On 29/03/13 10:26 PM, Roswyne wrote:
Not really. I see no reason to think we have any active intention of
getting an occupancy permit, so it really makes no practical difference.
I meant it sucks in general, not just for us.
Though, it does suck a little for us even without the occupancy permit.
On top of the slap on the wrist if were caught occupying without a
permit, there's also the slight chance of being slapped again on the
wrist if such events lead to unlicensed installation being a verdict.
But really, all the occupancy permit gives us is the right to
potentially hold a dozen events per year at the space where we can
legally sell and consume alcohol. So what.
I'd put it a little more precisely, an occupancy permit gives us the
right to occupy the unit, which is a prerequisite to obtaining liquor
licenses. There are other benefits to having the a permit to occupy on
it's own:
* The penalty for being caught occupying without a permit may
typically be a slap on the wrist, but with that could also come orders
to make costly alterations at an inconvenient moment, and potentially if
the process wasn't going well, an order to cease occupying until
requirements for occupation are met
* Lack of permit is leverage for a landlord who wants to break a lease
in order to renegotiate, sell the property to someone else who wants to
renegotiate, or sell the property to someone who wants to obtain the
property minus tenants due to redevelopment plans or plans to use it for
themselves.
* Insurance companies have to be tough-ass to stay in business. (or else
people take advantage of them) Don't count out the possibility of them
investigating and being assholes if it suites their interest to dispute
a claim by pointing to the lack of occupancy permit.
* Uncertain liability for board members. Yes, it's hard to hold board
members legally responsible for stuff, and occupancy perhaps are
probably an unlikely area for that (compared to say, failure to file tax
returns), but there certainly are circumstances where the corporate wall
can be breached -- that's why we buy insurance covering the conduct of
our board members. Again, don't rule out the potential of insurance
companies to dispute a claim. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of
there being clauses in the policy that make a distinction between board
member conduct being unintentionally ignorant vs intentionally ignorant
vs willfully in violation of the law. Every insurance policy has limits.
_______________________________________________
SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List
Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss
Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
