Great news, this will help families on strict budgets, especially during b-day parties etc....When everyone I know has parties for their kids they always leave town for the goods in the goody bags, balloons etc... Some people will never understand this for some reason though, guess they don't have to worry about every penny like many do. I'm guessing the ones that are selfish and not caring about others wants or needs are retired, single or kidless.
Good thing we didn't require a 'Demolition Bond' as has been bantered about at City hall lately. It would require a property owner to demolish their building in the event it was vacant for some period of time. Could there be a less 'Green' solution?! Really, even in our currently depressed market, do you really expect property owners to simply abandon their buildings? We are, after all, still living in a highly desirable and wealthy area....
Posts: 270 | Location: Petaluma | Registered: 04 December 2007
Ya, what is up with that comment? Why do some on the council feel that they are responsible for the building and its tenants? Doesn't she know that the building is being paid for whether there are tenants or not. So it is in the interest of the building owner to build only when he/she thinks they will be able to turn a profit. Mr Rabbit: how can you sit in a meeting and not burst into laughter when you hear something like that?? Good luck with that group!
The city majority really even talked about having property owners demolish their building if they were vacant for a certain period of time? Huh? Are these people okay? Are they mentally stable enough to do their job? Like I said earlier, using our town as a monopoly game, while all the money disapppears, wonder if they know they're playing with real money?
Maybe they got wind of what is happening in my hometown of Bellingham, where they have a size cap which was determined after years long democratic struggle within the city. The city finally reached close to consensus on the size cap of 90,000 square feet. Now Walmart has decided they want to become a super center, and they drag Costco into it to bully the city even more (before Costco was happy at its current size). They are now both threatening to move to Ferndale, the next city over, if the city doesn't change its size cap ordinance. So they have a choice of thwarting democracy of having two giant empty 80-some thousand square foot boxes.
They are probably thinking that a developer is less likely to build a flop big box if they will be responsible to demolish it as well. I would be pissed if the proposed 800 and some square feet of development gets built and then sits empty. I think developers would think twice too about their lame projects if they were held responsible for it. Just stating another side of the story, this board seems pretty one sided.
quote:
Originally posted by king01: The city majority really even talked about having property owners demolish their building if they were vacant for a certain period of time? Huh? Are these people okay? Are they mentally stable enough to do their job? Like I said earlier, using our town as a monopoly game, while all the money disapppears, wonder if they know they're playing with real money?
