City lifts Ossington moratorium, Salt Wine Bar re-opens

So, the proprietor tries to skirt the bylaw and open quasi-legally, then has the gall to blame "polticians" for his lost revenue when he gets shut down? Sounds like he just wanted to jump the gun.

The moratorium was too broad and sweeping, but I find it ludicrous that it's an example of selfish politicking. It was in response to the extreme and rapid change of the strip, and serious concerns from residents. People who've lived there for decades were suddenly faced with a party hotspot. That's not a normal neighbourhood progression; it's unusually rapid change.

Anyway, Tavares' attitude is pretty immature. Still curious to try the resto, but, meh.

To the person that wrote about Tavares' comment.
Where do you get your facts from and what do you know about Salt and what it has endured.
It was totally for selfish political gain.... was it not a fact that Joe Pantalone was running for Mayor, was it not a fact that the Moratorium was favored by the residents in the area, it made sense to run it as long as it was.
Why did the moratorium just suddenly cease and it didnt make it to the Ontario Municipal Board, how do 4 different businesses drop out of a hearing? Far too fishy for me, interesting how it all came to an end just as Joe Pantalone knew he would not win. The Ossington strip was once a hooker infested and gang related dark hole that our children should not be seen on, now its a bustling restaurant destination that has raised the property values by over 10%. Did'nt the drake revive the queen and dufferin area leading it to the resurection of parkdale. Growth is imminent my friend, its called progression.
The Salt restaurant is definately on my list of go to food establishments.... good for you Mr Tavares, its about time we stood up to our greedy politicians.

Way to go Mr Tavares, you are totally correct and your place RockS!
Your croquettes are damn good. This is an article about what JP Chalet had to endure while trying to open a restaurant, does the name look familiar?

The Globe is reporting that a hearing would be required if the license is transferred. This is not correct. The AGCO ruling only requires that the City be notified of any transfer, and that this notice be posted in the restaurant window. This is a condition that Ici agreed to long before the hearing, in negotiations with the community, along with all the other conditions. Councillor Pantalone knew that Ici had agreed to these conditions, but continued in his opposition anyway.

It is ironic that Councillor Pantalone should invoke the “beauty of democracy.” It was Councillor Pantalone who ignored the local, democratic conversation about Ici that had been taking place in our community, where supporters and objectors were meeting together in respectful dialogue. Councillor Pantalone refused to even meet with the Ici owners, or any Ici supporter, or anyone at all who had an opinion different from his own. Instead, he used municipal power to impose a City Council resolution, without notice, opposing the Ici license application. This top-down action ended any possibility of resolving the issue ourselves locally, and forced a two month delay as the conversation was taken out of the community to a hearing room in North York, where everything would be decided by an AGCO commissioner.

Clearly, Councillor Pantalone’s definition of “democracy” is as poor as his definition of “conflict of interest” or “legitimate work-related expenses.”

The Globe