Vacant building bylaw weak

Disappointing that city staff want to put off bylaw that would deal with vacant buildings

I note that Public Nuisance By-law 3310, as amended, is scheduled for third and final reading.

I understand (city) staff is recommending that the vacant building registration and permit requirement be deferred. Disappointing.

I have read the proposed sections dealing with vacant premises. And while remedial action for failure to comply is impressive, I don’t understand what constitutes a failure. In my opinion, continuing to use the words ‘nuisance’, ‘unsightly’, ‘danger’ and ‘inconvenience’ to describe vacant buildings is far too subjective and open to interpretation.

Cities such as Brandon and Winnipeg use wording in their by-laws and brochures that more precisely defines an unsightly, inconvenient nuisance.

I see nothing in this amended by-law to encourage or compel the owners of 2522 and 2532 S. Island Highway to improve the condition of their properties. In fact, it appears that enforcement with regard to ‘garage sale’ signs will be far more stringent than that of derelict buildings.

Darlyne Shane

Campbell River