The infamour Lansdowner mall

[stunkermann]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...412/story.html

The infamous strip mall is in the headlines again. could this be one of Edmonton's biggest controversies?

[Old Dawg]

Once again the city management has overstepped it mandate by interfering with the ebb and flow of commerce.
The result this time is a downgrading of the neighbourhood and a breach in the attempts to make our city greener.
They have spent billions on LRT and bus service yet fail to address the need for community sustainable development.
Unless we are prepared to bus or train our citizens to commercial malls we need to consider the effect of these shortsighted covenants.
While there is still time, council should consider making allowances for this type of development in the downtown core as well. Merchants cannot thrive in this area given the cost of rent unless they can negotiate as an anchor. Small business are precluded from such arrangements and the local population are the ones who suffer.

[moahunter]

It is provincial law, there is nothing the City can do on covenants. As to local grocery stores, my father owned one as a child, it was destroyed by a supermarket opening nearby. He was never bitter, times change. Nice in theory, but in a sprawling suburban city, aside from convinience stores, local grocery stores will always have a hard time surviving except in a few key denser areas, as most people with money and large families to buy significant groceries for, drive, and they will drive to where the prices are better. You can easily save $50 on $200 spend by taking an extra 20 minutes in the auto to reach a Superstore, Costco or Walmart. That's important to a lot of families who aren't making the sort of pay cheques that many of the "elites" are who complain about these things.

[dwntwn_gme]

^^The covenant was placed on the property by the seller. The city didn't overstep anything. If you read the article you would have seen that if anything the City hasn't done enough, not the too much you are suggesting.

[nobleea]

Any contract must be fair to both parties. I do not see how there is any benefit to the province or the public.
These convenants should be scrapped.
I thought Lansdowne was an IGA or Sobeys, not safeway?
Regardless, they left because it was no longer economic. If some smaller chain can make it economic, they should congratulated - everyone wins

[dwntwn_gme]

It would be quite difficult to "scrap" restrictive covenants on commerical properties. They actually have a great benefit to the public as an owner of a strip mall can place covenants that prohibit the sale of certain goods, such as pornography or financial services.

Imagine if the Stony Plain Road strip malls had these covenants in place, no Adult Superstores or Pay Day Loan places.

I think the arguement is that the zoning does not limit the operation of gorcery stores, and that is what the province is suggesting the City use to fight these things. However it is a slippery slope becuase if they overturn this one, then all covenants restricting "less than ideal" tennants wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on.

[Old Dawg]

Originally Posted by dwntwn_gme

Snipped>>>>
However it is a slippery slope becuase if they overturn this one, then all covenants restricting "less than ideal" tennants wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on.

So you are suggesting that once a "law" becomes irrelevant that it should be maintained in perpetuity?

To me, it seems that the use of "covenant" should be reviewed and updated to serve the needs of the community.
The way it stands now we are endorsing the decline of property values and encouraging ghettos.

[Dusty Bear]

Originally Posted by moahunter

It is provincial law, there is nothing the City can do on covenants.

It's more a matter of common law than legislation. And the city can ask the court to overturn them.

[240GLT]

Originally Posted by dwntwn_gme

It would be quite difficult to "scrap" restrictive covenants on commerical properties. They actually have a great benefit to the public as an owner of a strip mall can place covenants that prohibit the sale of certain goods, such as pornography or financial services.

Imagine if the Stony Plain Road strip malls had these covenants in place, no Adult Superstores or Pay Day Loan places.

This is absolutely not how it works.

An owner of a property can do whatever they want, as long as the property is zoned for the use. Overlays are used to restrict certian types of businesses, like the pawn & liquor overlay on 118th. Covenants like the Safeway ones are in place after the property is sold to another owner.

[highlander]

The big problem is that there are very few locations that are large enough to host a grocery store, and in the past nearly all of them were occupied by Safeway. That gives them the power to prevent new grocery stores from opening pretty much anywhere in established neighbourhoods. It's something that the city is right to fight, and something that they should be able to win.

[dwntwn_gme]

^^ It is absolutely how it works.

[dwntwn_gme]

Originally Posted by Old Dawg

So you are suggesting that once a "law" becomes irrelevant that it should be maintained in perpetuity?

To me, it seems that the use of "covenant" should be reviewed and updated to serve the needs of the community.
The way it stands now we are endorsing the decline of property values and encouraging ghettos.

In this instance, the law is not irrelevant. There are many cases where this "law" is applied and upheld for good reason.

I don't agree with the outgoing owner of a grocery store blocking any new grocery stores form replacing it, but in general i don't disagree with commercial restrictive convenants. they serve their purpose and they serve it well.

I am merely diagreeing with you saying that the City over stepped its bounds in this case. It's not the city's fault that the out going tennant is greedy.

[240GLT]

Originally Posted by dwntwn_gme

^^ It is absolutely how it works.

Nope. I think I explained it pretty well to you. You obviosuly don't understand what a restrictive coventant is or what an overlay is. Or how zoning works for that matter.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bear

It's more a matter of common law than legislation. And the city can ask the court to overturn them.

The city or anyone damaged can try to ask in Provincial court - this issue of law falls under provincial jurisdiction. That's expensive though, and might not win. If you want the law to change to prevent such covenants, the Province could enact legislation. From the article:

In 2007, the city asked the province to put in a new law limiting such covenants to 10 years. This request was turned down, but the city should push the province again. Alison Redford’s government can prove it’s truly amenable to city building on issues like this one.

Finally, the city should challenge one of these covenants in court. As the province reminded Mayor Stephen Mandel in 2007, under existing laws a court can modify or discharge a restrictive covenant if it conflicts with a land use bylaw or if the covenant violates the public interest.

I think the second paragraph is a waste of money just for this one instance, the City can't afford to go taking court cases left right and centre on these.

[dwntwn_gme]

Originally Posted by 240GLT

This is absolutely not how it works.

An owner of a property can do whatever they want, as long as the property is zoned for the use. Overlays are used to restrict certian types of businesses, like the pawn & liquor overlay on 118th. Covenants like the Safeway ones are in place after the property is sold to another owner.

I just reviewed the "Alberta Avenue Pedestrian Commercial Shopping Street Overlay" it makes no mention whatsoever as to what types of businesses can operate. As i suspected it contains items such as aesthetics, patrons per sq m, frontages, etc. I also reviewed all other approved Overlays within the City of Edmonton and they all deal with the same thing. Perhaps you don't know how overlays work...

Maybe you are thinking of Separation Distances for liquor stores???

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say a developer developed a local neighbourhood strip mall with saleable units. Let's also say this developer has other interests in adjacent land (i.e. lives in the neighbourhood or wants to develop an adjacent parcel) so when he sells each unit he wants to have a certain degree of control over what goes in there. The land is zoned for commercial, so he places covenants so as to eliminate unwanted businesses from his development.

But back to the topic. Hard to scrap a single restrictive covenant without leaving the door open to challenges on all existing restrictive covenants.

[KC]

Originally Posted by moahunter

It is provincial law, there is nothing the City can do on covenants. As to local grocery stores, my father owned one as a child, it was destroyed by a supermarket opening nearby. He was never bitter, times change. Nice in theory, but in a sprawling suburban city, aside from convinience stores, local grocery stores will always have a hard time surviving except in a few key denser areas, as most people with money and large families to buy significant groceries for, drive, and they will drive to where the prices are better. You can easily save $50 on $200 spend by taking an extra 20 minutes in the auto to reach a Superstore, Costco or Walmart. That's important to a lot of families who aren't making the sort of pay cheques that many of the "elites" are who complain about these things.

You'll appreciate Warren Buffett's comment (his grandfather had a grocery store) on owning businesses without moats where you're always following the lead of you competitors. He said something to the effect that 'most retail stores without 'moats' are poor businesses because if the guy across the street adds a new display window, you have add a new window. If they add a new escalator you have to add an escalator...'. Safeway though seems to have found a way to create modest moats.

I'd question whether having a legal restriction on fair trade that may be more powerful than patent law should continue to be allowed. Then again, repercussions might affect restrictions that protect historical and environmentally sensitive lands and buildings.

[The_Cat]

Is there any way that the city could approve new Safeway locations, on the condition that the restrictive covenant on old ones be relinquished?

Around 1972, back when Strathcona County was dominated by rural people, council was stupid enough to sign a 20-year contract to allow Safeway to be the only food chain to prevent competition.