Jump to content

      












Photo

[Downtown Victoria] 710 Queens | Renovations


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:24 PM

A red Swastika, hey?


Yup. Our property tax dollars in good use. I am further incensed that the TC would swap photos - although they may do that as a rather of course, instead of on purpose for this one.

#22 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 19,928 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:27 PM

That and the flag...

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#23 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:43 PM

The swastika and the defaced Canadian flag make me feel really good about my tax dollars going to support this guy.

Methadone and booze sounds like a wonderful combination for a heroine addict.

#24 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:43 PM

Wait a minute. We should base the decisions on who qualifies for rent subsidies or shelter allowances based on their furnishings, political or religious beliefs? Or their support for lack of support for street drugs?

I'm not a ban-flag-burning or ban-symbols kind of guy. I don't support restrictions on freedom of speech, I don't believe in "hate-speech" laws.

I don't care what flag or lampshade this guy has.

This is how I feel about bans on symbols: http://kennethanders...-from-2005.html
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#25 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:54 PM

Wait a minute. We should base the decisions on who qualifies for rent subsidies or shelter allowances based on their furnishings, political or religious beliefs? Or their support for lack of support for street drugs?

I'm not a ban-flag-burning or ban-symbols kind of guy. I don't support restrictions on freedom of speech, I don't believe in "hate-speech" laws.

I don't care what flag or lampshade this guy has.

This is how I feel about bans on symbols: http://kennethanders...-from-2005.html


VHF, we both know that the right to free speech is not (and should not, for that matter) be absolute. Anti-semitism is one topic where the infringement of free speech is an acceptable infringement of that right. If I were Jewish, I would consider my tax dollars subsidizing his life(style) as being tolerant of hate. To me, it's no different than if the photographer took a picture and there was kiddy porn his laptop. He is free to harbour hateful symbols and ideals.

Just. Not. On. My. Nickel.

#26 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 19,928 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 16 May 2012 - 01:03 PM

The swastika was around far before the Nazis started using it.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#27 seymour201

seymour201
  • Member
  • 213 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 01:31 PM

fyi Mods this project isn't complete. Only the third floor is complete.

#28 ZGsta

ZGsta
  • Member
  • 573 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:13 PM

VHF is right, you can't go and start denying social services to people because of political/religious/other beliefs, no matter how awful they are. That's a pretty sketchy precedent to start setting.
I mean, sure this guy's probably an @$$hole of the highest degree to be throwing Swastikas up.
Oh and that "swastikas don't always mean Nazi, they used to be something else" line that people love to trot out is always the flimsiest excuse. A white, tatted up former meth-head with a swastika on the lampshade? Yeah, it's probably not there for Hindu purposes.

Brilliantly played by the TC as always, of course. :rolleyes:

#29 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,970 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:59 PM

VHF, we both know that the right to free speech is not (and should not, for that matter) be absolute. Anti-semitism is one topic where the infringement of free speech is an acceptable infringement of that right. If I were Jewish, I would consider my tax dollars subsidizing his life(style) as being tolerant of hate.


It's not just Jews who take offence with that symbol.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#30 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:07 PM

It's not just Jews who take offence with that symbol.


No. It's not. But I don't think there ought to be laws against "offending" people. At all.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#31 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,970 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:17 PM

Sure, our society allows individuals to offend whoever they want, but certain freedoms should disqualify one who wants to live off of the collective good of the community and practice a way of life contrary to what society at-large considers beneficial to and respectful of that society.

To protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression while absolving tax payers of the right to deny someone who no regard for the immorality and hatred of his actions is absolutely perverse and a mockery of the social safety net we've all worked so hard to create and maintain.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#32 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:49 PM

^ I think the moderators should step in and do something about all these off-topic posts. Oh wait...

#33 David Bratzer

David Bratzer
  • Member
  • 506 posts

Posted 16 May 2012 - 11:21 PM

So, just so I'm good on the math, $5.6M for two buildings - so for argument's sake let's say half that for Queen's Manor plus $1.5M for renovations for 36 units. That's $120k per unit - for a renovated 1970s building. Plus $.5M in operating costs per annum (from BC Housing - you know, which means it doesn't count, not like it's our money or anything).

I'm no developer, but I've said it before and I said it again: the City could have taken over a stalled condo project, built it and still come in around that number. In Langford.


A couple of quick points:

- You're forgetting about the part that happened before the City bought that property. The part where there was a huge bankruptcy of a private hotel chain, creating the biggest low income housing crisis for Victoria in recent memory. This was not a failure of social housing. It was a private business failure.

- The $1.8 million renovation loan (for both properties) from CMHC is forgivable over a fifteen year period:

https://victoria.civ...val Process.pdf

- The $5.6 million used to purchase both properties hasn't disappeared into thin air. The City can recover those funds by selling the properties at some point. In fact, if land value continues to increase, Victoria may come out ahead.

- There was an Elector Response Form that residents could sign to register their opposition to the operating agreements and mortgage agreements for these two properties. The deadline to hand them in was March 5th. I'm not sure if you signed the form, but clearly there were not enough signatures to stop the agreement from proceeding. Here is the form (on page two):

https://victoria.civ...dix A and B.pdf

#34 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,970 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:51 AM

I had no idea there was such a form to sign. And I'd say I'm fairly well connected.

^ I think the moderators should step in and do something about all these off-topic posts. Oh wait...


I'd say this is fair game. Discussing issues stemming from the occupants of this project isn't off the rails.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#35 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:28 AM

A couple of quick points:

- You're forgetting about the part that happened before the City bought that property. The part where there was a huge bankruptcy of a private hotel chain, creating the biggest low income housing crisis for Victoria in recent memory. This was not a failure of social housing. It was a private business failure.


There were and are private developers interested in doing just what the City did. In fact, there are neighbouring properties where the City turned down just that, for no apparent reason.

Government should intervene when there is a market failure. A private business failure is not the same thing as a market failure.

- The $1.8 million renovation loan (for both properties) from CMHC is forgivable over a fifteen year period:

https://victoria.civ...val Process.pdf


I didn't know that. Still, the capital has to be laid out and serviced over those fifteen years, resulting in other lost opportunities.

- The $5.6 million used to purchase both properties hasn't disappeared into thin air. The City can recover those funds by selling the properties at some point. In fact, if land value continues to increase, Victoria may come out ahead.


Same argument as above. Plus it's shoveling money at the project for maintenance and administration.

- There was an Elector Response Form that residents could sign to register their opposition to the operating agreements and mortgage agreements for these two properties. The deadline to hand them in was March 5th. I'm not sure if you signed the form, but clearly there were not enough signatures to stop the agreement from proceeding. Here is the form (on page two):

https://victoria.civ...dix A and B.pdf


Just to be clear, DB, the ERF talks about $1.8M for renovations and operating, not the $5.6M purchase costs. And let's be honest, after the civic exhaustion caused by the JSB, the City purposely went the Shaw negative billing route to take advantage of voter fatigue.

Like I've said before, for that kind of money, they could have bought every homeless person in town a condo in Langford, thereby solving two problems. Except, at the end of the day you are still subsidizing the life and lifestyles of drugged out Nazis.

#36 ZGsta

ZGsta
  • Member
  • 573 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:12 AM

Like I've said before, for that kind of money, they could have bought every homeless person in town a condo in Langford, thereby solving two problems.


I fully endorse this idea.

#37 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:17 PM

We've really saved so much money by closing down our mental institutions, and really improved people's dignity too!

Has anyone done a study on the amount "saved" by closing down our mental institutions vs the amount we've had to spend on mentally ill homeless people not just in terms of facilities and projects, but policing, property damage, lost business and so on?
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#38 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:25 PM

We've really saved so much money by closing down our mental institutions, and really improved people's dignity too!

Has anyone done a study on the amount "saved" by closing down our mental institutions vs the amount we've had to spend on mentally ill homeless people not just in terms of facilities and projects, but policing, property damage, lost business and so on?


First, you could start by showing us the the vast amounts of "mental institutions" we have closed. Because we haven't, although it's a favorite line.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#39 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:55 PM

First, you could start by showing us the the vast amounts of "mental institutions" we have closed. Because we haven't, although it's a favorite line.


You've obviously have never heard of Riverview/Essondale, Tranquille, or Woodlands, three of the biggest ones that closed in BC. The follow-up plan to transition those patients to more appropriate facilities was only half-assed and a lot of them ended up on the street.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users