Pretty difficult to throw this on the Mayor’s shoulders.
The opinion that many residents of this city feel is that there are too many unused buildings that are not useable in the downtown area. Who, in their right mind, would establish a business in an old dilapidated building which is basically a fire hazard from the word “Go?”
They are a horrendous cost to taxpayers–as if they are privately owned property taxes must be paid–along with unused utilities, and if the city owns them, the taxpayers are footing the bill as there is no revenue generated for the city coffers. Losers, losers, losers.
Another problem will surely surface, if it has not already done so.
How are INSURANCE company’s looking at these old buildings and taking a risk on insuring them??? And at what price??? Insuring one is possibly looking at numerous owners seeking compensation–as these fires spread rapidly.
What is a façade—an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sows ear????
The fact remains the building has, in all likelihood, outlived its usefulness. Exactly like very old run down homes, and mobile homes. No value left and they simply remain an expense—to an owner–or if abandoned–to the person left holding with no recourse to rid themselves of the responsibility–eg., a park owner if it is trailers.
The downtown will be a source of concern for many years to come??
Cadillac Fairview would have been the saving factor–but the greed of the land owners took precedence over common sense.
Now what???? Anybody’s guess????

Time to consider surveillance cameras in the downtown core tied into the city’s fiber optic network, give the police the tools to be proactive in jumping on the urchin issues before they need to hand out file numbers post incident.

Most of our downtown fires are “stupidity” fires, they are called accidents or “undetermined” however digging deeper one finds that it’s negligence or a negligent act that more often is the root cause of the fire. Bad electrical courtesy of weekend handy men doing the “I can fix that”, renovations being done without a proper permit(s) to ensure the work and scope of the work is done safely and correctly.

We have a few weekend contractors and even some legitimate one’s who tell the clients “naw, you don’t need a permit” when in fact a permit is required to do the work that is requested. Shoddy fire breaks between building that were at one point joined by a passageway from address to address. It’s just the slap happy way folks go about cutting corners to get the job done (done yes but done correctly, far from it. It’s all lipstick and mascara to get it done, as long as it looks right, good enough).

The realization should be (heaven forbid)that sooner or later we are going to lose a few folks due to someone’s stupidity in cutting corners. Why do you think the fire department takes a defensive stance at most of these fires? Like hell they are going to walk into most of these structures downtown with the lack of knowledge of what’s in there and what’s the layout inside. I for one don’t blame them at all.

While likely to be an unpopular option, it may be time to reconsider the tax structure for these old buildings … if the buildings are unoccupied and derelict, there should be a security tax that would see the property taxed at a rate much closer to that of a mid-rise new structure. Then perhaps the absentee landlords would reconsider their investment structure and consider developing sooner rather than later.

The current tax method allows these buildings to be a business tax deduction or loss while the general public is paying for security and fire protection.

I do not see where there was any security to be paid for by the general public.
It appears the structure was a known place for the homeless to utilize at will. This being the case–if it is—there was no attempt to secure the structure so the homeless were obviously free to use it at their convenience.
Professional is absolutely correct in his defense for the firefighters not gaining entry to the burning buildings. Why should they take their lives out of their hands when they have not a clue as to what the actual circumstances were of those inhabiting the building.
It is a real mess, and Taxing the owners at a higher rate just may increase the structures meeting a fiery ending. Probably cheaper than demolishing them??????
Another black eye for the downtown–but it was inevitable.
Amazing it has not happened sooner—just an opinion!!!

Was there not a “original three?” That stopped the downtown development 20? Yrs ago? I keep hearing about this.. Just for my curiosity can someone educate me?

Another step towards downtown revitalization .. Lol

Perhaps this will be the incentive that the Mayor and Council need to get a grip on whats happening downtown.

Time to play some hard ball.

DT in PG is on it’s way but it has a LONG way to go. Kamloops’ DT was in similar shape to PG’s and now it is now thriving. How bout we take their strategy and adopt it?

I thought Commonwealth bought most of George Street 5 years ago to revitalize the downtown?

Anyone know what are “urchin issues”?

Just imagine that it’s like way in the future . Could be tomorrow from say , chub chub . When one could buy a devise that is wireless . that could detect motion , heat , smoke , Natgas , many other gases and when it did , it could transmit this information to a place that could alert the proper authorities . Then they could be installed for cheaper than what the fire department , city works , the gas companies , the police and anything else I missed costs everyone . I wonder if there is insurance on the buildings ?

In this case it is very easy. Do not allow solid fences to enclose an empty property. It invites homeless and others to use the protected space. There are no such fences on any property on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. that I am aware of.

In addition, provide shelters for the homeless.

It just seams that if you have a problem with a property in the downtown area , that if it lights up it will get corrected by insurance or some government body.. da government (tax pay) Insurance ( Mr.Joe insurance buyer) you know YOU and I..

You are suggesting that this fire and all or most others have been arson. The biggest downtown of recent note was the Columbus Hotel. I do not believe that was arson. The biggest in the city was the Lakeland explosion. I have not seen anywhere that was arson.

It is the nature of government insurance and private insurance that those who insure their property pay for the damages suffered by others, until we get hit with an insured loss. Whether it is fire, structural damage, car crash, theft, injury, it is the purpose of insurance to spread the loss over those who pay for the protection.

So far I do not see a mass exit out of buying insurance and people self-insuring with the resulting collapse of the insurance industry.

When people do opt out on purpose, or because they have no money to buy insurance, the aftermath of a loss is often one of the community coming together and donating money, food, clothes, temporary housing and so on.

So far no one seems to have come up with a better idea. Can you think of a modern society which has?