11-29-2016, 07:45 AM
(11-28-2016, 11:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(11-28-2016, 09:11 PM)embe Wrote: Really?
Things might pick up again in a couple years (and then some) but reality is, in the short term there are probably a lot of businesses that can't/couldn't swing it but are still paying the same rent/taxes/operating costs as before (I wouldn't want to be operating a business along that route in the last year or so). If the legal option is available to them it doesn't surprise me that people are looking into that option. Not from an 'anti-LRT' point of view, but from a 'hey-trying-to-run-a-business-here' perspective.
Construction of any kind is a realty, and yes, I wouldn't patronize a business which sues the region I live in, you know, my government, for maintaining or expanding infrastructure as needed.
I'm sorry for their lost business but this isn't the answer.
Yeah, you're mostly right. I do feel bad for any business that is losing money here, and it is certainly a shame for them. As you pointed out, simply doing sewer and road upgrade could kill off a business, and that sort of stuff isn't a luxury as it needs to be done.
That said, I wonder if they should consider some sort of tax relief for these people, assuming they lost business.
Here is a side point; imagine opening up a cafe or restaurant in a certain *government* district because it is under serviced. It's all find and dandy then the government decides that they need to relocate to a better location that would enable them to have a larger building. Now your cafe is losing most of their customers. You don't have any right to sue. It is, what it is.
(The above I am actually thinking about the Tim Hortons on Frederick and Lancaster, that saw a lot of business from the court house, which is now moved far down the street...they spent a crap load of money renovating the place, and now their customers are gone...)