AlvinofDiaspar said:
JT Cunningham:



Indeed, I am sure there are existing laws governing the structural soundness of buildings, the owners responsiblity in such areas as well as the civil and criminal responsiblity for any harm that stems from neglect, no?

AoD
Click to expand...

And I say those existing laws are clearly too weak based on this happening. Again. And again. And again.

What's that word that describes when you keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome?
 
"What's that word that describes when you keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome? " QUOTE Coruscanti Cognoscente.


INSANITY !


Sorry sire, what you have quoted was not mine but,

existing laws are only as "good", as the enforcement thereof.


Regards,
J T
 
Last edited:
Wow. It truly is completely gone. As if it never existed.

Bring on the sheet metal and glass replacement... sigh...
 
Hopefully they will as they are asking for tips after they found a suspicious person in the alleyway on camera.
 
Not only did we lose an interesting building, but its demolition reveals even more of that awful building behind it. I have no training in architecture, planning or design; all I know is that the NE corner of Yonge and Dundas sat empty for a decade while the economy was doing great, and the geniuses at Penequity couldn't come up with anything better than this unimaginative, badly-designed piece of grey sheet metal. Sorry if I veer off-topic.
 
Bogtrotter said:
Probably homeless squatters who got careless...oh well, it happens. ;)
Click to expand...

If it were homeless squatters, it wouldn't have been ruled arson. Arson implies a purpose-set fire, and can usually be detected by either evidence of the use of accelerants or a burn pattern that would rule out an accident--or both.
 
Bogtrotter said:
Probably homeless squatters who got careless...oh well, it happens. ;)
Click to expand...

"Oh well, it happens" is a pretty defeatest attitude.
Now that it can be said, the arson ruling comes as no surprise. We knew the next day that electrical and gas lines had long since been disconnected and in the few days that followed no bodies were recovered. What can't be expanded on is I doubt very much it was squatters who got careless.
 
Well lets say I do have resignations in the sense that it is very difficult to prove anything with regards to the property owners direct involvement with the fire, even if there is clear evidence that a propellant was used. Unless someone comes forward as a witness or admission, I suspect at best the ownership might be charged with neglect of the property. What the penalties for this are- if any, I do not know. But I suspect the value of the property itself now probably far outweighs any fine that might be incurred for poor upkeep of the old building.
 
Indeed. The value of the property to the owners has surely greatly increased with the destruction of the development-blocking heritage structure -- which they are known to have wanted to demolish in the past -- allowing them to potentially develop the site to a far greater density.

Means, motive, opportunity. That's all I will say. Pesky libel laws.
 
w.ll.am said:
a call out to Lalani group to speak publicly about the incident.
Click to expand...
That's just grandstanding on the part of (freshman) Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam. What the heck could they say? Does she expect them to declare that they committed a felony by engaging in conspiracy to commit arson? Would she be convinced if they denied it?

Honestly, this notion that Lalani "speaking publicly" would somehow be useful is absurd. The police will do their investigation, and hopefully (all) those responsible will be discovered, charged, and convicted.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top