Comment 92214

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted September 16, 2013 at 13:47:19 in reply to Comment 92206

Yes, but as you've discussed, removing the breaks for vacating means overhauling the Ontario Municipal act and you'd have an easier time getting water from a stone given the current provincial polical climate and how entrenched that legislation appears to be. The later, well, we do have differing opinions on that subject, I think there's less tax incentive and more labour/redevelopment costs at work there that makes demolition more cost effective in most cases. I also feel demolition is sometimes needed. Not always, but sometimes needed, espcially in the intrests of building gaurunteed higher density development.

However, one part that is completely bang on, that the city REALLY needs to get it's act together on is how much sprawl we are subsidizing and pushing for (despite the province requesting sprawl be curbed) instead of subsidizing higher density core development. This is espcially shocking since we see how well refusing to sprawl out has worked Waterloo/Kitchener.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-09-16 13:51:39

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds