[AlvinofDiaspar]

Say, like a big bronze statue of Captain John himself? (ducks quickly...)

Nah, a copy of the Yelp and Restaurantica reviews of the expired restaurant, presented in stone, Ten Commandments style?

AoD

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

Nah, a copy of the Yelp and Restaurantica reviews of the expired restaurant, presented in stone, Ten Commandments style?

AoD

Two stone tablets, in the arms of Captain John, standing like Moses at the foot of Yonge St. I'm sure the seagulls would like it.

 

[Tuscani01]

^

So these, with Captain John's face and tears instead of spit? We're onto something!

http://www.maryosbazaar.com

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tuscani:

Go further and look up Manneken Pis instead. Not suggesting that we should be that cruel - the object in question is removed, and we can/should close the saga on a high note I think.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

Captain John's original ship finally pulls out after 180 years. What? From link.

Ship pulls out after 180 years

Okay, just kiddin'.

 

[BB ON]

The foot of Yonge looks so much better without it. Not something that looks missed:

 

[DSC]

Not that I think it was not money well spent but I saw today in WT documents that WT paid $232,000 towards the cost of removing the hulk. See

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...ly_project_reporting___september_9_2015_1.pdf

 

[hawc]

Not that I think it was not money well spent but I saw today in WT documents that WT paid $232,000 towards the cost of removing the hulk.

Hopefully WT got the ruling class condo builders to reimburse the working class taxpayers fully for this expense. If not it's a clear example of the insidious class warfare that happens daily in this town. Very concerning.

 

[ksun]

Hopefully WT got the ruling class condo builders to reimburse the working class taxpayers fully for this expense. If not it's a clear example of the insidious class warfare that happens daily in this town. Very concerning.

Why? I fail to see that logic. Removal of the ship is not for the benefit of "condo builders", but for the city and its people, which fairly include those who can afford to live near the site.

So we can use tax money to build subsidized housing for the poor, but for high end condos, it is all of a sudden wrong? Not to mention condos won't be built on the water the ship used to sit.

The ship was an eyesore. I am happy to pay for it to be removed, although I don't live by the lake.

 

[hawc]

I fail to see that logic. Removal of the ship is not for the benefit of "condo builders", but for the city and its people, which fairly include those who can afford to live near the site.

This world can be divided into two sides. Working class and ruling class. They are always at odds with each other and one benefits at the others expense. There is nothing that is mutually beneficial to both. In this case the ship was owned by a poor working class immigrant from a former soviet block country. He operated his small business successfully until the ruling class in the form of wealthy condo developers built that huge monstrosity next to huge small ship. They then put pressure on the governing class (part of the ruling class) to force him out through a series of legal schemes. No one in the working class can afford to live in or around this development. The ship being gone benefits not the working class (who could get a decent meal there) or the owner of the ship (who now has no means for production) but only the wealthy ruling class. It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The ship being gone benefits not the working class (who could get a decent meal there) or the owner of the ship (who now has no means for production) but only the wealthy ruling class. It's really not that hard to understand.

Bad parody alert. Well, I am sure the working class got its' share of $50 Lobster Thermidor from this place. And really the so called Marxist analysis was cute - ten years ago.

AoD

 

[ksun]

This world can be divided into two sides. Working class and ruling class. They are always at odds with each other and one benefits at the others expense. There is nothing that is mutually beneficial to both. In this case the ship was owned by a poor working class immigrant from a former soviet block country. He operated his small business successfully until the ruling class in the form of wealthy condo developers built that huge monstrosity next to huge small ship. They then put pressure on the governing class (part of the ruling class) to force him out through a series of legal schemes. No one in the working class can afford to live in or around this development. The ship being gone benefits not the working class (who could get a decent meal there) or the owner of the ship (who now has no means for production) but only the wealthy ruling class. It's really not that hard to understand.

you make several mistakes in your argument.
1) public money can only benefit the "working class". If it benefits the middle/upper class, then it is misused and unfair.
2) removing the ship is "unfair" to the owner - except the ship contributes close to nothing to the city, and the owners owes a large sum of taxes if I am not mistaken.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

you make several mistakes in your argument.
1) public money can only benefit the "working class". If it benefits the middle/upper class, then it is misused and unfair.
2) removing the ship is "unfair" to the owner - except the ship contributes close to nothing to the city, and the owners owes a large sum of taxes if I am not mistaken.

Interestingly the city didn't levy any taxes on him for decades until they retroactively charged him something like $750k or more. The city obviously didn't think it worthwhile to charge him any taxes when the area was mostly worthless land, but once it had value, they back-charged him. I think they totally knew he could not pay it, but it was an instrument to get him out of there by cutting off his water etc. when he didn't pay up.

 

[ksun]

Interestingly the city didn't levy any taxes on him for decades until they retroactively charged him something like $750k or more. The city obviously didn't think it worthwhile to charge him any taxes when the area was mostly worthless land, but once it had value, they back-charged him. I think they totally knew he could not pay it, but it was an instrument to get him out of there by cutting off his water etc. when he didn't pay up.

I am not sure what you said is entirely correct. It seems the owner decided to stop paying property tax payment in 2007 because his failing business couldn't afford it. He failed to pay the fee to dock the ship to waterfront Toronto as well.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/26/captain-john-to-fight-on

The truth is, the ship couldn't serve its original purposes and its old business model couldn't provide enough revenue for the actual cost. There is really little injustice with that. Let's stop using our heart instead of the head. Not everything old deserves to stay.

 

[Bruno Republic]

...The ship being gone benefits not the working class (who could get a decent meal there) ...

I don't know about the final years, but Captain John's certainly didn't start out as a restaurant which catered to the "working class" by any stretch of the imagination. It was once a very fancy place, and while maybe it wasn't what we think of as high-end today, it certainly wasn't cheap. Letnik cited the changing business culture and the decline of the company-expensed corporate lunch as one of the main reasons for his downturn in business.

PS: Yugoslavia wasn't part of the Soviet bloc.