Comment 527

By mark (registered) | Posted May 28, 2006 at 10:46:25

The main issue that irks me about this whole Lister mess is the not so much that there is no clear alternative to LIUNA's proposal, but the circumstances that led to the limited alternatives for this once grand structure.

LIUNA has intentionally allowed the building to rot ever since they assumed ownership in 1999. This deliberate act was to eliminate all other options besides demolition and reconstruction. LIUNA has neglected the building for the better part of a decade, which has compunded the overall decay of the neighbourhood. This kind of behaviour should be punished by the city, not rewarded with a $30 million dollar handout.

We set a dangerous precedent when we allow a landlord to rot out a prominent address, then award them for the neighbourhood's decline (which they have been a contributor)with a multi-year sweetheart leasing deal that goes untendered (again against official city policy).

Bottom line, if LIUNA wants to demolish Lister against the recommendation of LACAC, and given Lister's present condition at the hands of LIUNA, then we have to suck it up and watch another historic site crumble (just like the Tivoli down the road). However, this has to be done on their dime alone, and not mine (or any other Hamilton taxpayers' dime). If LIUNA wants to destroy the building, then the City should withdraw from the lease proposal. The city's leasing contract should be awarded to good corporate citizens who have not allowed their properties to decay.

What great power does LIUNA hold over this council? Why are so many bylaws being ignored in their favour? Why are we giving such a sweetheart leasing deal to them without proper tendering? Why is this Lister demolision being pressed forward in June of an election year? Who's the piper, and who's bankrolling him?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools