04-10-2024, 08:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2024, 08:51 AM by cherrypark.)
Such are the perils of operating a business that has these kinds of expensive and complex leasehold improvements while not owning the property. I am a bit surprised GRR being evicted from one location ended up with such a short lease term on this new location, or lack of terms for compensation to offset an early break if that is the case.
The councillors trying to force this developer to presumably do more than they are obligated in the lease is a bit crazy to me. Appealing for them to include it in the design would be fine, but the bottom line is that the reason GRR is there is because it was a lower quality, dated building with few other uses and the rent in a new development was always going to be too much for this kind of business. Its correct we need things to do in the places we live but might as well focus on some productive compromise than delaying bylaw amendment to protect a business... if its a public good, council has other funding avenues to make that recreation available in a space that is not fully viable for a private business.
The councillors trying to force this developer to presumably do more than they are obligated in the lease is a bit crazy to me. Appealing for them to include it in the design would be fine, but the bottom line is that the reason GRR is there is because it was a lower quality, dated building with few other uses and the rent in a new development was always going to be too much for this kind of business. Its correct we need things to do in the places we live but might as well focus on some productive compromise than delaying bylaw amendment to protect a business... if its a public good, council has other funding avenues to make that recreation available in a space that is not fully viable for a private business.