- Kathy Foley
- November 23, 2012 - 17:28
The Battery has had a bad reputation for more years than I can remember. Ryan Cleary has concerns for labour but the University represents a long-term solution and investment in maintaining the property and facility to its finest. Many universities own hotels on their campus for the enourmous number of visiting people from all over the world. A B&B downtown may do little for a person who must daily travel to campus on a crappy bus system and outrageously expensive taxis The university's strategic planning is not to decrease the building's economic value. Its presence there will demand services in the immediate area. It's time we took care of our education development as a priority instead of tourism.
- Fred Squires
- November 21, 2012 - 07:49
Revenue based commercial properties should always stay as that. Never let a scenic icon such as the Battery hotel lose its identity.It has the most enviable site overlooking the city of St Johns.Other cities would showcase this property and would only issue permits to renovate, decorate ,and only allow it to remain a beautiful hotel.Once again city of St. Johns should have asked the citizens what should have been done with this situation.Now the taxes are gone, jobs gone, no more Battery hotel.Citizens of St Johns should have taken it over, what a winner that would have been all around. +
- November 16, 2012 - 14:58
If you guys keep voting for the same old Rhinos every time a city or municipal election rolls around you're getting what you deserve!A backwater mentality from a backwater bunch of old fossils.We only get the government we deserve ultimately.Just look at our recently held US elections ?We're headed down the toilet like "scrubbing Bubbles"!Learn from us!!Those who forget recent history are doomed to repeat it!!
- You want money...
- November 16, 2012 - 12:44
...develop the area into a casino/hotel. Think about these tour ships that come in with people looking to waste a few hours here...and spend money..."We only have a few hours...let's pop up to that very classy looking casino." Who wouldn't head there for a bacholar party or a guys/girl's night out? A place for some shows too...we are a have provance...let's start acting/looking like one.
- Cynthia Snow
- November 16, 2012 - 10:17
JP: I did not state that the City of St. John's had any input into who purchased the Battery Hotel, I only stated that I didn't understand why they would be happy about it. Perhaps before you rebuke someone elses comment, you might want to at least read it first. What the City allowed to happen was to lose $300,000 a year in taxes, not to mention additional tourist dollars that would be spend in the downtown core of our city. They refused to put a beautiful new hotel up there a couple of years ago. Since MUN is now the new owner, unless you are a student or a member of a staff member, the view is now lost to you. I actually attended a wedding reception up at that hotel many years ago and the view was incredible. You can see the entire harbour and and well out into the narrows. Personally I wouldn't care about any other hotel being converted into office buildings (with the exception of Hotel Newfoundland), but this building is unique since it sits on a very historical site and I do believe in a case such as this the people of our City should have been allowed to voice their concerns.
- November 16, 2012 - 10:07
What a bunch at City Hall, lose $300,000.00 look at all the new commercial development throughout this city and new taxes . they always spin on the negative they hove more money than they know what to do with!!!. But waste most of it, such as fence on the Harbour Front???
- November 16, 2012 - 09:52
My preference is that the Battery should have remained as a hotel because of it's location and views. This site would best be developed into an upscale hotel, very few places can claim this sort of panoramic view. I also believe that MUN should pay some taxes to compensate for the services they receive from the city of St John's. The city provides street maintenance, snow clearing, water and sewer services, MetroBus etc. If MUN does not contribute at least a minimum amount towards these costs they will have to be covered by the taxpayers of the city.
- November 16, 2012 - 09:29
Leave it to the greedy unions to jump on this.......you have enough money to buy premises, so you should have enough money to pay us more, more, more.....typical union banter.....the university should absolutely come back and say that they have spent all extra money on infrastructure, so there is no extra money left......never mind the greed...!!!!!!!!!!!
- November 16, 2012 - 11:12
I just KNEW the greedy unions were behind this! I would expect that single welfare mothers are in on this too. Imagine the nerve of some workers wanting to get paid a decent salary! No good can come from the lower classes getting uppity.
- November 16, 2012 - 09:22
You've got to be kidding me.... What a spot for a Hotel, and as mentioned, for tourists and Newfoundlanders to enjoy. Now an office building... wow. I don't know why city council is so against modernization and updating. Do you think New York would be what it is today if they didn't tear anything down? With the right design, taking cues from the existing hotel, it would have been a nice place, and a taxable income for the city. But this opportunity has passed now....you lost out St.Johns.
- November 16, 2012 - 09:22
Cynthia, as with any business transaction over the sale of a property, the city has NO say in who purchases a property, nor has any role in approving it. They can only approve, or not, the redevelopment or rezoning of said property after the transaction is complete. In this case, it does not appear that MUN wants to redevelop the land if they are inspecting the building, and office space is as much a business as a hotel is, therefore no rezoning is required. There is no view of the narrows from the hotel, only a view of the dockyard at the other end of the harbour. If anything, all other office buildings and hotels downtown have a better view of the narrows than the Battery. As for the loss of taxes, the city need only approve 150 new houses at an average cost of $2000 in annual taxes to make up the difference, which they will no doubt have no difficulties in chomping another bite out of the land on Kenmount hill. Or the city can use its multi-million surplus to fix the aging water infrastructure in the city and save hundreds of thousands a year in paying for repeated watermain excavations and repairs. As for the employees who will lose their positions at the Battery I certainly feel for them, but there is never a guarantee that a new hotel operator will maintain the same staff, no matter what they say. Based on the construction on Kenmount, there will be plenty of new positions available in the two...or is it three... new hotels currently being build.
- November 16, 2012 - 08:20
of course he wants taxes but!!! they don't pay taxes elsewhere why should they pay at the battery???
- Cynthia Snow
- November 16, 2012 - 07:30
I cannot believe that the City of St. John's would be happy about he sale of this property to MUN. This site could have been turned into one of the most beautiful hotels in the country with incredible views for tourists and Newfoundlanders to enjoy for years. Turning this hotel into an office building, or God forbid, student housing is a step backwards for this city. It is time to give Mayor O'Keefe, Shannie Duff and the rest of the yahoos down at City Hall their walking papers if they allow this to happen. I guess since MUN doesn't have to pay the $300,000 a year in taxes, the taxpapers of St. John's will eventually feel the pinch.