Sunday, June 29, 1997 — North Shore News — 3 City eyesore irks neighbors Lower Lonsdale site subject of petition ta NVC By Jolanda Waskito Contributing Writer FOR the past three and a half years, Ed Street has looked out of his Lower Lonsdale living room win- dow to see one of the North Shere’s biggest “eycsores.” A six-storey “pigeon-infested,” unfinished apartnent building dom- inates the view fron: Street’s home at Grosvenor Piace on 540 Lonsdale ve. The building on 104 East 5th St. was ane of 10 structures listed as Eyesores of the North Shore in the Friday, June 20, edition of the North Shore News. “When I get up in the morning I like to look at the view, but I see a building shrouded in huge blue tarps,” said Street. “The building is pigeon intested, the scaffolding has added to the unwieldy look of the building .... they don’r clean up after themselves.” The tarps make a loud, irritating snapping noise when it’s windy and the fence around the con- struction site — big sheets of woud stuck together — is also very unattractive, Strec’. said. The building has been under construction since November 1993 by Ristes Investments Ltd. Repeated attempts by the Grosvenor Place building manag- er and strata council to talk to owner George Ristes have been rebuffed. “(They) have tried to discuss this with Mr. Ristes and he just turns and waiks away,” Sereet said. “We're tired of this. We want to feel proud of our neighborhood. It’s unfair to have to live with this eyesore.” He isn’t alone. Almost 180 residents from eight neighboring apartment buildings, including Street’s, signed a petition condemning the building as an “eyesore.” ED Street’s eyes are sore. He's been looking at a buliding under construction for more than three years. He appeared before North Vancouver City Council on Monday to pressure the city for some action. Council wants the building completed soon. The petitioners — who are also urging Ristes to complete the exterior and landscaping of the building — brought their concerns to North Vancouver City council Monday night. Councillors sympathized with residents — “i share your sense of frustration and anger, staff and council feel this wa' too,” said Coun. Bob Fearnley. But he said their hands are tied. “The city said they couldn’t do anything about it,” said Jim Ramsay, who lives at the Royal Kensington at 444 Lonsdale. “There’s no cap on the completion period.” The Ristes building is able to remain unfinished for three years and counting because as long as construction docs not cease entirely for a period exceeding one year, the city cannot insist that a project be completed within a certain time frame, City Inspections Manager John Guenther said. He said the city has written wo letters to Ristes and has met with him, asking him to close the roof so the tarps can be removed, to finish the exterior of the building, and to remove the unsightly fence. “(Ristes) was sympathetic (but) he’s working at this own pace,” Guenther said. *He’s not borrowing from the bank, it’s a sort of *pay as you go” basis.” ; Ristes is trying to build an afford- able rental housing project. It’s a commendable feat considering most apartments around Lower Lonsdale are bought and not rented our, Guenther added. Councillors debated on what to do next. Coun, Fearnley wanted to “declare the project a nuisance,” invite Ristes to present his case before council, and “prevent this from happening again.” Coun. Darrell Mussatto couldn’t disagree more. “E think we should let him appear before council so that we can under- stand his point of view, then see if it should be declared a nuisance,” Mussatto said. “1 agree it’s a messy building, but let’s see his point of view first.” Coun. Barbara Sharp agreed. “This (Fearnley’s) motion is premature,” Sharp said. “You don’t back people in a corner... It’s only fair we given him an opportunity to do something about it.” But Cuun. Fearnley stuck to his motion. “This situation has been dragging on for some time,” he said. “You've got to be fair to Mr. Ristes, but you've got to be fair to the neighbors.” “(Ristes) has only been following the rules,” Mussatto said. It was Mayor Jack Loucks who had the last say about the matter. “I think we need to get his attention,” Loucks said. “I agree with Coun. Fearnley’s motion, but he (Ristes) will have his day in court.” Council voted 4-1 to prepare a motion to declare the pro- ject a nuisance and invite Ristes to present his case to council. Coun. Sharp voted against the motion. NEWS photo Mike Wakefletd Free expression ‘vital From page 1 confirmed his group’s support for human rights bar cautioned that the section of B.C.’s Human Rights Code under which the News and Collins are facing the action is a “very wide infringement of freedom of expression” in a democracy where “sovereign citizens” must have access to all ideas. He said citizens have a democrat- ic responsibility to speak out against harmhal speech. . “Freedom of we expression is vital to the existence of democracy in which citizens, not the gov- ernment, are the sovereign authority,” Mollard writes in his 50-page submission. “Freedom of expression is impor- tant to our individ- val and collective search for truth, including the ability to critically assess the fallibility of accepted wisdom.” Mollard said a democracy thrives on the “heated exchange of ideas, including those that may be hurtful.” The BCCLA also warned against the danger of martyrdom. When controversial speakers fee! the hor breath of government on the back of their necks, it often gives their mes- sages even greater currency. “... The names Keegstra, Zundel and Ross are notorious throughout Canada in large measure due to legal CHAIRMAN Nitya lyer -. ruling could take several months. proscriptions which have multiplied many times the public exposure given to their views and causes.” It must also be kept in mind, the BCCLA stated, that speech affects readers in many ways — some can be moved to positive action by a mes- sage with which they disagree. “The targets of extreme speech are not all personally affronted by this speech. Some may react with indifference. Those who are not the targets of this speech may be influ- enced by it but in varying, often bene- ficial ways: they may stand up and denounce racism or other prejudice.” The association concluded that the section in question — 7(1)(b) — vio- lates Canada’s Charter or Rights and Freedoms and is not justified in a free democracy. Intervenors have also lined up in sup- port of the Canadian Jewish Congress and to defend the consti- tutional validity of the government’s legislation. The B.C. Human — Rights Coalition argued that, because of the media’s influential role in society, government intrusion is warranted. And the notion that more speech is better than less is misguided in our uneven world. It stated: “The ‘marketplace of ideas’ assumes a society in which full equality has already been obtained. In an unequal society such as ours, those individuals and groups who are relatively privileged have greater access to and power in respect of the ‘marketplace of ideas.’ ” The coalition maintained that to deny the government’s human rights law, which is aimed at preventing speech that is “liksly to expose per- sons or groups to hatred or con- tempt” based on such factors as race or religion, is equivalent to enshrin- ing in law “the inequality that exists between disadvantaged groups in our society and those who, in the name of freedom of expression, demand the right to publish hate speech.” One of the most colorful submis- sions came from the Chinese Benevolent Association. Arguing on behalf of the CJC side, lawyer Brahm Martz used a 1951 Dr. Seuss cartoon to in part bolster his case that creat- ing a tolerant society is key to our future. Second only to the challenge of a clean environment, he submitted, is the challenge of “maintaining a soci- ety free of discrimination and racial intolerance.” Martz criticized the News for bringing harm to the community through thinly disguised controver- sial opinion. “Some communities have welcome wagons, the North Shore where | live, has the North Shore News. I submit that it brings harm to us all.” He went on to say the paper seems to have chosen a plan of “spewing out into our community ... hare speech that vilifics some of our neighbors because of their race or religion ...” Club site held by Park Royal owner From page 1 able to take a great chunk out of our waiting list, which is about 500 kids.” In addition, at least one men’s league with 20 teams will be looking for a new igloo. “I don’t know what we are going to do for this September,” said North Vancouver hockey player Graham Simms. Earlier this year, a North Vancouver District deal with the Burrard Band to build two or more rinks on band land fell through. The club has offered the rink and other facilities to the District of North Vancouver. Commission director Gary Young said the recreation commission will look at the offer and staff will bring a report to a com- mission meeting July 10. That report will likely go to council. Young said the commission will look at the offer in the context of operating costs, the impact on the community and the liability issue. “It’s one of the issues I’m concerned about,” said Young. “They tell us their insurers are not prepared to insure the building.” The last few years of club history have been tumultuous. Developer Larco, which owns Park Royal shopping centre, bought the 4.3-acre site the club sits on in 1988. In 1991, the McKenzie family opened the latest incarnation of the athletic club. The McKenzies said the club was in bad repair when they took over. But they were able to sell 600 memberships at $500 a pop and monthly fees. In 1993, the McKenzies’ relationship with Larco soured when Larco announced it intended to redevelop the site. The McKenzies said new members didn’t join and members and mens’ leagues using the rink bailed on the club due to its uncertain future. 1908" McKenzies left a trail of legal papers when they departed in Larco began operating the club and floated a plan that included 197 condos and a community centre for the site. However residents didn’t like Larco’s idea. Last year, North Vancouver District Council retained the site’s entertainmenc and recre- ation zoning and struck a Lower Capilano Community Facilities Committee. A sub-committee of that committee is to review and rec- ommend the preferred future land uses for the Cap West site. The committee was struck in May.