Derelict building bylaw

The city needs to get the attention of these owners who seem content to leave these spaces empty

Filed for publication with the Mirror

Mayor Walter Jakeway and council,

This is further to my several requests that the city give consideration to introducing a bylaw requiring the registration and inspection of vacant/derelict buildings and storefronts.

According to By-law 3309 2007, Section 3.1 f): “No sign except…on which is located the activity, use, product or business that the sign is intended to advertise, identify, give information on or attract attention to…”

What is the penalty for contravention of this section of the By-law?

As an example, at 2190 S. Island Highway, the sign still advertises A-1 Vacuum Systems and Periscope Promotions even though neither business has been at that location for some time. Why is the sign owner not required to remove those ‘advertisements’ in a timely manner and ‘give information on’ the fact that space is available for rent, lease or sale or a new business is now at the location, if applicable?

If council introduced a “vacant/derelict building by-law,” signage could be a component. The city needs to get the attention of these owners who seem content to leave these spaces empty because it appears there is no cost, financial or otherwise, to doing so.

I don’t understand the city’s reticence to at least ‘inconveniencing’ owners of vacant business/residential properties by requiring registration and inspection. They can’t pack up their buildings and leave so what is the downside?

Darlyne Shane