Well this is a surprise to whom?
They worked too hard to aquire it
so I doubt anyone is surprise much...
wonder who wants this site so badly?

Well if the ex-owner of the Bus doesn't pay up the city can seize whatever else the guy has. Maybe he has a house, or a car? By the time the city is done with this guy he will be nothing but another panhandler on the downtown streets.

Isn't being in business fun! If the costs keep going up, and the revenue goes the other way, you loose it all, everyone thinks you are rich and no one cares.

Funny how that works hey. The city has no problem getting/seizing assets from people through the legal system. When a person has a judgement from the courts against another person/business it's vey hard to actually collect.
What a justice system.

So the old owner gets the insurance money since he owned it when the fire happened and the City pays for the demolition and has to get it back from the owner through the legal system. In the meantime dozens of purchasers will come forward clamouring to buy, no doubt.

Just to note, why is the City held responsible because the old owner refused to pay his tax bill? That was his decision, wasn't it? Surely he was aware of the consequences of refusing to pay for years at a time. Surely he has nobody to blame but himself. All the other businessmen in PG who play the same game of not paying taxes until the last minute should take care.

The insurance will likely be tied up in court for many years, and the city will be paid out as a creditor.

Well if Amonra doesn't like now people run there businesses, may be the NDP will get in and confiscate all the businesses and show us how businesses should be run?

If he does not want to pay the taxes, and lets the city seize the property, that is between him and the city. If he held valid fire insurance, then it should be paid out, without having to resort to court action. If he gets a cheque from insurance, the decent thing to do would be to pay for the demolition and clean up.
Who knows what is really going on here anyway? There must be more to the story.
metalman.

Yama you are always the defender of free enterprise and part of that is paying your bills regardless of who is in government.

He didn't, and he has to pay the cost. No one feels sorry for me either when my bills are due.

End of story.

Yama, I don't care how people run their businesses. I just think that when they sail close to the wind, miscalculate and sink, that they should accept responsibility for it. And, if you want to sell your business, put it on the market, don't expect someone else to do it for you!

Easy for everyone to sit back and figure they know everything there is to know. We don't have all of the information, we never will. For some reason, the City wanted this building. I have never seen the City move so fast on anything, EVER. No, the man didn't pay his taxes - and I hightly doubt he is the only downtown business owner who is in this type of situation. Yes, the building was deemed a danger, but the City was not willing to give the man JUST ONE MORE DAY to obtain his engineers report required by his insurance company before he could begin demolition on his own. Funnily enough, despite the City's insistence that this must go ahead NOW - their demolition was delayed by a day (or more?). So how about instead of being so quick to judge, maybe try giving someone the benefit of the doubt? So many people see a local business owner who owed some money in taxes, so tough luck. I, on the other hand, see a downtown business owner, who has been a business owner for YEARS and YEARS in this City, who perhaps may have been having a hard time, resulting in a back log of taxes, who lost his business to a fire, and then hung out to dry by the City.

Like BCRacer said - who is it that wants this building so badly? I, personally, think it will be interesting to see what ends up happening next.

I have a difficult time believing there wasn't some other way to work this out, to give the business owner half a chance to redeem himself.

Oh, and before everyone jumps on me about giving the man half a chance to redeem himself, and point out that he had a chance when he could have paid 1/2 the taxes owed, the man is awaiting an insurance settlement - a very slow process, as anyone who has ever had to file a claim knows.

Couple of points,

I wasn't defending the owner of the Bus only observing how easy people think it is to be in business and still pay "their fair share" of taxes.

What responsibility? The Bus is gone and the guy has nothing left. That is the end of his responsibility and his business.

I seriously doubt the city wants the Bus. It is the city council that had the panic attack after the administration said "safety". I've observed the same kind of behavior in big oil companies where if you want to screw things up a little just start talking "safety" and they all run and hide. The city council was willing to gamble on an outside businesses like Horizon Air, but when it comes to local risk taking the city council freezes up like a little deer in the headlights. Total panic.

Of course the Bus was ready to fall down, but there was no reason to panic. The guy just got burnt out and was on the financial ropes and the councillors dumped him back in the fire.

If he was covered by good quality insurance (we do not know that) which was up to date in payment (we do not know that), it should cover any liability with respect to people on the premises who were injured or died (wed do not know that), plus replacement value of the building (we do not know that). The replacement value payment may be fully conditional on him actually rebuilding (we do not know that), in which case neither the City or him will get anything and the insurance company may get off very lightly (we do not know that).

If that is the situation, whose fault is that? His, or the City's? (we do not know that)

We know nothing.

good one Gus, we do know that!!!