You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments 2 points
Sounds like it would save a ton of money on a project that the city is already heavily invested in, while allowing a developer to stop pretending to half-play landlord. Why is the developer even the landlord now? This seems so weird
2 points
Agreed it could save a ton of money. However, Westhills Development still owns the land, so the city could purchase the building, and when the contract is up for renewal in 25 years, Westhills Development could theoretically bulldoze the building and redevelop.
Sounds like some shitty backdoor deal made under previous mayor’s administration and his cronies. Pretty typical in Langford.
