Tearing down the dilapidated former Inn at Westview will not be happening anytime in the immediate future, but City of Powell River council has taken a step closer to ordering it.
Following council’s direction to staff last November, city clerk Chris Jackson prepared and presented a report on the ordered demolition and cleanup of the building, located next to Powell River Town Centre Mall, at the February 28 committee of the whole meeting.
The building is owned by Seaboard Hotels and the property is managed by Town Centre Mall owner Jack Barr.
According to Jackson, the report’s scope addresses the unsightliness of the property and public health hazards resulting from leaving it standing.
“Over time, the building has deteriorated, becoming unsafe and offensive to the community,” the report states. “Complaints have been received for over 10 years with increasing volume and attention.”
As public pressure has increased during the past few years to take formal action to deal with the building, council has heard reports from staff outlining measures Barr has taken and the challenges to deal with the building’s cleanup. Council has yet to place any deadlines for demolition.
The committee agreed unanimously to debate the remediation order at its Thursday, April 6, council meeting. Councillors said it was important for the city to be prepared to move forward with issuing the order, even if it is still willing to give Barr a chance to continue working on finding a solution.
Mayor Dave Formosa, who said he has been meeting with Barr regularly on the matter, agreed to bring the staff motion before council, but he warned the committee that if Seaboard is pushed it might not take much for them to walk away from the problem.
“Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it on this one,” Formosa told the committee. “I’m not saying take the pressure off, I’m just concerned this just might push [Seaboard] to bankruptcy.”
The estimated cost to take the building down is up to $1 million due to the state of the structure, with its roof partially caved in and the presence of asbestos throughout.
Councillor Maggie Hathaway said the issue has been very difficult for her, especially with the increase of community pressure. She said residents have asked her why the city is dragging its feet in dealing with the problem. She added that the issue should be for the community to decide on.
“We need to have the taxpayers on board because we’re committing them to a lot of money to take that down,” she told the committee. “I don’t think we would do that with anything else without having a referendum. If we’re going take on that cost, I would like the people to decide that, not us.”
Through provisions of the BC Community Charter, municipalities have the power to compel property owners to remove nuisance buildings and those presenting public safety hazards.
If the owners do not abide by the order, municipalities are authorized to step in, perform the action and add the costs to the building’s property taxes for collection. If those taxes went unpaid, the city would then put the building up for sale. If the property went unsold, the cost would ultimately fall to taxpayers to cover.
With no possibility that proceeds of the property’s sale can cover the costs of its demolition, the chance that the owners will walk away from the building, leaving it for city taxpayers to pay for, is significant, said Formosa. He added that he did not support having to raise city taxes in order to pay for the work.
The city has not undertaken its own estimate on the cost of taking the building down, although it has had a professional appraisal made for the property.
According to Courtenay-based commercial real estate appraisal firm Jackson and Associates, without the building on it the property is estimated to be worth $185,000. A major factor in the estimate is that almost three-quarters of the four-acre parcel is leased in perpetuity to the neighbouring strip mall to provide parking.
Councillor Karen Skadsheim reminded the committee the building poses a public health hazard with its asbestos and rodents.
“It’s a terrible position for the taxpayers to be in,” said Skadsheim, “but there’s a public health risk.”
