Comment 84456

By colours and lights (anonymous) | Posted December 27, 2012 at 10:07:47 in reply to Comment 84399

My neighbour's house stands out from the neighbourhood with large opposing colours and LED lighting and a deteriorating porch. Shall we request it be torn down?

Just because someone screwed some ugly signs to a building does not make it "rotting" and "decayed".

Look at the spec photos from inside the buildings. The worst they could muster was some peeling paint.

Many buildings have been brought back from MUCH worse condition. No tenants, no heat, no walls, no floors? NO PROBLEM. FOr a real developer, that is.

While they may technically be private property, these buildings are in the public interest as their condition and existence affects all other downtown businesses, property owners and visitors.

Would you support this:

If Blanchard does not have the economic fortitude to fix them up, he should be required to list them at fair market rates for a certain amount of time before tearing them down.

Obviously this concept is but a dream, but to me it is reasonable. There are people who would buy these buildings if they were made available.

This guy has ONE goal: amassing vacant land for resale.

He doesn't give a shit about Hamilton, he doesn't give a shit about downtown and he doesn't give a shit about you. He doesn't give a shit about our already-too-high taxes, he doesn't give a shit about bringing more people to live here.

Why the hell you want to defend him is a total mystery to me.

He has a track record of tearing buildings down, sprinkled with the odd renovation (which is spiced up almost always with stucco). He is a lowest common denominator glorified real estate agent.

His plan is demolition. THERE IS NO PLAN FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT SO STOP TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE THERE IS!!!!

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds