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.
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.