Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Goode
I'm not sure how you could reach the conclusion that Dal's claims were "exaggerated and unsubstantiated" without having seen the expert evidence. Aside from that, the details were not relevant to the decision the court was being asked to make, so were not much discussed. Everyone else involved in the matter was fully aware of the contents of Dalhousie's expert's report, though. The problem is that the HAC and HRM Council paid no attention to it, which they had a legal obligation to do:
"Once Dalhousie presented the Engineer’s Report to the HAC, that information and Dalhousie’s position was then known to HRM - long before the October 18, 2022, HRM Council hearing. But that information was ignored by HRM staff and the majority Councillors on October 18, 2022, when making their decision...Although at Council on October 18, 2022, some of the dissenting Councillors did reference Mr. White’s Report, none of the majority Councillors appear to have seriously considered the building’s lack of vitality/utility to Dalhousie as a basis for not designating 1245 Edward Street a Heritage Property...Having viewed the video, I confidently conclude that the majority Councillors, either unknowingly, or knowingly, did not consider that they could have, and should have, considered the lack of utility of the existing residential building to Dalhousie."
|
Seem, in my estimation, does not equate to ‘reaching a conclusion’. Regardless, I read somewhere that the items making it unliveable amounted to lead-based paint, asbestos remediation, a roof, and siding. None of those items “seem” to me as resulting in no other course of action but demolition. Again, I don’t have the details, so it only “seems” this way to me.
I’m obviously not arguing legalities, just stating that IMHO it’s a shame to tear it down and leave an empty lot, unless it’s literally falling down. But to my knowledge, none of this has been substantiated publicly, so to me it “seems” like an exaggeration.
Threaded Mode