The Mayor’s Task Force for a Better Downtown will present a request that the remaining canopies in the downtown be removed. Why, I personally like them, especially in the winter, they protect the sidewalks from snow and ice build up making it safer to walk, especially when you are getting older, they are not a eye sore as the remaining canopies are well maintained. I am sure that the NOrthern would not be to happy about this request as they did a lot of renovation on their building.Just so somebody on the task force would like them to tear it down.

That reminds me - John Major promised to develop six condos on the Chances site as a condition of getting the zoning. I believe it was a contractual obligation. So what's happened? Was his obligation conveniently forgotten about? Was he given an indefinite (never) extension? Did he pay a fine?

"Council was also assured the initial plan to build townhomes adjacent to the Gaming Centre on the downtown site will be honoured."

http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/10263/3/public+hearing+on+casino+move+set+for+august+25th?id=140&st=3031

Also:
http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/7475/3/new+bingo+hall+...but+where+are+the+townhouses%3F?id=140&st=5369

The report is available on the city's site under council agenda ... it has not been forgotten about. The report states that the requirement was passed onto the current owner. It also states that the city was looking for a higher number of units than the six.

The main building was designed to take additional floors. Commonwealth has a mutliphase plan for the site which includes additional floors.

In my opinion, putting six conod units in the back was just done to appease Council. Makes absolutely no sense from a living condition, marketing and urban planning point of view. That venue is not exactly Coal Harbour where something like that goes for millions, it has a view and a pleasant urban pathway along the waterfront. The location we have in PG is the making of slum housing.

From the report to Council in partial answer to the question “why has the city not exercised its option on the townhouses?”

“When we questioned City staff as to why the City had not exercised this option (the City had an option to purchase the residential parcel of $1) we were told that initially there were delays in obtaining development permits and building permits. Then the City did not want to “pull the trigger” as the City had been in negotiation with other parties and wants a higher density building there.”

“The section 219 Covenant has transferred to the new owner of the Community Gaming Centre”.

At this stage, I am not sure what purpose the report actually serves.

To me it does show up once more the precarious situation associated with one contracting party having a right to exercise a condition of the contract while at the same time being a key part of the process of issuing permits which may influence the timing of that right.

Sorry Mr.PG, just some minor details .... :-)

The drawings for the condos is out and about being looked at by the different disciplines. This is being done!

It doesn't address MAJOR's commitment to building condos as a condition of zoning.

What other developers do is their concern.

Major received his zoning, part of which was that he'd develop condos. He received his zoning. Where are HIS condos?

Was the language of the deal that he'd build condos, or build condos at THAT site? I think it was the former.

If he doesn't have to build condos, it would appear to me he received his zoning at a far lower price than what was originally agreed upon.

It says in the City info going to Council tonight: "“The section 219 Covenant has transferred to the new owner of the Community Gaming Centre”.

That convenant deals with the building of the condos. I do not have the actual wordings of that but it appears to state that if the party (Major's company) does not build the six units, the City can take back that part of the "air rights" for one dollar. The current owner has taken over that contract, I assume with the agreement of the City, and is now the party required to act on that committment. I have not got the faintest clue where that stands now.

As I stated, the report is rather useless from my point of view. These matters that should be avaialable to public scrutiny really continue not to be readily available unless one takes action to ask for the information.

We are all shareholders in this enterprise. I am not sure if City Hall understands what that means. They make some motions, but their heart is not in it.

It was condos at that site. The were to go on the norh east corner facing Quebec. Two story row housing, six units, built on top of the existing parkade roof with exterior steps going up to that level from the street. Bedrooms facing the parking in the back against all reasonalbe (CMHC) minimum standards for distances between parking and habitable room windows. Would be a wonderful place to sleep when the gaming facility patrons left the place and started up their cars in the early morning hours.

Design panel, planning and Council are THAT desparate for housing downtown!!!!