"...The City says it expects to recover the full costs from the previous registered owner of the property..."

Really? I don't see how.

The city took over the site, the insurance money doesn't kick in for anyone other than the guy that had the policy, and then only under certain conditions that the city isn't privy to. The insurance probably was limited, and likely some business revenue loss and some replacement compensation. No replacement = no compensation. To collect even one dime is going to cost another $100,000 in court.

When the fire took place the City did not yet own the property. The insurance company may well be liable on that basis. In any case, the previous owner may still be liable even without insurance.

"... The City says it expects to recover the full costs from the previous registered owner of the property ..."

Uh huh -- and the Guy couldn't even pay his taxes for the two years prior to the fire, and now they're gonna collect the $175,000.00 dollars he "owes" them, when he dosen't even have the so-called revenue from the business (such as it was) any more ??

Pretty soon it'll be three hundred thousand dollars plus they won't collect either when the lawyers have their little orgy with this one.

My bet is on "us" as taxpayers holding the bag on this one and when that happens, we should all be part owners of the "seized" property as well.

palomino

The city was very quick to jump on this issue and site. Makes me wonder if there is someone who wants this particular spot for some reason. (someones buddy????)I wonder????

You folks said it all - they better start seizing any of the owners property now 'cause the chance of him paying doesn't look too good!

This is a joke. We are paying for it, plain and simple. Insurance MIGHT cover it, or maybe some of it, but I'm betting they won't since they weren't provided with estimates ahead of time and proper procedure was not followed. And you think we're going to see the money from someone who couldn't even pay their taxes? This whole situation was a joke from the beginning and I agree with you BCRacer I have thought this right from the beginning: The City was all over this in an instant. In fact, I have never seen our city council act so swiftly with anything, ever! It will indeed be interesting to see what ends up there. Maybe I'm wrong - I hope so.

This is ridiculous and absurd!
The are numerous other burned out shells in town including the hair dressing salon that burned up before the bus and is still a hazardous eyesore.
This whole thing is an example of the machinations of politicos responding to unwarranted public outcry.
The was and is still no valid reason put forth to explain why this particular property needs to be cleaned up so fast.
No, I did not frequent the place much. I have had an occasional beer there with out any troubles even though I am very visibly not a "biker".
This whole situation stems form the reputation of the establishment as perceived by those that did not and would not frequent the place.

$175,00 to expedite an unnecessary rapid cleanup. No wonder our city, province country and global economy is in the toilet.

the asbestos deal is overblown. Yes its hazardous, so put on a damn respirator and haul it out. No need for some consultant to point it out for you. Coulda saved over 80g's right there. I'd be very unhappy with the stooge that OK'd that item.

Actually there is quite a procedure to go through to remove asbestos. Lots of paperwork, respirators, monkey suits etc. Garbage bins all have to be lined with poly etc. Then haul it to the dump and watch the crawlers run over it and mix it up with the rest.
Either that or do it during the weekend when WCB guys are doing there side job.
I honestly cannot figure how the complete demolition could be bid for less than 50,000.00 then add 80,000 for asbestos removal. You would think that the tipping fees, bin rental etc. would have been part of the base bid.If not, why not bid the job really really cheap knowing you will get rich on the asbestos removal. Oooops, that has already been done.

Just because a businessman does not pay his taxes does not mean he cannot do so. He may just be leaving it to the last minute so as to keep the use of his money as long as possible. I understand it is not an uncommon practice, although I have no direct knowledge of whether it applies in this case.

I think the asbestos issue is largely a Worksafe BC issue protecting workers from getting malignant tumours from inhaling asbestos dust. If you want to run the risk, that's OK with me, but please don't make anyone else put their life in danger just to save yourself a tax buck.

well, maybe Worksafe BC, should pay the bill for the removal of the asbestos!

After all, they don't pay much out for injured workers!! They are another Government scam. Change the name for a new image. You can change the name all you want, but the guts stay the same.

have a great day,

taxi

I don't have much faith in Worksafe BC as it happens, but whether the tax buck is spent through them or through the City, it is still a tax buck coming from the same pockets.

Folks, this is not about the marginal extra expense of asbestos removal.
The is about a tragic incident made worse from the hue and cry of a few people to expedite the removal of an establishment not popular with the vanilla public.
The entire incident a blatant targeting of an individual because this individual and their business catered to what is considered an unsavory element of society.

You missed the point, red2b - all that nonsense is totally unnecessary for asbestos or anything else short of high level radioactive waste. Just another knee-jerk reaction to a problem that never existed. A simple respirator and protective suit are all the protection anyone needs. Waste of money. It could have been removed mechanically with rest of the waste for nothing.

Gamblor, I was trying to make the point that the city did a poor job of tendering. The extra cost seems a little rich. Anyone could have bid the job cheap then gouge on the extras. At time of tender it would be known that there was going to be extra work. Did the tender allow for rates per tonne? How was the extra cost agreed on?
Sometimes I think the city needs to review their tender procedures. Look at the RCMP building fiasco.