on the franchisee.

This could have easily been a case where the DQ burnt down and the landowner said "we are going to sell to a developer" or "we are going to build something else" and this whole thing wouldnt be an issue.

If the landowner wants to sell me that land without the benefit of the development potential, then yes i will purchase it. If they are saying they don't want to develop the land for the next 40 years that new DQ sits there, but want to sell it to me at an inflated price for its potential then I would not buy it

Ultimately, the decision on what to do next with the land if the appeal is defeated will be up to the property owners. Gordon said there isn’t the ability to develop a multi-storey mixed-use building on the site, nor much interest.

“We just are not, cannot, and are not interested in developing it as the city wanted us to do,” Gordon said.

This whole thing honestly sucks for the family. They are being used by both sides in this case.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by gasman

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.

City buying a lot at current building market value, using its power to upzone it to sell it for profit to a developer is the kind of cutthroat attitude missing at the city.

[You Need a Thneed]

The DQ site is 2 blocks from the city’s 5 billion green line investment.

Absolutely the city should be fighting for higher density in those locations. It’s already allowing way to much low density stuff being built next to future LRT stations, even now.

Everything within 2 blocks of an existing or future LRT station should be 6 storey height minimum.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Mull

I am pretty pro-density but this just looks shady as heck from the City.

On skyrise there is some talk the DQ owners don't even own the land, so they won't see the economic gain from the proposed development, only the loss from the lack of drive through, not sure if legit.

Just shady work from the City.

Correct, the DQ owners were leasing the building. Unfortunately, for them they are losing out regardless of the decision.

[Cappy]

Now all i can think about is if that Shell Station on 17th Avenue disappeared...

(do not take that as incitement to arson)

This will certainly be an interesting case the the SDAB

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Maybe I am swayed by 2 things. One that my in laws are Korean immigrants that came here with nothing and built a tidy little business and are retired. I got to watch what owning that little shop to them meant in a way someone like Druh never will.

Two, Druh is a self absorbed a$$hat and has been for a long time. Reading how she is trying to influence this permit is no surprise. She has her vision and anything that goes against she will mess with. I have grown to despise the lady as her indifference to the small people I have seen and experienced first hand.

You know what is going to happen here? A couple who moved here to make a life, probably worked their tails off, no vacation for years to get a little back, now has Druh screwing with them. A woman who I am sure really can't tell you she really knows what immigrants go through. (oh she will try though)

The result will be no development until these folks run low on personal money, and then a monied developer will come along with a low ball offer that they will need to take. Then the developer will build exactly what Druh wants and the developer will pocket the money. The only loser will be the immigrant family.

and here I thought Druh was the super woke one?

I'm with you on this, especially point 1. Having seen my parents work their fingers to the bone for 20 years operating a small mom and pop restaurant to earn a decent living, I can imagine having to deal with an accident like a fire is already devastating and stressful enough. But having gone through all the proper channels and processes to get permits going for a rebuild, only to be essentially used by politicians as a political grandstanding tool is just sickening. Politicians like DF don't give a crap about the struggles of small business owners. They just want to leave some sort of grand legacy behind so they can be known to be the ones who's spearheaded it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The DQ site is 2 blocks from the city’s 5 billion green line investment.

Absolutely the city should be fighting for higher density in those locations. It’s already allowing way to much low density stuff being built next to future LRT stations, even now.

Everything within 2 blocks of an existing or future LRT station should be 6 storey height minimum.

Then the city should buy the land at fair market value rather than bullying and boning around land and business owners who have a completely compliant proposal running through the permitting process.

[BMStrikesAgain]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Clearly you have limited exposure to the Druh Farrell bootlicker club.

how badly did she reject you in high school?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

A drive-thru that would have existed had there not been a fire though.

If it's near enough "brick-by-brick" replacement, then I don't agree with the decision. I don't think it's wrong to get these guys back to where they were prior to the fire.

The Development Board treated it as a new application and not a replacement, which is interesting. Whether or not that was right is up to the SDAB i suspect. Tough to know what modernisations they included.

The SDAB should be public record so we should find out in a couple weeks

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by BMStrikesAgain

how badly did she reject you in high school?

I've never been into older women. Was always a Wooderson kind of guy.