In the Granite Curling Club case, the argument is that the Board was exceeding its authority by imposing conditions on a specific permit, rather than the actual bylaw.
I’m very thankful that I’m not well-versed enough in the minutia of local politics to have a strong opinion on the validity of this claim.
Right. I would be curious to hear how that was resolved. As far as I can remember there were no legal proceedings after that. So was the city simply asserting that the municipal board exceeded their authority enough to ignore them? I also am not well versed enough in the minutia of local politics to know the details here.
Ultimately though, I was happy that the city ignored the municipal board in that case. I think they should build affordable housing on that lot. But in this case, with Sobeys, I hope that the municipal board has some teeth and cannot be ignored. So I hope I can have my cake and eat it too.
Yeah, I don’t think I’ve heard an update on the situation since December, which is a little weird.
But in this case, with Sobeys, I hope that the municipal board has some teeth and cannot be ignored.
The situation in Brandon is ridiculous - they moved across the street to a location in the mall, and are just squatting on the lease of the old location so no one else can move in.
Yeah that is a little weird. I hope that that’s not due to complications with the municipal board. I kind of just took the city at their word when they said they were going to ignore the ruling. Luckily though there’s a lot of other cool infill developments happening, like the old Bay building or the extension of the Forks.
The situation in Brandon is ridiculous - they moved across the street to a location in the mall, and are just squatting on the lease of the old location so no one else can move in.
That is very silly. But I must admit didn’t actually realize that this new law can go as far as to dictate what you can and can’t do with a lease though. I thought this new pro-competition law was to prevent certain kind of contracts with property owners that prevent them from selling certain food items at a loss or below a certain price, etc. But if this new law can actually force Sobeys to lose some control over property it is actively renting, that is definitely much more expansive. I can see how that might cause some legal tangles. I’m all for it though.
In the Granite Curling Club case, the argument is that the Board was exceeding its authority by imposing conditions on a specific permit, rather than the actual bylaw.
I’m very thankful that I’m not well-versed enough in the minutia of local politics to have a strong opinion on the validity of this claim.
Right. I would be curious to hear how that was resolved. As far as I can remember there were no legal proceedings after that. So was the city simply asserting that the municipal board exceeded their authority enough to ignore them? I also am not well versed enough in the minutia of local politics to know the details here.
Ultimately though, I was happy that the city ignored the municipal board in that case. I think they should build affordable housing on that lot. But in this case, with Sobeys, I hope that the municipal board has some teeth and cannot be ignored. So I hope I can have my cake and eat it too.
Yeah, I don’t think I’ve heard an update on the situation since December, which is a little weird.
The situation in Brandon is ridiculous - they moved across the street to a location in the mall, and are just squatting on the lease of the old location so no one else can move in.
Yeah that is a little weird. I hope that that’s not due to complications with the municipal board. I kind of just took the city at their word when they said they were going to ignore the ruling. Luckily though there’s a lot of other cool infill developments happening, like the old Bay building or the extension of the Forks.
That is very silly. But I must admit didn’t actually realize that this new law can go as far as to dictate what you can and can’t do with a lease though. I thought this new pro-competition law was to prevent certain kind of contracts with property owners that prevent them from selling certain food items at a loss or below a certain price, etc. But if this new law can actually force Sobeys to lose some control over property it is actively renting, that is definitely much more expansive. I can see how that might cause some legal tangles. I’m all for it though.