10-11-2018, 05:12 PM
(10-11-2018, 04:27 PM)clasher Wrote:(10-11-2018, 01:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Indeed. All who voted against that project cannot call themselves supporters of affordable housing.
The heritage value of the homes is near zero--the only feature they have is that they're old, the affordability value was reasonably high--the project would likely include affordable housing and itself would be a midrange development.
If they voted against it, then affordability clearly takes a second seat to even the remotest of heritage concerns.
And many of these same councilors were okay to destroy two perfectly fine heritage homes that people were actual living in for a community garden and some more grass. I don't understand the priorities of these people sometimes.
Indeed.
I happen to agree with that decision, but it's clearly inconsistent. Those were homes in a neighbourhood of heritage homes, far more legitimate argument for keeping them.
And as you say, they had people living in them, so again, housing clearly a second priority to heritage.