General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[tomh009]

So Walper continues to have a barbershop, the current barbers have a new home, and there is an appropriate new business at the renovated house at Joseph/Water.

Looks like a win-win arrangement in the end.

[danbrotherston]

So Walper continues to have a barbershop, the current barbers have a new home, and there is an appropriate new business at the renovated house at Joseph/Water.

Looks like a win-win arrangement in the end.

Wouldn't be a win for the media...

[KevinL]

Well, the existing tenants still have to move, encourage their repeat customers to move with them, and work on new marketing strategies in a new setting. They still have their business, yes, but they got the shortest stick.

[Spokes]

But they were given an opportunity to stay

[Rainrider22]

But they were given an opportunity to stay

No they weren't!!

[ijmorlan]

But they were given an opportunity to stay

No they weren't!!

Weren’t they offered a new lease? They just didn’t like the offered terms (As I understand it; corrections welcome).

[jamincan]

But they were given an opportunity to stay

No they weren't!!

So they weren't given an opportunity to accept the higher rates?

[tomh009]

Based on the newspaper articles, Perimeter was looking for some improvements (not clear what) and a long-term commitment. Rainrider22, if you can clarify what they were offered that would be good.

[Rainrider22]

Based on the newspaper articles, Perimeter was looking for some improvements (not clear what) and a long-term commitment. Rainrider22, if you can clarify what they were offered that would be good.

I will tell you more when I can.  If you want to know before hand. Go in and get a hair cut. Rob, Linda, Jordan, or Sandra will tell you.  

I don't want to say anything yet . I don't want to compromise their current situation.  

It isn't a good story though.

[Spokes]

Based on the newspaper articles, Perimeter was looking for some improvements (not clear what) and a long-term commitment. Rainrider22, if you can clarify what they were offered that would be good.

That's the story as I've heard it but I'm now curious

[urbd]

Based on the newspaper articles, Perimeter was looking for some improvements (not clear what) and a long-term commitment. Rainrider22, if you can clarify what they were offered that would be good.

That's the story as I've heard it but I'm now curious

This is it! Barbers lease is month to month with clause that Perimeter could stop it at anytime. Perimeter wanted investment (renovations) in the space to bring it up to par with the renovated Walper. Perimeter wanted a long term lease that was much higher than month to month was. Barbers could not afford any of that. Barbers are forced to move out because they simply cannot afford the new terms.

It's not that extraordinary

[ijmorlan]

This is it! Barbers lease is month to month with clause that Perimeter could stop it at anytime. Perimeter wanted investment (renovations) in the space to bring it up to par with the renovated Walper. Perimeter wanted a long term lease that was much higher than month to month was. Barbers could not afford any of that. Barbers are forced to move out because they simply cannot afford the new terms.

It's not that extraordinary

Rule 1 of real estate: if you want security of tenure, own your property.

Also have it in a jurisdiction where wealthy, politically-connected developers can’t just get the city to declare your area “derelict” and take it away well under true value. But that’s a whole other issue…

[panamaniac]

This is it! Barbers lease is month to month with clause that Perimeter could stop it at anytime. Perimeter wanted investment (renovations) in the space to bring it up to par with the renovated Walper. Perimeter wanted a long term lease that was much higher than month to month was. Barbers could not afford any of that. Barbers are forced to move out because they simply cannot afford the new terms.

It's not that extraordinary

Rule 1 of real estate: if you want security of tenure, own your property.

Also have it in a jurisdiction where wealthy, politically-connected developers can’t just get the city to declare your area “derelict” and take it away well under true value. But that’s a whole other issue…

Somewhere specific in mind?

[ijmorlan]

Rule 1 of real estate: if you want security of tenure, own your property.

Also have it in a jurisdiction where wealthy, politically-connected developers can’t just get the city to declare your area “derelict” and take it away well under true value. But that’s a whole other issue…

Somewhere specific in mind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Ci...New_London

Oddly, Antonin Scalia was on the side of the angels and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was … not. Surprising/disappointing.

And I just remembered the word I meant was “blighted”.

My impression is that in general Canada is much better for this. It is still possible the government can decide that this particular block absolutely needs to be turned into a park or public square (I’m looking at you, Dundas Square!), but in general expropriations are done for legitimate infrastructure projects. Even in the past when we still bulldozed poor neighbourhoods, they were either turned into public housing (Regent Park in Toronto) or City Hall (Toronto), or the place just sat for decades (Lebreton Flats in Ottawa). It seems that generally we don’t just turn the expropriated property over to a developer to make tons of money for themselves.

[plam]

My impression is that in general Canada is much better for this. It is still possible the government can decide that this particular block absolutely needs to be turned into a park or public square (I’m looking at you, Dundas Square!), but in general expropriations are done for legitimate infrastructure projects. Even in the past when we still bulldozed poor neighbourhoods, they were either turned into public housing (Regent Park in Toronto) or City Hall (Toronto), or the place just sat for decades (Lebreton Flats in Ottawa). It seems that generally we don’t just turn the expropriated property over to a developer to make tons of money for themselves.

That is consistent with my understanding as well. It really seems like it has to be for a legitimate public purpose and that we're much closer to paying fair market value for expropriated property. Halifax also has the Africville thing in its own non-brilliant history, so we're not perfect.