Paramount Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | ONE Properties

Its too bad the facility is not being put to more use while it languishes,waiting for redevelopment, possibly for years.
 
In my opinion, this is one of the properties that should fall under the city's new tax class for dilapidated properties. Does it?

Edit, it should as per the city's website for being boarded up and abandoned:

 
Since when is the Paramount a residential site?
It is zoned DC1 and has a proposed 369-unit residential tower under that zoning


Also as an FYI, the old Dwayne's home is confirmed under this derelict properties, which is one block away.
 
Last edited:
It has lofty, unrealistic ambitions to become a residential property but currently is just yet another empty building in the core.

The difference between the Paramount & Dwayne's is that people lived at Dwayne's Home, nobody's ever lived at the Paramount. Because the Paramount isn't a residential property. It's not unfit for habitation because of neglect, it's because it's a goddamn movie theatre.
 
Also as an FYI, the old Dwayne's home is confirmed under this derelict properties, which is one block away.
No, no it's not.


Stevenson says the city can't go after the property owners under its derelict properties tax subclass because the building isn't zoned as a residential property.
 
No, no it's not.

See below:
Coun Salvador was on radio today sharing that 200 properties have been designated as derelict since her motion was passed and so paying 3x regular property tax rate. Of the 200 properties, one is a condo project - I guess this one.

 
See below:

I didn't hear anything in that radio interview from February about Dwayne's Place.

Given that this is in Stevenson's ward & an issue she's familiar with, I'll take her statement from earlier this week as being factual in the absence of something concrete.
 
I didn't hear anything in that radio interview from February about Dwayne's Place.

Given that this is in Stevenson's ward & an issue she's familiar with, I'll take her statement from earlier this week as being factual in the absence of something concrete.
I am not disputing what is correct or not.

I am referencing where I read the info, if that is not correct I am not disputing that. Next.
 

Back
Top