News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6K     0 

"We want to continue to use the property for public parking, which would be beneficial to the public, the owner of the land, and the City."

This had better be rejected by council. If they truly want this to be a public benefit, they should develop the property or sell it to someone who will. If that is of no interest, then sod it over and make it a park.
 
It is pretty flippant to say it is beneficial to the City and the public after not doing the bare minimum of maintenance on the sidewalks in the winter for a decade. Hopefully, we can also submit daily complaints about their lack of snow removal all winter.
 
It is pretty flippant to say it is beneficial to the City and the public after not doing the bare minimum of maintenance on the sidewalks in the winter for a decade. Hopefully, we can also submit daily complaints about their lack of snow removal all winter.
The amount of complaints poor Aaron Piquette gets from me for poor infrastructure planning in the Northeast, coupled with general infrastructure and park neglect is almost upsetting to me.
 
"Hello [Name], the property owner appealed the Order to cease the parking lot activity at this property. The written decision was released today, please see the attachment for your information. The Order was upheld, the property needs to stay closed off to public access until a valid Development Permit has been approved.

Please let me know if you see the parking activities resume and I will take appropriate action. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention."

Here's a link to the full decision.
 
Last edited:
Screen Shot 2025-08-27 at 10.53.41 AM.png

hahahaha "actively harming the community", just sell the site at this point.
 
Is this argument a joke? I would say leaving an unfilled in empty lot for over a decade was actively harming the community.

The only time they seem to have become concerned at all about the community is when they feel they have an opportunity to make money.
 
Is this argument a joke?
But wait, it gets worse! Look at lines 19 and 20. They literally argued that since the DC allows the apartment building to have parking, then they should be allowed to use the entire property as a parking lot.
bad.png


Also, their claim that "citizens and investors" should be "encouraged and facilitated by the city" to demolish buildings and slap down some gravel for a parking lot reminds me of this gem from The Onion:
Philly1.png

Philly.png
 
Last edited:
Diamond Parking’s website is complete garbage on iOS but they still have the site listed for monthly permits (but it says not available for purchase at this time). Would that not contravene #4, enough though it’s not for sale?) 4. Remove any online advertising of public parking services for this property by July 13, 2025.” )
IMG_3727.png
IMG_3726.png
IMG_3725.png
 
Diamond Parking’s website is complete garbage on iOS but they still have the site listed for monthly permits (but it says not available for purchase at this time). Would that not contravene #4, enough though it’s not for sale?) 4. Remove any online advertising of public parking services for this property by July 13, 2025.” )View attachment 677031View attachment 677030View attachment 677029

I couldn't help but notice that CosMedics is listed.
Cosmedics is a cosmetic clinic that is run by Dr. Ashwani Singh, who is the son of the Arlington's owner.
 
I couldn't help but notice that CosMedics is listed.
Cosmedics is a cosmetic clinic that is run by Dr. Ashwani Singh, who is the son of the Arlington's owner.
I may regret bringing this idea up, but perhaps he could build a new clinic there with some room for parking (similar number of spots and location to what Arlington had).
 

Back
Top