City to Look at Next Step In Dealing with 255 Quebec

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 03:59 AM

Prince George, B.C.- Time has run out for the owners of the burned out building at 255 Quebec Street.

The City of Prince George had given the owners 60 days to demolish the building remove the debris and fill the excavation. The 60 days ran out on Sunday.

The owner failed to convince Council to rescind its decision to force the demolition of the building and since then. City Corporate Officer Walter Babicz says while the owners have inquired about the City's intentions with the property there has been no word from the owners on possible legal action against the City.

Babicz says a report will be produced that will go to City Council for a decision on what to do next. “It will present the options available, and it will be Council’s decision on the next course of action.”

It has been more than two years since the building was damaged by fire, but the insurance company and building owner have not been able to come to an agreement on settlement of the insurance claim.

The options available may include demolishing the building, returning the property to a pre-excavation state, selling the property and recouping the city’s costs through that sale. Under the charter, any funds left over from such a sale would have to be returned to the current owner of the property.

The second property in the City that was under an order by Council has met the remedial requirements within the specified time frame.

Council called for a secure fence around the construction site on Westmount. ( see photo at left)

There were concerns about the trench around the foundation of this strata development, the potential collapse of some of the walls and the fact the foundation has cracked because it was not protected during the winter.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 03:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: He spoke on July 15 2009 7:17 AM

Well, at least Cameron and Ernie knows what needs to get done.

Posted by: gus on July 15 2009 8:20 AM

Unbelievable that the next steps were not already ready and waiting for action to be taken. Perhaps that will be beneficial in any court case against the City.

With some forest industry manufacturers refusing to pay taxes due to hardship, why should the owner of this property be any different than they since his apparent hardship is the tardiness of the insurance company?

Posted by: downnotout on July 15 2009 8:43 AM

why punish the owners should be some way to include the insurance company in on this
they are to blame for not paying on the insurance policy

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 15 2009 9:49 AM

The building has significant residual value, it was by no means destroyed by the fire.

I would expect the insurance company to deny payment for anything but the fire damage and expected repair costs.

If the owner lost all of the value of the building to demolition, excepting for the eventual insurance settlement for the fire damage, it would be craziness not to sue the city. There would be too much money at stake not to.

If you wanted to tear it down, you should have let it burn.

Posted by: getajob on July 15 2009 10:00 AM

It's just one of many eyesores in this town...

Stop all the procrastinating.
Flatten it already!

Posted by: EatsBushesShoots&Leaves on July 15 2009 10:21 AM

Again, this building burned under highly suspicious circumstances. The insurance company ain't gonna pay.

Posted by: Oldun on July 15 2009 7:52 PM

Absentee landlord that doesn't care about Prince George????

Posted by: kitkat on July 15 2009 8:27 PM

EatsBushesShoots&Leaves is right. I don't know the details. But I know the owner...

Posted by: Harbinger on July 15 2009 11:07 PM

Fix it up and make it a typical PG heritage site.

Posted by: foxtrapper on July 15 2009 11:51 PM

Gag!

Posted by: gus on July 16 2009 1:54 AM

BC Assessment says the property is assessed at $66,000 and the improvements at $0.

That raises several questions:
1. has the owner appealed the assessment?

2. has the owner advised the insurance company that the assessed value of the improvements is zero and that he expects the insurance company to pay for the full cost of replacing the building?

3. Is the City hanging its hat on the assessed value of the improvements being $0? Thus, any money they spend on removing the building which has zero value would be spent to remove the liability which the owner carries.