Three Gables Lot
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Oct 22nd, 2008, 1:43 pm
Three Gables Lot
Just heard a rumor the city of Penticton owns the Three Gables lot. Anyone know anything about this?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 6808
- Joined: Nov 11th, 2008, 4:47 pm
Re: Three Gables Lot
I always thought it was owned by Decoys
-
- Übergod
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 6:43 am
Re: Three Gables Lot
I may be mistaken, but I believe the City took it over for unpaid taxes, and the bill for cleaning up after the fire went unpaid.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 8115
- Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am
Re: Three Gables Lot
Tony wrote:I may be mistaken, but I believe the City took it over for unpaid taxes, and the bill for cleaning up after the fire went unpaid.
That would be very unlikely. The clean up bill would have been attached to the taxes and all properties that are delinquent in taxes go to public auction. The city advertises this list of properties every year in the paper. It would be highly unlikely that a property such as that, worth probably a Cpl of million, would not be picked up at auction for at least the amount to cover taxes and cleanup. Cpl hundred k???. In the past fifty years this annual auction list has had at least 100 properties listed for auction and I think something like two or three have actually ended up being sold like this over that time period. Bidders must provide a 10% deposit of their bid and the property owner has 1 yr after the auction to pay the arrears and keep the property. If a bank has an interest in the property (mortgage) they will always step up and pay the arrears to protect their ability to foreclose.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
- fluffy
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 28005
- Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Re: Three Gables Lot
I remember hearing that there was some dispute over who actually owned the property at the time of the fire as there was a sale in the works.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
-
- Fledgling
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Jun 17th, 2010, 9:57 am
Re: Three Gables Lot
There was a dispute about ownership but that was taken care of years ago. It was a VERY suspicious fire as well. The owners of the Three Gables liquor store own the old hotel property. Decoys is the old pub licence from the hotel. However the building Decoys is in, is not owned by them, they lease it. They had to build Decoys in order to keep the Liquor Retail Store Licence (LRS). At one time you had to have a pub in order to have a liquor store (no longer the case). The city has wanted that property for many years now as it is a prime piece of real estate in the middle of our downtown core that the owner refuses to develop. He has used it as a bargaining tool with the city for years. At one time the city wanted to purchase it and build an arts/theatre building. He has been a huge contributor to Dan Ashton and thus has been in front of council not once but twice to ask that council approve of his plan to move the liquor store to Fairview ave. Mayor Ashton and council have said not once but TWICE that they approve of this move because they really really want him out of downtown. I know of no other business in town that council has "approved" of in that manner. I believe this was done in case the provincial government decides to change who decides where LRS's can locate. Right now it's the liquor board with strict rules about all stores being 1km apart. Because of the 1km he was denied the right to move the LRS. However if the rules change (John Yaps review of liquor rules) and local government is allowed to decide the locations he will be moving his store. He was also forced by council to clean up a property he owns on Rigsby. The "good neighbour" bylaw was passed because of that property. As far as that property (Three Gables) being sold, I really doubt it unless he got something significant in return by city council (not just money). It's also interesting to note that the three gables is'nt talked about in the downtown revitalization plan even though it is an eyesore smack in the middle of downtown. My guess is that if the Liquor Board changes the rules you'll see him move his store with council approval, the city will become owners of the three gables property (for an inflated price) and we will end up with four liquor stores within 4 blocks of each other. And his paid for MLA will rubber stamp it all.
- Anonymous123
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 4:02 pm
Re: Three Gables Lot
sale4u wrote:There was a dispute about ownership but that was taken care of years ago. It was a VERY suspicious fire as well. The owners of the Three Gables liquor store own the old hotel property. Decoys is the old pub licence from the hotel. However the building Decoys is in, is not owned by them, they lease it. They had to build Decoys in order to keep the Liquor Retail Store Licence (LRS). At one time you had to have a pub in order to have a liquor store (no longer the case). The city has wanted that property for many years now as it is a prime piece of real estate in the middle of our downtown core that the owner refuses to develop. He has used it as a bargaining tool with the city for years. At one time the city wanted to purchase it and build an arts/theatre building. He has been a huge contributor to Dan Ashton and thus has been in front of council not once but twice to ask that council approve of his plan to move the liquor store to Fairview ave. Mayor Ashton and council have said not once but TWICE that they approve of this move because they really really want him out of downtown. I know of no other business in town that council has "approved" of in that manner. I believe this was done in case the provincial government decides to change who decides where LRS's can locate. Right now it's the liquor board with strict rules about all stores being 1km apart. Because of the 1km he was denied the right to move the LRS. However if the rules change (John Yaps review of liquor rules) and local government is allowed to decide the locations he will be moving his store. He was also forced by council to clean up a property he owns on Rigsby. The "good neighbour" bylaw was passed because of that property. As far as that property (Three Gables) being sold, I really doubt it unless he got something significant in return by city council (not just money). It's also interesting to note that the three gables is'nt talked about in the downtown revitalization plan even though it is an eyesore smack in the middle of downtown. My guess is that if the Liquor Board changes the rules you'll see him move his store with council approval, the city will become owners of the three gables property (for an inflated price) and we will end up with four liquor stores within 4 blocks of each other. And his paid for MLA will rubber stamp it all.
The Gables liquor store is right across the street from Clancy's liquor store. So much for the 1 km distance. He wants to move because his business is affected by Clancy's. When faced with the choice of which one to purchase from, I went to Clancy's.
Be careful when you follow the masses.
Sometimes the M is silent
Sometimes the M is silent
- fluffy
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 28005
- Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Re: Three Gables Lot
But aren't both the Gables Liquor Store and Clancy's liquor store both remnants of old hotel licences, thus "grandfathered" in their present locations? I do believe the current Fairview Grocery is the intended destination for the new liquor store but was turned down because of it's proximity to the Government Liq at the plaza. Now isn't it even more compromised with the new one down by Home Hardware, which is at a safe distance from the Plaza outlet but still within "trouble" range of the Fairview location?
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
-
- Fledgling
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Jun 17th, 2010, 9:57 am
Re: Three Gables Lot
Yes, they are across from each other because they were part of the hotels. Back before rules changed the liquor stores had to be attached to the building that the pub they were associated with was located.
He was turned down for the move because it was with-in 1km from the Gov st. Liquor store licence. Government stores are not deemed "LRS's" and because of that they can be anywhere they want. They moved one government store right next to an LRS in Salmon Arm (http://www.saobserver.net/news/224241211.html). Not a very nice thing to do.
As for not being able to make his business viable, if he would put a few dollars into his exciting location and stop renting the upstairs to people that are...uhmmm...undesirable. He would be able to turn things around. He has a store that is nearly 3times the size of Clancy's. unfortunately he has a history of letting the properties he owns get into very bad shape. Doesn't seem to care about anything but the almighty dollar. (http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/1478353 ... obile=true) and (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/three-gab ... n-1.225475) ( http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/ ... ontroversy) Interesting reads! I don't know about you but I wouldn't want someone like this moving to my neighbourhood. But he has city council wanting to get rid of him from the downtown with no concern about moving his "show" to a residential area.
He was turned down for the move because it was with-in 1km from the Gov st. Liquor store licence. Government stores are not deemed "LRS's" and because of that they can be anywhere they want. They moved one government store right next to an LRS in Salmon Arm (http://www.saobserver.net/news/224241211.html). Not a very nice thing to do.
As for not being able to make his business viable, if he would put a few dollars into his exciting location and stop renting the upstairs to people that are...uhmmm...undesirable. He would be able to turn things around. He has a store that is nearly 3times the size of Clancy's. unfortunately he has a history of letting the properties he owns get into very bad shape. Doesn't seem to care about anything but the almighty dollar. (http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/1478353 ... obile=true) and (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/three-gab ... n-1.225475) ( http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/ ... ontroversy) Interesting reads! I don't know about you but I wouldn't want someone like this moving to my neighbourhood. But he has city council wanting to get rid of him from the downtown with no concern about moving his "show" to a residential area.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 8115
- Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am
Re: Three Gables Lot
The city will never buy the Three Gables Hotel lot.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
- fluffy
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 28005
- Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Re: Three Gables Lot
twobits wrote:The city will never buy the Three Gables Hotel lot.
I agree. For one, the price tag on a piece of property that size in the heart of downtown would be huge to the point of being prohibitive for any possible public use. Second, its location pretty much says its best use would be some sort of commercial venture which is out of council's scope for anything beyond their regulatory/approval roles. Third, and not the least, I think council would be well advised to stay at arm's length from any sizable real estate dealings for a while. Like a hundred years or so.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
-
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3913
- Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm
Re: Three Gables Lot
fluffy wrote:
I agree. For one, the price tag on a piece of property that size in the heart of downtown would be huge to the point of being prohibitive for any possible public use. Second, its location pretty much says its best use would be some sort of commercial venture which is out of council's scope for anything beyond their regulatory/approval roles. Third, and not the least, I think council would be well advised to stay at arm's length from any sizable real estate dealings for a while. Like a hundred years or so.
Agreed. Penticton can not afford to purchase any more land for city use. In fact we should be possibly SELLING some to raise some cash to at least pay down debt. Glad to see them "considering" selling the parking lot West of the Federal Building, as someone is wanting to purchase it or at least part of it. It would nice to see a parkade downtown on the Gables lot but WHO would build it and would people pay to park there? The old Super Valu lot is a prime example of a paid parking lot that isn't paying for itself. Still can't believe we wasted so much time on public hearings to rezone that lot, only to have the owner sit on it. That's his/her prerogative however; same as with the Gables lot; they are privately owned.
-
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2458
- Joined: Mar 12th, 2010, 10:26 am
Re: Three Gables Lot
There are several vacant lots that have never rebuilt after " tragic " fires like the old Edwards by the mall, the art gallery on main, slacks and 3 gables. I think the only one to rebuild was White Spot. And then there is the old KFC what an eyesore start to driving down main.