Quote:
Originally Posted by Labroco
Well if thats CV’s and the Chair’s position on problematic liquor licenses, they are off side with 98% of building owners and businesses in the area. So whom then are they working for? If the view and position of the Exchange BIZ is to deal with this issue what is CV going to do about it other than be an obstructionist? There are a multitude of businesses which produce and sell alcohol which add to the vibrancy of the area. The one or two establishments that cause a hugely disproportionate amount of disruption and social anguish in the area to the detriment of everyone else need to be dealt with. I’m saying close the vendor not bar for starters or take a Bell Hotel approach.
I see nothing wrong with housing at risk individuals in the location. Fill the building with solutions not problems.
If one is not in agreement with this concept perhaps it’s time for the Chair and Board of Directors to reconsider why they are there and perhaps move on. I think six plus years in that role may be enough don’t you?
As for your second comment, I’m glad we can agree on that…
|
I'm not sure you realize this, but CV's mandate is to be a development agency, not to issue or take away commercial licenses from private businesses. If 98% of the business owners want the Woodbine shut down they should lobby the Provincial government....or maybe the BIZ can do that for them.
On a personal level, suggesting that we take away the liquor license for one bar but not the many others in the area because one serves poor people and the others don't is not an idea I support. We didn't get rid of poverty or substance abuse when we bought the St. Regis. We just moved it. Closing the vendor wil not solve the poverty or alcohol issues in the area.