Going......

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#2
Going....

I see that work crews are removing wiring and heat/AC components from the building and there is a temporary fence around the whole property. I'm told that the Dynes demolition will be started this week.
Last Day Standing2_zpsur0vdxtt.JPG


Last Day Standing_zpslvrpkstr.JPG
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#5
Going....

it made it on CH you asked tonight,
Yes, it was the old manager (Renee) who asked and it was followed by "it is scheduled for demolition".
It was demolished today. And I'm told that there was no permit, a warning to stop work and the Beach just spent $5k on a consultant's report commenting on the historical significance of the building. We will see how this one works out.

DynesDem1_zpsbyyuzflv.JPG
DynesDem2_zpsncmevoos.JPG
DynesDem2a_zpso8vlmwmi.JPG
 

YNOT

Registered User
Jul 1, 2005
2
0
0
#9
Yes, the Dynes was demolished today. A permit was applied and paid for on April 5, 2007 (almost 4 months ago). Despite all the ranting and raving in the past 4 weeks, where was all the concern to perserve the Dynes while countless renovations and minor demolitions occured over the past ten decades?

The permit was tabled by the City on May 8, 2007 and nothing happened after that until the Dynes owner and developer requested a meeting with Councilor Collins and a member of LACAC in mid July.

As for the "Beach" paying $5,000 for consultant; the City paid to the Beach Preservation Committee $5,000 to acquire a last minute historical report which was completed after a 2 hour visit to the site at a cost of $3,500 (and wasted the owner's/developer's time at no charge). The City has a mandate, if not a legal requirement, to process and issue permits in a timely fashion. THE DYNES WAS NOT AND IS NOT DESIGNATED AS A HERITAGE BUILDING.

For all the compliants by residents over the past several years about taxes on the beach, why does everyone think the Dynes was exempt? The taxes for the Dynes and the vacant land (315) was over $4,000 a month! In fact when the disgusting business/buildings at 315 Beach Boulevard were tore down in 2004 (no complaint from anyone then),the taxes on that property went up due to residential/commercial reverting to all commercial (higher tax rate)when the property becomes "vacant".

It is wonderfull to hear so may people loved the Dynes as evidenced by the photgraphy of the demolition, but where was everyone for the past decade as one owner after the other went bankrupt due to lack of business. As soon as someone tried to make a go of it, the Beach complained of bike traffic and noise(music); not to mention the Province banning smoking in a tavern where 90% of patrons and staff smoked.

Or how about the very public complaining as too how polluted the beach strip is with all the "fall out". I am sure anyone reading the Spec and/or postings on this web site would quickly rush to the Dynes to sit on the patio only to be covered in "black soot".

The self-appointed saviors of beach strip now run to the City for support, the very City which if it had enough money would have expropriated all of you years ago to make room for a park. This City has war chest of money (apprx. $1,000,000) set aside for the beach strip; stop letting a few people make the descisions on how the money should be spent. Do you all like the road being in disrepair, the hydro towers running over your homes and along the beach (rather than on the industrial side - Eastport), the constant flooding of side steets and the Beach Boulevard due to an engineering failure when the sewers were installed, and increased crime as more transient/ex-cons make the beach strip their temporary home right accross from the play-ground/pool where your children spend their summer days.

Everyone please find more important things to do with your time, progress is going to happen whether you like it or not.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#11
Yes, the Dynes was demolished today. A permit was applied and paid for on April 5, 2007 (almost 4 months ago). Despite all the ranting and raving in the past 4 weeks, where was all the concern to perserve the Dynes while countless renovations and minor demolitions occured over the past ten decades?
The historical sections of the building are mainly located on and in the old sections of the building as reported in the consultants report, many of the "countless renovations" were done to the building envelope had been done years before most of us were even on the Beach. Check the 1980 attached picture below and the Central Library has a very similar one from 1975.

YNOT said:
The permit was tabled by the City on May 8, 2007 and nothing happened after that until the Dynes owner and developer requested a meeting with Councilor Collins and a member of LACAC in mid July.

As for the "Beach" paying $5,000 for consultant; the City paid to the Beach Preservation Committee $5,000 to acquire a last minute historical report which was completed after a 2 hour visit to the site at a cost of $3,500 (and wasted the owner's/developer's time at no charge). The City has a mandate, if not a legal requirement, to process and issue permits in a timely fashion. THE DYNES WAS NOT AND IS NOT DESIGNATED AS A HERITAGE BUILDING.
Yes we dropped the ball on that one, we should of had it designated back years ago when many of the home near the canal were designated as heritage sites. I was asked many times by patrons at the bar why the building wasn't designated and my answer was that what is the difference, designation or no designation, the owner will tear it down anyway. That's just my opinion, but was I wrong?
Still no permit, you should have waited like the rest of us would of had to.
As for the $5k, that whole amount was put aside to cover the report and it did cost around the $3,500 amount, add the tax though.

YNOT said:
For all the compliants by residents over the past several years about taxes on the beach, why does everyone think the Dynes was exempt? The taxes for the Dynes and the vacant land (315) was over $4,000 a month! In fact when the disgusting business/buildings at 315 Beach Boulevard were tore down in 2004 (no complaint from anyone then),the taxes on that property went up due to residential/commercial reverting to all commercial (higher tax rate)when the property becomes "vacant".
As I have done in the past, thank you for removing that mess and no one is complaining, but that wasn't the Dynes and you had a proper permit .

YNOT said:
It is wonderfull to hear so may people loved the Dynes as evidenced by the photgraphy of the demolition, but where was everyone for the past decade as one owner after the other went bankrupt due to lack of business. As soon as someone tried to make a go of it, the Beach complained of bike traffic and noise(music); not to mention the Province banning smoking in a tavern where 90% of patrons and staff smoked.
But you didn't really want it to make it a go, you told me a year and half ago that it was coming down so why even try make any big changes to the place if it's gone anyway? I can only assume that it was your plan from the beginning as that is the business you are in.
It was only a couple select residents that complained about the music, but that's all it takes. The same ones complained about music at the Beach Rescue Unit. Many of the Beach resident attended your bike nights, but again a select few of the bikers made much more noise than really necessary even though there were regular warnings from the bike night MC to tone it down.
I agree the smoking ban hurt business at the Dynes as it did to many taverns in Hamilton and later, the Province. The Beach Community had absolutely no say in that decision.

YNOT said:
Or how about the very public complaining as too how polluted the beach strip is with all the "fall out". I am sure anyone reading the Spec and/or postings on this web site would quickly rush to the Dynes to sit on the patio only to be covered in "black soot".
Then why would people rush to buy expensive housing in the same spot?? The Beach community is working closely with area industry to slow and/or end our black soot issues, but if nothing is said then nothing will be done. So yes we have to sometimes shame these companies into making their process a better one.
YNOT said:
The self-appointed saviors of beach strip now run to the City for support, the very City which if it had enough money would have expropriated all of you years ago to make room for a park. This City has war chest of money (apprx. $1,000,000) set aside for the beach strip; stop letting a few people make the descisions on how the money should be spent. Do you all like the road being in disrepair, the hydro towers running over your homes and along the beach (rather than on the industrial side - Eastport), the constant flooding of side steets and the Beach Boulevard due to an engineering failure when the sewers were installed, and increased crime as more transient/ex-cons make the beach strip their temporary home right accross from the play-ground/pool where your children spend their summer days.
The elected Beach Council is in constant dialog with the City and they do assist us with various issue that affect our community and not just your demolition permit, the City also accepts the problems of all residents as shown by the complaints of the select few about Bike Night.
The elected Beach Council was born to stop the City from proceeding with the slow death of the Beach, no one was expropriated by name and residents could sell their home to the City at their discretion, willing buyer-willing seller. But all building permits were denied and if your house was say, damaged by fire, you couldn't rebuild, hence the slow death.
With the removal of many of the slum housing the Beach started to look much better and many wanted to stay or had no intention of leaving period, the elected Beach Council took the City to court and at an OMB hearing the City was told that what they were doing wasn't legal. We are still here today and yes I can hear you, but the Dynes isn't.
The elected Council does have a sway vote on how the money from lot revenues is spent, but any Beach resident may run for council or show up at monthly meetings and be heard. But at most of the meeting in the past year I heard very little on what we could spend money on but rather what could be done about the Dynes.
The main road on the beach is in disrepair, but why spend one cent on it until all the lots have been filled in and the digging up of Beach Blvd has finished as that would be a complete waste of our tax dollars.
Moving the towers would cost a considerable amount of money of which one million dollars wouldn't even come close to covering, but I guess it would help condo sales though. We lived with them all our lives, we live with them for a long time to come.
The flooding issue is as old as the Beach it's self, at times in the past it was mostly a fight against the rising lake and there wasn't much storm sewers could do about clearing the side streets of flooding water, you can't argue with Lake Ontario. In more recent times the flooding is minor as compared to the 50's and the 70's. The problem that exist now is due to the catch basins at the end of the streets being terminated for one reason or another under the QEW and the City is now forced to pump the end of the streets to the catch basin on the blvd. However, the City has a new pumping station is in the works and hopefully this project alleviate the situation. The sewers that were installed many years ago (and we are still paying for) are a sanitary system and have no bearing on the flooding issue.
The elected Beach Council and the residents in general are very aware of the problems at the Beach Motel, Hamilton Police are getting more involved due to complaints and have included the BEAR unit to make arrests. I have been there many times and watch as rooms were raided and seen police load handcuffed people into paddy wagons. Do I want my kids at the park? No really, but when they do go I tag along with then and when I can't they know which homes they can go to for help. We watch for each other down here!
During the weekdays the City employs staff at the park that do watch the kids as they enjoy themselves.
And it is still 100% better down here than it is for crime in many places in Hamilton.
And the question does arise, do we want the motel or another crowded housing development shoe horned into that property? Myself, I will take the motel over an unwanted rise in the population density.

YNOT said:
Everyone please find more important things to do with your time, progress is going to happen whether you like it or not.
Now you are starting to sound just like our friends over at the Port who think that progress is a toxic waste dump with a asphalt plant built on top of it and we on the Beach should like it, well we don't and sorry but we didn't want the Dynes gone either.
 
Likes: Opie

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#12
yep I saw that kinda like a last minute statement on the newsguys behalf I was waiting for them to say that during the segment Oh well
I was around for most of the demolition and CH didn't show, only the Spec.
But you would of thought that they would of heard.
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#13
The Dynes is demolished before city could stop it

Posted with full permission from the Hamilton Spectator.

Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
(Aug 1, 2007)
The Dynes Tavern was demolished without a permit yesterday, just days after a consultant found the historic tavern should, and could, be saved.

"I'm very disappointed," said Councillor Chad Collins, who was working with the community to save the Beach Strip landmark. The city sent an inspector to stop the demolition, but arrived too late. Officials must now decide if they want to charge owner Tony DePasquale.

If convicted, he could face fines up to $50,000. DePasquale did not return a call for comment.

A land deal with Branthaven Homes worth more than $1 million was hanging on the Dynes' demolition. DePasquale applied for a demolition permit in May, but council delayed a decision due to heritage concerns.

The tavern, operating since 1847, was not designated a historic building. DePasquale had threatened to tear it down without a permit, but agreed to hold off until a third party, heritage assessment was completed.

Legally, the city can only delay a permit for several weeks, forcing a quick turn around on the report. It came back last week, stating the building was salvageable and historically significant. If it couldn't be preserved on site, the report said it could be moved.

But saving the tavern would have meant reopening the land deal, a move DePasquale wasn't willing to accept, said Branthaven president Steve Stipsits. No one raised concerns until the sale was inked, he noted, putting DePasquale in a difficult spot.

Stipsits said he wants to work with the Beach community to commemorate the Dynes at the housing development.

nmacintyre@thespec.com

905-526-3299
 

scotto

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2004
6,985
218
63
The Beach Strip
#14
Dynes: no way to say goodbye

Wade Hemsworth
The Hamilton Spectator
(Aug 3, 2007)
Some people are upset they never got the chance to say goodbye to the Dynes Tavern.

Others wish they'd had a better chance to fight for it.

It's too late now, since owner Tony DePasquale tore down the 160-year-old Beach Strip landmark without official permission this week, just as he had said he would.

That action is hardly something to applaud. DePasquale, who owns a demolition company, appears to have thumbed his nose at the bylaws that require an owner to obtain a demolition permit before tearing down a building.

He had applied for a permit months ago, but didn't wait until it came through, and by the time the city inspector arrived to try to put a stop to the demolition, the damage was done.

While some say that makes DePasquale a scofflaw, others might say it makes him a pragmatist.

On one side of the balance had been a deal to sell the property, which was no longer a thriving business by the time DePasquale bought it.

A developer who is eager to put up townhouses was ready to pay more than $1 million for the land, provided it was cleared.

On the other side was a fine that under the owner's worst-case scenario -- a finding that the Dynes and its apartments constituted two separate entities, and convictions under both the planning and building rules -- could cost him as much as $200,000, but would likely be much less.

The cost of obeying the law could have been a trip to real-estate purgatory -- given the possibility that a heritage-designation process that was in the offing and could delay or even prevent the demolition.

And while he waited, anything could have happened to the land deal.

There is no question that the Dynes Tavern was a historic building, nor that it held a place in the hearts and memories of many Hamiltonians.

If saving it was truly important to the community, its proponents could have sought a designation before the Dynes ever fell on times hard enough to make demolition the best financial option.

Whether or not its architectural features would have met the criteria for historical designation is now, sadly, academic.

The demolition of this building does offer another lesson: our city needs to make it clear that breaking the law is not a good business option.

For one thing, it's a question of safety. Demolition permits are important for the same reason building permits are important: to make sure potentially hazardous work is done safely to protect the people doing it and the people who might be affected by it.

For another thing, it's a question of optics. If we create a law, we must be prepared to make sure it is obeyed, and one of the best ways is to create meaningful deterrents to breaking it.

The punishment for tearing down buildings without permission needs to be severe enough that it can't be factored in simply as a cost of doing business.

Editorials are written by members of the editorial board. They represent the position of the newspaper, not necessarily the individual author.
 
Top Bottom