About a year ago, when there was a big question if we would be able to
stay at Adelaide, I went around a few winnipeg sites and took some
pictures for a presentation to be called "Skullspace 2.0: the
welcoming world under Winnipeg's bridges". Guess I'll need to dig it
out now.


On 10/31/12, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-10-31 12:20, Mark Jenkins wrote:
>> > Most people want to move - even with AW being the new leasee, we have
>> > no trust in the building owners not trying to screw us again by
>> > ignoring contracts/the law.
>>
>> I think you've missed a key detail -- AW doesn't appear to have much
>> faith either as they asked for an exit clause in this new lease.
>> (shit, we should have noticed that detail sooner, we had a copy last
>> week)
> Honestly, it's that detail that got me on board with wanting to leave.
> Up till we found out about that, I still wanted to make it work. But the
> thought that we may be left high and dry wasn't one I wanted to
> consider.
>
> Ron
>
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, being here with any exit clause, regardless of
>> stated intents by landlord or tennant to use such clauses or not is a no
>> go -- it gives parties the ability to demand a new deal too easilly
>> instead of honouring the existing one.
>>
>> > (Lots of FUD about this - they could call
>> > in question any of a number of permits, they hire criminals every
>> > morning in the basement, etc. We have no leverage and they have all of
>> > it.)
>>
>> I fully agree. The only real gun is the exit clause.
>>
>> It would be extreme stupidity for a landlord to just suddenly lock doors
>> (prompting possible legal action) or initiate their own legal action
>> claiming violation of lease when they can just use the exit clause. The
>> former options are full of financial risk and uncertainty, the later
>> less so.
>>
>> Locking the doors or initiating legal action only makes sense for a
>> landlord dealing with a tennant who's conduct is so bad that the risks
>> of keeping them over the exit period are worse then the risks of trying
>> to boot them faster.
>>
>> The amount that six more months of electrical here would of entailed
>> would have been nothing compared court costs those useless nuclear
>> options would have entailed.
>> _______________________________________________
>> SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List
>> Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss
>> Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlCRXyIACgkQ2t2zxlt4g/TdNACfX00IsSwWw2CtncbdMrjNKA06
> pXUAn2BVLaAPtdAkmhj2Zv929chRof1t
> =iUjf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List
> Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss
> Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
>
_______________________________________________
SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List
Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss
Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/

Reply via email to