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.
Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:24 PM
A red Swastika, hey?
Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:27 PM
Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network
Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams
Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:43 PM
Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:43 PM
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
Posted 16 May 2012 - 01:03 PM
Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network
Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams
Posted 16 May 2012 - 01:31 PM
Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:13 PM
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.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:07 PM
It's not just Jews who take offence with that symbol.
Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:17 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:49 PM
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.
Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:51 AM
^ I think the moderators should step in and do something about all these off-topic posts. Oh wait...
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
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.
- 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
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.
Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:17 PM
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?
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.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users