Conrad Black
Senior Member
Just make it sink and go away already.
|
|
|
Captain John's Restaurant (1975-2012)
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
Bruno Republic
Active Member
...aaaand the chances of this boat disappearing any time soon just got even smaller.
I guess the plan now is to wait for it to completely rust away.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/16/captain-johns-sale-faces-another-hurdle-insurance.html
I guess the plan now is to wait for it to completely rust away.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/16/captain-johns-sale-faces-another-hurdle-insurance.html
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Then just dismantle it where it sits today. It's no different than scrapping an old bridge or any other large metal object in water.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not quite, the thing is laden with asbestos (besides, don't you need to drydock something in order to scrap a metal object in water, unless you are scuttling it?)
AoD
Edward
Senior Member
It'll be here for a long time. Hopefully they get to the asbestos before it sinks on its own.
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is the ship sinking on its own even a possibility? I was under the impression that the hull is entrenched in mud
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I'm no expert, but IIRC even in health and safety conscious Canada you can keep a hulk afloat as you remove the innards, and then sink and remove the remnants. It's asbestos wrapped pipes and the like, not plutonium. I would think there are commonplace regulations and methods to deal with it.
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
The asbestos could be dealt with now if they like. Now who pays for all of this is the big question. And the reason why this is still an issue.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
This city goes over budget on so many infrastructure projects. Get that under control and they'll have more than enough money for dealing with this ship.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Or if TPA could just stop mucking around and went with the first bid that see it towed and scrapped. Quite frankly, if we are talking about overbudget, this project would have been the case study (given the delays, the original cost and the subsequent, self-induced cost increase).
AoD
Edward
Senior Member
What does that have to do anything.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
What is this? A statement? An unfinished query?
I'll assume your incomplete blurt is the latter and try to explain it for you. The city needs money to pay to remove the ship. The city says it has no money. The city budgets money for infrastructure projects such as Union Station and the Sony Centre. These projects are never completed on budget, meaning the city must spend more money. Thus, if the city completed its next projects within budget, it will have money to remove the ship. That's what.
Assuming the city can't accomplish the above, then make removal of the ship a condition of the next super tall condo's building code variance.
Conrad Black
Senior Member
Why should a condo nearby have to pay for this? New owners now responsible for this boat? Its a city issue and if they can't find a buyer, and if the original owner can't do it then the city must pay. That means both you and me.
nfitz
Superstar
What does that have to do with anything?
junctionist
Senior Member
A growing local population means more and better public spaces are necessary. Land is limited in the area. The city wants a new park at the foot of Yonge Street and the removal of the abandoned ship for quality public space. A new condo contributes to the growing population and need for more and better public spaces. Therefore, it's reasonable to charge the developer a fee to remove the ship as part of the public space improvements the city has to undertake.