Development Rumours

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

As well, implying that he "could" just burn it down is a bit insane. Given the circumstances, he'd be suspect no.1, and he'd forfeit the property and probably go to jail. And, since the building is attached to neighbours on both sides, he'd also be threatening other people's property--and lives, for that matter--and nothing gives him the right to do that. Of course, there's no evidence he's considered that course of action, so much as I dislike Webber, I feel it's almost libelous to talk about him like that's something he would do.

The only person saying that's something he "would" do is you. I made it clear that it is not something he would do.

I just wish we had some idea what he WANTS to do with the property. First it was to fix it up, then it was to demolish it, then it was to fix it up and add some floors to the top, and now it's back to demolition, but no apparent plan for a replacement building. He seems to be playing his cards pretty close to his chest, and toying with something a lot of us feel very deeply about it. It's 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 behaviour, whoever owns the building.

It is interesting that apparently he made a proposal to renovate with a penthouse added, which the city rejected. I do not recall such a proposal so perhaps it is from a long time ago. But the question that arises is, why was it rejected by the city? Was it a HT "restore to original or die" attitude? If the city took that view then they really are not any better than the obstructionists and talking out of both sides of their mouth.