Quote:
Originally Posted by pspeid
I really hope I'm wrong, but if it were anyone else owning the building I'd see this as good news. As it is, I'm afraid it's just another delaying tactic for Zaifman. As for the annual costs of the building mentioned in the article, I suspect they've served as juicy tax write-offs for years.
|
This is a joke.
He's just trying to find a way to get someone else to pay for the most minimal possible renovations that would also coincidentally get the City off his back. So then once it's done he will have a barely-habitable building full of addicts, renovated by government and with government paying the rent ($$$), and no City vacant building fees. All this urban magic a stone's throw from Portage and Main. Sounds awesome.