[Horsell]

I can’t say that I share most posters enthusiasm about this proposal, I think this is very bad for this property.

At the very least this is a band-aid solution by the City to try and please a developer who “may” have bought into something that they can’t easily get out of because the City seems dead set on zoning this property based on its “historic use as a parking garage”.

There was a similar situation in Halifax a few years back when a developer wanted to tear down (before it fell down) rusting parking garage and redevelop the site. I’m not sure what the final outcome was.

If this planning amendment is allowed to pass it just throws every planning document, now and in the future out the window. What’s to stop them next week from designating any property based on its “historic use” and thus limit its redevelopment.

I am not opposed to a hotel or condo or merry-go-round on that site, just NOT on top of the piece of garbage that is already there.

“Mr. O’Keefe, tear down this wall (garage)”.