Dear Editor,
Re: “Enough already of the Onni versus city council fight,” News Aug. 10.
I have read this letter and others with similar content and have been left with one thought, “what a great attitude.” I’m being sarcastic, of course.
I probably have a much different view of what the city has done well and what the city could do better, but in this particular situation, I stand by the city and there so-called “lack of action.”
In fact, I wish the city would do more in terms of Onni, including court action if possible.
It is sad to see storefronts in such a beautiful place currently looking like makeshift storage units, some storing what would appear to be entire apartments.
But who to blame? That’s the question we are really asking. I’m wondering if anyone upset about the empty storefronts and the city’s role in this has spent the time to research the history of this little plot of land.
With very little effort, I found a link on the City of Richmond’s website which helps with some of the history.
Some of the more relevant points coming from this document are the fact that this would be the third time that Onni has attempted to renegotiate the zoning and development for this piece of land.
From an original single storey to a mixed-use multi-storey to currently attempting to change the zoning completely.
A comment has also been made suggesting most people are more concerned with filling the store fronts with businesses then standing up to Onni.
There is a letter in the above mentioned document from homeowners in 2006, showing how unhappy they were with the first renegotiation.
I am sure you can find plenty of people not happy with Onni’s current set of renegotiations.
The next point to tackle is the idea Onni took the risk, so why should they not be able to reap the rewards and that we “all assume” Onni hasn’t found any tenants because there aren’t any.
Well some of us might assume that Onni hasn’t found any tenants because they just haven’t looked very hard.
Why would they? I think it is reasonable to assume they have made lots of money already in developing the surrounding area and this little piece of land is a bonus for them, so why not keep pushing and pushing until they get everything they want? They are in no hurry. After all, it has worked up until now.
I find it confusing that anyone in litigation would advise a client to renegotiate for a third time with someone else when the first two agreements that were done in good faith apparently don’t mean anything.
I guess it is like a professional athlete who signs a six-year deal, scores 50 goals in the second year of the deal and wants to renegotiate. The question is, who are we? The player or the team?
Jesse Arnold
Richmond
