+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours (/showthread.php?tid=6)
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - DHLawrence - 11-07-2016
I hope some of the outlets will be able to relocate within Galt; still a few empty storefronts in town. There will certainly be an abundance of customers, especially on the west bank now.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - notmyfriends - 11-07-2016
When did HIP get involved in the American Standard project? I don't remember them being involved 4 or so years ago when it was originally being sold.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - DHLawrence - 11-08-2016
I think they joined in when the project stalled in the years in between. Heck, I think I was still in university when they first talked about redeveloping the plant.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - LocalEngineer - 11-09-2016
(11-07-2016, 09:13 PM)notmyfriends Wrote: When did HIP get involved in the American Standard project? I don't remember them being involved 4 or so years ago when it was originally being sold.
Oct 22, 2015
CAMBRIDGE – New life has been injected into a dormant development in the heart of Hespeler.
HIP Developments Inc. is now taking the lead on the much-lauded redevelopment of Jacob Hespeler’s former mills on the banks of the Speed River.
“Shawky (Fahel) set the stage for us,” said Scott Higgins, president of HIP Developments. “This project has been a long time coming.”
(From http://www.hipdevelopments.com/tags/riverbank-lofts)
You're correct .. Shawky couldn't keep the project moving through the various layers of approvals etc .. and HIP decided to knock down a few more buildings and build a big 6 storey building to simultaneously a) save money on costly renos and b) make more money on units. So with that game plan and so many successful projects they could get it done.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 11-09-2016
This seems like a transformative project for downtown Galt.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - Viewfromthe42 - 11-09-2016
I'm not that excited by HIP, as they already have illegal tenant restrictions on their current Trio property, don't look forward to more of that going forward.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 11-09-2016
This may be a dumb question, but is it in fact illegal to have a "no pets" rule for new tenants? I know you can't evict someone for having a dog, but that's not quite the same thing.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - timc - 11-09-2016
It is not illegal, and pet ownership isn't covered by human rights.
At the same time, you can't have a "no pets" clause in your lease, so you can't be evicted for having a pet after you have a lease agreement. However, if the pets become a nuisance for the landlord or other tenants, then you or your pet can be forced to leave.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - Viewfromthe42 - 11-09-2016
It's one of those hard to enforce things, where it's void in a contract, but not a human right that's enforceable, but that HIP would be that kind of place makes me very upset, because to do that says a lot more about what kind of person/company you are.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - ijmorlan - 11-09-2016
(11-09-2016, 12:33 PM)timc Wrote: It is not illegal, and pet ownership isn't covered by human rights.
At the same time, you can't have a "no pets" clause in your lease, so you can't be evicted for having a pet after you have a lease agreement. However, if the pets become a nuisance for the landlord or other tenants, then you or your pet can be forced to leave.
Something I’m unclear on is whether a “no pets of this type” clause might be enforceable, on the grounds that the “type” in question is inherently disruptive, possibly in the context of a specific building. So, I know that “no pets at all” is unenforceable, but what about “no dogs over 30kg”? I guess it might come down to whether the landlord could prove the pet was a nuisance, which might mean the specific lease provision would be irrelevant anyway.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - DHLawrence - 11-10-2016
Ontario is the only province where it's unenforceable, and it sounds like landlords and the province might be changing that soon.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - Viewfromthe42 - 11-10-2016
(11-10-2016, 02:19 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: Ontario is the only province where it's unenforceable, and it sounds like landlords and the province might be changing that soon.
You mean Ontario might make it legitimate for landlords to prevent any pets from being allowed? That's horrible. That just increases price for everyone, and greatly destroys life for others. I'm all for enforceable penalties for owners who damage units, by pet or otherwise, or who don't take care of their animals with training, etc, and they become a nuisance (I feel like someone above me has a dog that they leave at home alone all weekend, as it barks from when I get home Friday until late Sunday, with rarely a stop, while never being heard the rest of the week).
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - panamaniac - 11-10-2016
How does it increase prices?
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - Viewfromthe42 - 11-10-2016
Currently, landlords have to compete against each other for tenants. If you have a "pets" and "no pets" rental stock, it means that landlords can ask a bit more from the "no pets" crowd, owing to having kept the place free of dirty/messy/smelly pets. The worse increase is on the "pets" side, where very few landlords would allow for pets, but because they do, they would increase their rent demands, given limited supply, and then increase again because while the "pets" supply stock has drastically shrunk, the landlord can rent to anyone, meaning no reduction in competition for the property, where a landlord can ask for high rent from pet owners, with the very real threat of "I can rent to anyone, you probably don't want to have to give away a family member" on the table.
RE: General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours - gomesjustin - 11-10-2016
Maybe this calls for a "Landord and Tenant Act" thread?