What a loser who owned this Holtel.

Sorry Chris, but the owner of the Bus, was stuck in a situation where he lost control of the demolition, So if he could not control his costs, why should he be expected to pay for 3.5 times the original estimate to remove the building.

I do believe the city has confiscated the property. so, I think the city has punished the current owners already.

"The hotel was on property which the City acquired in a tax sale nearly a year before the fire...." Does this not make the CITY the owner of the property at the time, and therefore responsible for all costs incurred in regards to cleanup of their own property????

If the city owned the property the hotel was on before the fire, doesn't that mean that the city owned the hotel? If so, they should have to pay to clean up the mess. Either that or I just read the article wrong.

Here I thought cldt was "out of here" permanent?
He is one of us more than he thinks or wants to be.

Positive
Mental
Attitude

Don't worry, be happy.
Group hug!

I also do not understand how this works. If the city had ownership of the building how can they go after demolition costs. The city being owners of the building, how responsible are they for the fire. I would think the city would have been responsible for some upkeep to keep the building stable.

On the face of it I would think that it was dismissed just for that very fact .... the property was owned by the City.

It will be interesting to find out what the angle for the appeal is.

Possibly insurance. The tenant may have had some insurance. BUT, with the City being the owner, they should have had insurance as well. Don' know if they self insure or whether ICBC is the insurer for City property.

This City has been known to go after some very iffy cases in the past. Porn shop zoning, etc. for those who may remember.

Likely just another money waster of our taxes.

Any local government that scoops up someone's property in a tax sale or goes in and does a demolition on their own after the fact,should be responsible for any bills,costs,etc.
I fail to see why the former owner should be responsible, after losing the property and the city does a demolition of it's own accord.
Weird.
And it is probably safe to assume the former owner has no money to pay the bills anyway...otherwise he would have paid the taxes and done the demolition himself.
Waste of time and tax payers money really, considering they already lost in court once.
Let it go.

The city owned the property the hotel was on. I don't think they owned the hotel itself or there would be no question as to who would foot the bill for the demo.

The city gained ownership of the property after the hotel burnt down and was demolished. A few months after the fire. Kind of coincidence.

Unless the article is wrong, the city owned the property for about a year BEFORE the fire. Unless there was some sore to rental or lease agreement in place for the land I can't see how it is the previous owners problem. If my house burnt down, I couldn't go after the guy I bought it off of, I don't see how the city should get to play by a different set of rules.

If you owned the house and the house was on leased property, why would it be the land owners obligation to clean up your house mess?

by this blog site, it appears the city does not have much support. So be it. The city screwed up. Someone should get reprimanded for this oversight.

if the information is correct

A) for not having addition insurance on this building

B) Even bringing it in front of the judge for the back charge on a demolition of a building in which the city themselves owned.

C) Once the city took ownership, the operator of the liquor liscence became a tennant, did the city collect rent?

lol

Gibson 1, City 0. Reminds me of the Black Orchid case. Maybe Rogers can strike a committee and study it.
If the City could just concentrate on the simpler tasks of life like filling pot holes.

In the words of my ancestors; "A grrreat waste of the the people's money, laddie"

I thought the issue of ownership at the time of the fire was still undecided. The property taxes were not paid, and the city was, I thought, foreclosing on the property. Unfortunately the fire happened before that occurred. The building was on the property therefore the building and land would have been owned by the city, not just the land. The city officials panicked at the sight of an engineer's report that predicted doom if the building was not demolished post haste. In true CYA style, they then took on the responsibility of demolition. Of course the 'A' word was being spoken too, so they then had an abatement problem (cha-ching) I don't know the former owners, but in my opinion, the city should foot the cost of the demo. and do something with the now vacant land.
metalman.

metalman, absolutely correct. The value of the land now is worth the back taxes and the demo. i think its a fair trade. I am sure Gibson, would settle for that, if not he can take it out in court.

The most recent assessed value of the land is $125,000. It already reflects the fire since the improvements are valued as $0 .... :-)

Well, I doubt that Rob Gibson has any intentions of dealing with it, since he no longer owns the land. Absolutely no benefit for him to pay it. It would be better for him to declare bankruptcy, Disappear to the Caymans.

The city can not have the money and the land, its pretty much got to be one or the other. Thus if the city had any brains, they would have let Rob keep the land, and place a lien on it for $175k plus back taxes.

Dan Rogers and his sheep must want some money to make more gardens with high fences around them. You would think when they took over the property they would have insurance ...but maybe that is to much for them clowns to understand..what a voted in group of sucks no wonder the taxes have to keep going up every year.