User talk:Skeezix1000/Archives/2006/April

John Labatt Centre
Your edit regarding the JLC that "Not unique -- it is very common for it take years for a demolished property to officially cease to be designated -- the Talbot Inn by no means the first" is 100 per cent incorrect.

The standard procedure for demolishing a designated heritage property is to repeal the designating by-law and to issue a demoltion permit. At the JLC, the City of London did neither. What the City did obtain was a "heritage alteration permit" to demolish the Talbot Inn -- totally contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act and a total abuse of process.

The Talbot Inn remained a designated heritage property in London for approximately 17 months after it was demolished and the building materials trucked to Try Recycling on Highbury Avenue.

According to officials that I spoke with at the Ontario Heritage Foundation (I did a story on the matter in SCENE magazine, plus I sat on the London advisory Committee on Heritage for three years), it is a first for Ontario and likely Canada. It is also a first for London, Ontario.

I will be editing the article accordingly. Barry Wells 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I am pleased to know that you take such an interest in heritage matters, and am very happy to discuss such matters with you at length, I am afraid that you are incorrect. I am a lawyer that handles heritage matters on a regular basis.  Under the Ontario Heritage Act (an article I wrote, by the way), as it existed prior to the 2005 amendments, a landowner could demolish a designated building 180 days after a municipality refused permission to demolish.  Where the municipality was opposed to the demolition, it was incredibly rare for it to repeal the designation by-law prior to the demolition.  In fact, it wouldn't make any sense for the municipality to do so, given that the intent of the 180 day period was for the municipality to try and negotiate some level of heritage preservation (if it was able).  And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition, it was very common for a municipality to take quite awhile to pass the housekeeping by-law to repeal the earlier designation by-law.  It was not rare whatsoever in Ontario, therefore, for a building to technically remain designated for quite some time after the demolition.  The only time that it was standard practice for a municipality to repeal the designation by-law prior to demolition was where the municipality approved the demolition. Under the Act currently, a landowner must apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to demolish a building where the municipality refuses a permit to demolish.  Presumably, where the Board grants permission to demolish, in the face of municipal opposition, the designating by-law will still end up usually being repealed post-demolition, depending on how quickly a landowner acts on the Board order.  I can only speculate, as the first appeals under these new provisions are still working their way through the system. The City of London may have demolished the Inn contrary to the provisions of the Act.  That does not change the fact that the fact that it was not unusual for the City to take 17 months to repeal the designation by-law.   There may have been many matters unique to the demolition of the Inn, but this was not one of them. And although the Foundation is established pursuant to a section of the Ontario Heritage Act, it does not administer the municipal designation provisions in section 29 or the alteration/demolition provisions in sections 33 and 34 of the statute. So unless I have completely misunderstood what you are attempting to convey by the phrase "a first in Ontario's history and perhaps Canada's, according to officials with the Ontario Heritage Foundation", I'd have to say on its plain reading that it is wrong at law.  I have amended the article accordingly.  Skeezix1000 03:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First things first. The current version is incorrect as no one from the Ontario Heritage Foundation made comment on the precise number of months between the unlawful demolition on Sunday, June 3, 2001 and the actual repeal date of the designating by-law -- that is a matter of public record on file in the clerk's office in London, Ontario.

To wit, Planning Committee supported the London Advisory Committee on Heritage's (LACH) recommendation to de-designate the property in September of 2002 (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yvBzVR8PNQ0J:council.london.ca/oldarchive/Planning%2520Archives/Archived%2520Planning%2520Committee%2520Reports%2520-%25202002/Report%2520September%252030,%25202002.pdf+Talbot+Inn+demolition&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=4) so 17 months is the approximate time elapsed after the Planning Committee's recommendation went to City Council a week later, then public notice requirements were carried out.

Translation: the wording in the current version "according to the Ontario Heritage Foundation" should be deleted.

Regarding the other business, User:Skeezix1000 maintains that it is not unusual for a demolished heritage property to remain designated by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act and that he is a lawyer who regularly deals with heritage matters, even though his scenario runs contrary to the provisions of the Act, which he admits with the line, "And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition ..." (actually prior to the demolition.)

I believe that is incumbent on him to provide specific examples (other than the Talbot Inn example -- a first in London, Ontario's history) where a designated heritage property has been demolished without the prior or prompt repeal of the designating by-law.

For clarity, what occurred in London is that the council had approved a "heritage alteration permit" for the Talbot Inn (owned by the municipality) several months before the building was demolished with heavy equipment on the morning of Sunday, June 3, 2001.

This is also contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act as an alteration permit approved by a municipal council cannot be used to demolish a designated heritage property. Since the municipality is the body that often initiates charges under the Act, no charges were laid as no citizen stepped forward to initiate them, nor did the province. Barry Wells 23:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (copied from John Labatt Centre's discussion page) Barry Wells 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Act does not require that a designation by-law be repealed prior to demolition. Subsection 34.3(1) requires that the municipality enact the repeal by-law if the owner has applied to demolish and the Council consents to the application or the Board (on appeal) orders the municipality to consent.  There is no timing requirement that necessitates passage of the repeal by-law pre-demolition; the statute simply requires that certain pre-conditions be met.  In fact, municipalities will often enact the housekeeping measure after the demolition.  The example that comes to mind right now is a building down the road from where I live, where the City of Toronto enacted the repeal by-law after the building had been demolished to make way for condos (see the repeal by-law at, and note the fifth recital which acknowledges that the building had already been demolished).  In 2001, when the Inn in London was demolished, the Act (as it read then) similarly contained no requirement that the repeal by-law be enacted prior to demolition.  In fact, (then) subsection 34(5) required passage of the repeal by-law where Council had consented to the demolition application OR the 180 day period had expired (as had the extension periods, if any) and "the demolition or removal of the building or structure on the property has been completed".  The text of (then) s. 34(5) had been in the statute for years, and acknowledged on its face that the repeal by-law would, in many circumstances, be enacted post-demolition.  The example (from around the same time as the Talbot Inn demolition, based on the same version of the statute) that comes to mind at this moment is the controversial demolition of the Union Carbide building on Eglinton.  I'll dig up that repeal by-law when I have the chance. I have no comments on any of the other issues. Skeezix1000 12:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC) The Union Carbide repeal by-law, as mentioned above, is at .  That wasn't too hard to find.  Skeezix1000 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg
Hum, I taked this picture myself, and it's my name on this picture, and I'll not erase my name. MaThQc 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for disputing JLC page
Thanks for disputing the stuff about the demolition of the Talbot Inn on the John Labatt Centre page. Your input helped clarify the situation. Barry Wells 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I enjoyed debating it with you, and am always pleased to see heritage issues get discussed.  Thanks for your help with that section -- it is now far better than my original edit way back when.  Skeezix1000 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

re: NAmE
Hi! No prob—the question is, I'm kind of crusading against the phrase "Commonwealth English," trying to erase references to it whenever they are unnecessary. The Caribbean thing is a tricky one, it's arguably harder to picture Caribbean English in the same backdrop as U.S. and Canadian—and should it be North America, Northern America, or...? Anyways, thanks for stopping in. Best, JackLumber 11:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Keeping an Eye on "Beach" vs "Beaches"
I too had noticed 142.240.200.10's wholesale and very POV edits to The Beaches article, and you beat me to it. Thanks for keeping an eye on that one.

I live in the area and I try to keep my postings on the subject as non-POV as possible, and providing references where possible just so that I can back up what's said (I've been rightly dinged on that point before). But 142.240.200.10 went truly overboard this time, even changing a statement in one of my references willy-nilly.

For the record, I am for "Beaches", and have voted thusly. But I recognize that Wikipedia is not a place for POV-ism, and am just interested in providing facts on the issue where possible, rather than conjecture.

Cheers! Captmondo 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian articles
I have had problems with spelling changes. I was reverting edits I had done yesterday in American articles and I must have put the Toronto category into the list. I will change these edits back to what they should be and I am sorry to cause any problems - Erebus555 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted all edits back to the correct spelling as requested. - Erebus555 16:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg
This is somewhat of a curious case. I suppose, realistically, the image should be taken to Images and media for deletion and the uploader discouraged from uploading any more images with copyright watermarks. The uploader clearly did not intend to license the image under the GFDL but instead under an attribution license, and probably under something like CC-BY-ND. Under the GFDL the copyright watermark could simply be removed in the next revision so long as the history was accurately perserved. I think that the best way not to be jerks is to gently suggest to the uploader that if he or she would like to share watermarked images that cannot be altered that they should use Flickr, or some other media-sharing service that is respectful of copyrights, but that Wikimedia projects can't be used to host such images and that all original contributions must follow our policies. Once the uploader understands that they incorrectly licensed their image they will probably want it deleted themselves; let me know and I will speedy it. Jkelly 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In Canada, where you live, you can be put in jail for doing it. There is a law about copyrighted things and the syndic of journalist of Quebec and Canada can do a complaint about the Wikipedia. Just a little word it, I Will check it what I do later with my syndic. MaThQc 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you are talking about. First, I was not the one who cropped the image -- please check the image history before you go make accusations. Second, you licensed the image as GFDL when you uploaded it -- which grants permission to others to modify it.  Third, as mentioned above, it is Wikipedia's image use policy that images NOT have credits in the image itself.  If you disagree with the policy, and prefer to have credits within the image, then do not upload it to Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 13:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Historically" Beach vs Beaches
No, I do not mind, and I agree with your point. We don't want to have a section where every business in the area is listed willy-nilly. I thought "institution" would take care of it, but "historically" just drives thr point home. Cheers! Captmondo 18:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay's RfA
Hey Skeezix1000, we kicked the Sens you know what just this weekend ;). Anyways, thanks bud for your support at my recent RfA. Since a certain team will be absent from a certain playoffs :(, you can leave me a message here, and I should get back to you, given the fact that I won't be watching much TV nowadays. Regards, -- Jay  (Reply)  02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

SD vs RM for Beach
If you feel a Requested Move is best considering the article's history, feel free to change that. I'm just coming in and finding a bad page move; I didn't realize the degree of history behind it all... Radagast 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)