The only logical assumption here is that they have much to hide from the Public.When a government behaves this way, it is time to toss them out at the first opportunity.When the government changes next, a VERY thorough Auditing is going to be required of every action this government has taken. I expect MANY conflicts of interest will be found.
Key Words that must be in the Sales Agreement - "Vacant Possession"Yes, he should have inspected the property or appointed an agent to do so.This would have alleviated this pain for him, but not the issue of squatters. This is different from someone who was previously a legitimate tenant. I find the whole concept of "squatter's rights" in such a case highly problematical. I understand they were looking for shelter, but that should not supersede the legitmate owners' rights to their property. This should not be an LTB issue, this is a trespass issue (in my opinion) and the police should have acted.
As a ratepayer I am NOT willing to subsidise Developers building for-profit housing. Existing homeowners had the development charges baked into the price their paid for their homes. It not not fair to ask them to pay the development charges as well for future home owners as well as the ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure.I am willing to do that for NON-PROFIT housing, ONLY to bring the cost of that down.
Mixed on about face. I have NEVER liked taking existing lanes and turning them into bike lanes. I too think multiuse/multipath SEPERATED lanes are the correct answer. Cyclists have said they don't feel safe with just a painted line separating them from motorized traffic, so the current lanes are not used in many cases.I do wish this epiphany had happened earlier on before the took the cheap/easy route on some major routes.We do need to understand that the correct way IS more expensive, and in some places not practical.
So, pretty much a carpetbagger candidate. Claiming Guelph because he went to University here. But I note that clearly he left after graduation. So it hadn't stolen his heart at that point. Likely what did was the Conservative Party telling him he would NOT get the Brampton nomination and offering him Guelph as a consolation prize.Won't be getting my vote. As policy I would never vote for a parachute candidate. Maybe if he's still here for the subsequent election I'd consider him a viable choice.
Seems clear that they just don't pay for themselves. The additional business doesn't cover the costs.I am one that never found the downtown street patio a great experience. Noise, smell etc. are turn offs for me. A regular patio is a different thing. A nice screened/sheltered patio can be an oasis.I have said before if they want to pedestrianize the downtown core, then it needs to be done properly, and that won't be cheap. They may have to move the bus depot and train station. I am talking about replacing asphalt with paving stones, etc. Store deliveries and servicing early morning or night. I have seen it done properly in Europe and then it's a great experience.
Heritage Designation against the owner's wishes is manifestly unfair. It imposes limitations and additional costs that are of no benefit to the owner and therefore disrupts their ownership rights. The City/Heritage Committee bear no costs for what they impose.My suggestion for fairness and natural justice, is that if the City chooses to impose a Heritage Designation against the owner's objection, then the City must also offer to purchase the property at either current assessed value AS IS, or the purchase price plus costs that the current owner paid for the property, whichever is greater.
Forcing people out of rent controlled units is one way people can become homeless.Here they would be looking at an increase of $1000 over their current rent. People on low/fixed incomes can't absorb that.
And why would Holiday Inn build affordable housing? It's a private project using private money on private land to create a business return on that investment.
So, the HART site will be where the Safe Consumption site is now.Downtown, where they forced all the homeless people AWAY from.I guess the ones that made it into Norfolk Manor won't be too bad off, but the ones that moved their camps away are now going to have to figure out how to travel there to access services. Maybe our Mayor will supply them some bus passes.
It DOES include parking."There are 825 parking spaces being proposed, as well as 563 spaces for bicycle parking."You may have noticed taller building in the area already (Metalworx, etc.)Guelph is legally required to grow (ask Dougie) and this is a nice chunk of housing to help meet the demand. The sooner they can get going the better!
They need to add a display board at each Camera site that Indicate "Speed Violation Detected, Ticket will be issued"Then people will have immediate feedback and know where and when they messed up. The DRIVER who was speeding will know it, which might not be the registered owner.
Well, I guess it depends on what value people put on their time and if they have a deadline to be somewhere (like a reservation or appointment) as to how long they would keep circling. For myself since I'm only going there for service calls, proximity is more important than cost if I need to bring in equipment or materials.Free parking is a benefit to the businesses. Truly a lot of people would forgo the visit the downtown if they had to pay for parking if it was not essential. That's human psychology. If I have a choice of booking a restaurant where I have to pay for parking or where I can park for free, I would lean towards the free parking other things being equal.I'm not advocating one way or the other, but I suspect restaurants and entertainment venues downtown are going to take a hit.
This amounts to trying to sweep the issue under the rug. Move them where most won't see them and there won't be so much pressure to actually fix the homeless issue.Most of the resources the homeless access are in the downtown core. They will now be a few miles walk from them.I will not be voting for the Councillors and Mayor that passed this. I will support the ones who voted against it.
"Reasonable Person"It is a Charter violation. There are court cases of similar actions that judged it so. This is why he was asking Doug Ford to provide cover with the "Not Withstanding" clause. Tresspassing and squatting have different legality when it's "Public Spaces."https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/homeless-encampments-legality-public-land-1.7317621#:~:text=Meanwhile%2C%20judges%20have%20ruled%20that,housing%22%20is%20in%20an%20encampment.
So, how much longer until the barn demolishes itself from neglect? Another winter do it? Maybe a couple of good windy storms. The developer appears to be 100% against preservation in any form for the building since it would cut into their profits. This would be a really bad example to let succeed.