What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    29
^ indeed
 
I realize the owners are not the speediest at proceeding, but I would like it and it would be good for the area if the proposed development could proceed soon.
 
I would like to know the amount of the new derelict tax compared to the prior year for that property. Anyone know? and whether the increase will be substantive enough to incentivize the owner to develop it or unload it. The value on the sale price of the property with its new tax rate may deter speculators if the taxes are high enough but attract developers who have the wherewithal to buy and develop given current owner either does not or is dragging his arse.
 
Last edited:
Eyesore?

20240321_160923 sm.jpg
 
Clearshades said:
At least it's a structure. Across the street is a dirt parking lot, and it has been a dirt lot since past 1888.
Click to expand...
Disagree. This would be 100% better for the community if this lot were vacant or even a parking lot than the state it has been left in. The building is the definition of derelict, pretty sure there have been several fires.
 
husky said:
Disagree. This would be 100% better for the community if this lot were vacant or even a parking lot than the state it has been left in. The building is the definition of derelict, pretty sure there have been several fires.
Click to expand...
We regularly tear down far more attractive and less troublesome buildings than this one in this city all the time. There is no redeeming reason to keep it at this point.
 
husky said:
Disagree. This would be 100% better for the community if this lot were vacant or even a parking lot than the state it has been left in. The building is the definition of derelict, pretty sure there have been several fires.
Click to expand...
I'm in favour of deconstruct on this building. That statement was an add on to Ian's statement. You missed the 1888 date joke.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top