Enough already!!! Tear it down. Two years should be plenty of time to settle with an insurance company. But this time get a firm price for the demolition and backfill.

Hmmmm, 2 years to settle what looked like an insurance fire? Go figure.

Tear it down.
metalman.

find out the insurance company and charge them . Why penilize the owner if they have been held up by the insurance company.

Government should pass a law that forces insurance companies to settle insurance claims in a resonable time. Two years is not resonable it is way two long.

Two years is too long to settle an insurance claim? Tell that to the workers who have not had their WCB claims accepted and have taken 5 to 10 years to finally get a satisfactory claim after going through the appeal processes.

When it comes to insurance, the burden of proof is on the inusured, not the insurer. If you do not have the dollars for a good lawyer (and I mean GOOD as in one who knows what he or she is doing) you are often SOL.

We only have the owners word that it's the insurance company holding up the process.

Has anyone asked the insurance company what the holdup is ????

I have no knowledge either way,but we should get both sides of the story before we throw accusations.

I have heard insurance companies can take years to settle. I agree insurance companies should have a time limit to settle, but of course they will drag this out as long as possible. This way the money stays in their pockets longer and they have all the power in these situations. I guess I don't like insurance companies much - kind of a necessary evil. They can raise rates here because of fires that caused big payouts in the Okanagan....remember back to the year after the big fire that burned up houses all our rates increased and boy if you every have to have a claim, then what - your insurance rates are affected for years after. Nope insurance companies should have tighter regulation on payouts.

Its a money thing. Will the insurance company pay out the owner full value, or pay to have it demolished? Which is cheaper?

Tear it down. It looks terrible

IMO - This building burned under very questionable circumstances. Mr M. will be fighting with the insurance company for years.
Building has to go asap.

Do they all not have digital pictures of the building from all angles ect like all good investigators have? If the building was removed from the scene, those images they must have would still exist. If they don't have them they by now; perhaps they should get them before the date of demolition. We need to get rid of an eyesore and a hazard in our down town core.

It is irregardless if the insurer is holding up a claim or not. The business owner still needs to meet his obligations to the community in which they conduct business. If he is delaying any action due to an insurance claim, then he/she is insolvent.
Can someone point out a bylaw or statute specifying when a building is to disposed of?
I am seeing the same voices crying out for the demolition of this structure as cried loud and ha4rd for the demolition of the 'Bus.
WTF business is it of yours?
Do you do more than pass by to another destination while driving down second avenue.
Or are you an actual stakeholder in the business community or for that matter a stakeholder in that property?

I would think that as business person, you would be much to busy running your show to bother commenting on opinion250 all day.

It's been two years. Demolish the eye sore and move on.

The longer it stays up the more likely city council will maybe consider it a heritage building. Should look at home and fit in with the rest of downtown. How about a little paint here and there and maybe some flowers in the windows?