The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Thanks to a loophole in the provincial legislation designed to protect rental housing across Ontario, a Toronto developer will, if he desires, be able to demolish a quality sixplex in the heart of Waterloo. That was the news to city council recently from Tom Slomke, the city‘s commissioner of planning. The property in question is 24 Peppler St. It is now empty of tenants, after a law firm representing First Plazas Inc. wrongly gave tenants (including two seniors) eviction notices. It is a most disturbing incident, given the severe shortage of reasonably priced, quality rental living space in Waterloo. Since all tenants moved out by the end of last month, the property no longer comes under the protection of the provincial Rental Housing Protection Act, said Slomke. The company can now apply for a demolition permit upon filing a detailed site plan for the area. First Plazas intends to build a shopping centre on the block, according to a sign erected on Bridgeport Rd., and has bought up all but one property on Peppler St. from Bridgeport Rd. to Erb St. Frankly, we fail to see the need for another shopping centre in the downtown area.â€"Nevertheless, if the company wishes to invest in our community, we welcome it as we have other companies in the past. , But surely there is room for negotiation between the company and the city on the matter of the sixplex. In an interview with Chronicle reporter Ian Kirkby recently, First Plazas viceâ€"president of development John Zimmer said, "We don‘t have to have that apartment building. We‘d like to have the apartment building." Surely, given the dire need for rental accommodation in Waterloo, Zimmer and First Plazas can be prevailed upon by city hall to design their development to allow 24 Peppler to be filled once again with tenants. If the company refuses, perhaps city hall has room to manoever after all. Slomke believes the provincial legislation does t.r:lt apply to this instance because the building has been vacated. However, the building is vacated because the developer‘s law firm sent tenants an invalid eviction notice. Perhaps the city can more liberally interpret the law, and assume the building to still be an apartment building. After all, it sure looks like one from the outside, and the inside has not been stripped. It could take a while for that to work through the court or Ontario Municipal Board system, and the city may win. Slomke has stated the city "does not have warm feelings toward the Rental Housing Protection Act"and that the province is well aware of potential loopholes in the act. Slomke believes that provincial overâ€"regulation of the rental market is largely to blame for the shortage of apartment accommodation in the first place. Perhaps. But the city has a moral responsibility to preserve all rental accommodation in its boundaries while it is so scarce. It has a responsibility as well to use what powers it has to protect ordinary citizens from big developers. (pinion Chronicle Let‘s send out a clear message. Clear message DAY MAY 25, 1988 "Probably. It‘s just getting too exâ€" pensive. I don‘t like the way the government taxes the vices, they act like a bunch of puritans." You Said It Second Class Mail Registration Number 5540 established 1854 Codive Will you drink less because of the increased price of booze? Ed Coxworth Waterloo ~»i > P F E: s : * e * c £ ,a. & <a i > t i €G . @ i y , S j 3 . f 1% +2 g f ® 5 5 L. f "i; Q% "No, I like to have a drink after _ "No, I‘ll just eat less. The governâ€" work. I don‘t think that‘ll change. The ment is picking on vices to pay off the amount of tax on beer is ridiculous." deficit. If the MPPs drank a little more, they wouldn‘t be so uptight, Reinhard Jesse and they‘d understand my position Waterloo ak a:‘J *‘*‘W James Burbidge Waterloo