• PxtlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m sure they are. Just not fond of “destroy perfectly functional homes and evict their occupants because the builder didn’t build exactly what was agreed upon”.

    • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like they aren’t perfectly functional, and Comer was warned not to lease them out. I’m not sure what the answer is though. I agree that it sucks if tenants are forced to move, but there should be some option. Maybe make Comer pay for relocation expenses for tenants as well?

    • Solivine@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From reading the article it’s worse than that - for example it’s meant to have disability access and they just didn’t because it’s cheaper. They also had no planning permission for what they did build.

      I’m not really sure how tenants are already in there as you say, likely that regulation needs to be improved and the current ones recompensated for their move.