Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthGirl
City said in their presser this morning that the current shoring is the temporary kind.
Drofmab, I agree we should all be skeptical. I think there's some optimism that maybe, just maybe, the city is trying to do something. I thought it was odd to have a whole press conference. They could have issued a press release and saved Folk from having to dance around some of the questions she can not answer for legal reasons.
Judging from the pieces about Fortress that keep cropping up in out of province media, I doubt they can afford to finish this and are holding this lot as an asset.
|
I'm happy that the City is attempting something... but to my mind, what they've done is full of holes. City is playing the short game, while Fortress is playing they long game.
Google Fortress & Ponzi... it's pretty clear that their business model is built on unfulfilled promises. Selling the property to another developer doesn't help with the promises for this site. A fully constructed & occupied building is even less helpful under their business model. A site 'under construction' is the ideal scenario. They will bring a strong legal team to the table... this hole is not getting filled by Fortress in the foreseeable future (
and if the City were to attempt to fill it, you can be well assured that Fortress would sue the City for a very, very large sum).
By relying on Fortress' engineering firm, the City has effectively given away any leverage they have for this permit renewal. I'm confident it will be renewed (based on Fortress 'advising' their engineer that they 'intend' to resume construction in April), and when it expires in
Sept 2019, we'll be having this exact discussion all over again. No simply way for the City to revoke before then... info publicly available is that the site is safe, and safety is the primary (only?) reason for revoking early, as I understand.
If I were Fortress, I'd terminate my contract with this engineering firm & hire a new one immediately after the City issues the renewed permit.
I get the professional standards, APEGS, etc... and I have little doubt that this particular firm is meeting professional obligations. But Fortress can cut ties with them at any time. City should have independent 3rd party engineers involved... not rely on Fortress.
Cities Act only allows cost recovery on permit renewals, but the Act also allows levying of very, very significant monetary penalties... if only the City had the time (
*cough* 7 years *cough*) to design supporting Bylaws, fee structure & penalties. If only.
Stack these (presumably unpaid) penalties onto their tax account, and eventually you make it too expensive to continue the con here, they sell the property
(or, they don't pay taxes, and the City sells the property), and move on to another city.