View Single Post
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2011, 2:19 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
The developer should be required to post a non-refundable surity for at least 100,000 given that this is the second questionable proposal. How do they intend to circumvent the rampart legislation?
The problem is that the original selling process was wrong. The correct way to do this is a conditional sale that requires a developer to proceed within a certain limited time frame. If they don't proceed, ownership reverts to the city and the purchasing price of the lot is refunded (minus a deposit). I believe this is what is happening with Clyde Street and I expect that the lots will be developed quickly.

The same procedure would also have been better for Salter. Hopefully the WDCL will be better about the Cunard site. And hopefully they'll develop it soon -- it's been a while since they released conceptual plans. Time to get something started on the waterfront. There's no good excuse for those prime lots to sit empty when less desirable lots nearby (Vic) are being successfully developed.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote