[David A]

It's just a really misleading statement by Cartmell.

This is so troubling, either he wants to be misleading here for political impact or he really doesn't understand how it works. Either way, its bad.

You would think part of the responsibility of being a councilor is to explain to people in your area how things work, not to create and spread misinformation.

 

[cmd uw]

This is so troubling, either he wants to be misleading here for political impact or he really doesn't understand how it works. Either way, its bad.

You would think part of the responsibility of being a councilor is to explain to people in your area how things work, not to create and spread misinformation.

The first part of your first sentence sums it up. He's politicking. He knows very well how it all works.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Canadian Real Estate Sellers Canceled 1 In 5 Listings Last Month: NBF​

https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-real-estate-sellers-canceled-1-in-5-listings-last-month-nbf/

 

[policyenthusiast]

During yesterday's Executive Committee meeting, the Council discussed the feasibility of introducing a vacant land tax. The goal of the tax would be to discourage speculative land holding, allowing for new developments.

They also discussed expanding the Derelict Property subclass city-wide, and to non-commercial properties. Councillor Tang passed a unanimous motion for Admin to prepare a strategy and report on this and establishing clear definitions to seperate "derelict" from "remediated".

Last thing I noted - they discussed the auctioning of the underlying land that Dwayne's Home is currently on. Councillor Stevenson asked what would happen if no one were to bid on the property, and how quickly after auction a new development could begin.

 

[kcantor]

^
A vacant land tax is stupid. How would you differentiate between “speculative land holding” owners and Qualico or Katz Group or Panattoni etc. for whom “raw land” is an integral part of their core business. How would the city treat themselves as a large holder of vacant land waiting for prices to improve?

I think the expansion of the derelict property bylaws would be to add commercial properties as it’s my understanding it already applies to non-commercial (ie residential) properties.

If I’m not mistaken, the city already auctions off tax sale properties and there are provisions in place to achieve “market value” that could be implemented for Dwane’s Home. Most city property is also sold with a time frame for development commencement/completion that allows the city to buy it back if not met. Anne should know those things…

 

[Barnaby]

^
A vacant land tax is stupid. How would you differentiate between “speculative land holding” owners and Qualico or Katz Group or Panattoni etc. for whom “raw land” is an integral part of their core business. How would the city treat themselves as a large holder of vacant land waiting for prices to improve?

I think the expansion of the derelict property bylaws would be to add commercial properties as it’s my understanding it already applies to non-commercial (ie residential) properties.

If I’m not mistaken, the city already auctions off tax sale properties and there are provisions in place to achieve “market value” that could be implemented for Dwane’s Home. Most city property is also sold with a time frame for development commencement/completion that allows the city to buy it back if not met. Anne should know those things…

It's the closest thing to a land value tax that the city can get. I'm in favour of LVT, and I'd be thrilled if it were the only provincial and municipal tax.

Regarding the city's property. The city should auction all of their CBD land off to the highest bidder with a caveat that ground must be broken within 2 years. The price paid isn't a concern of mine at all. It could be $5, as long as it's a fair and open auction.

Qualico is doing great things with Stationlands, no doubt. The eyes should be on a company like Aldritt, which is sitting on many properties within a 1-3 minute walk of the Valley Line West LRT. It's in everyone's best interest for these lots to become housing.

Regency is the worst offender. Kitty corner to a brand new LRT in Downtown. Their excuse is the poor commercial market for what we all know should be a residential building.

I want developers to make money developing.

 

[policyenthusiast]

^
A vacant land tax is stupid. How would you differentiate between “speculative land holding” owners and Qualico or Katz Group or Panattoni etc. for whom “raw land” is an integral part of their core business. How would the city treat themselves as a large holder of vacant land waiting for prices to improve?

I think the expansion of the derelict property bylaws would be to add commercial properties as it’s my understanding it already applies to non-commercial (ie residential) properties.

If I’m not mistaken, the city already auctions off tax sale properties and there are provisions in place to achieve “market value” that could be implemented for Dwane’s Home. Most city property is also sold with a time frame for development commencement/completion that allows the city to buy it back if not met. Anne should know those things…

I can't speak to the first point as it's subjective, but yes, the derelict property tax subclass already applies to some residential properties.

The issue with applying it to commercial properties is that the City has a lot of leeway in defining zoning for residential properties, but significantly less for commercial properties under current legislation. Additionally, zoning subclasses (derelict for example) can be enforced only within certain "pilot areas", which in this case is mature residential, but applying the subclass to commercial properties would require implementation City-wide as soon as it goes into effect. I believe Stevenson described it as "So we can't nibble away at it, it's all or nothing."

 

[policyenthusiast]

It's the closest thing to a land value tax that the city can get. I'm in favour of LVT, and I'd be thrilled if it were the only provincial and municipal tax.

I would hope so, and I would expect to be disappointed. A couple weeks ago the GoC wrapped up consultation on the taxation of vacant lands. Is it federal overreach?

Yeah.

And they aren't even promising the funds collected will be used for development, they just call it "government revenue". I have very strong feelings about the Feds interfering with what is absolutely municipal jurisdiction.

 

[Offworld]

^
A vacant land tax is stupid. How would you differentiate between “speculative land holding” owners and Qualico or Katz Group or Panattoni etc. for whom “raw land” is an integral part of their core business. How would the city treat themselves as a large holder of vacant land waiting for prices to improve?

Along the same line of thinking, what about if the economy goes to sh#t? Are you honestly going to tax someone more to build when the economy says otherwise? Governments, amirite?

 

[policyenthusiast]

Along the same line of thinking, what about if the economy goes to sh#t? Are you honestly going to tax someone more to build when the economy says otherwise? Governments, amirite?

This is already a concern with the derelict property subclass - people said they were worried that it would result in people offloading the properties at a large discount if their financial situation was precarious enough that they couldn't afford demolition/remediation.

 

[policyenthusiast]

The City of Edmonton is launching the seventh round of its Affordable Housing Investment Program, offering up to $20 million in grants to accelerate the development of affordable housing. The program has a general stream that covers up to 25% of capital costs for new or rehabilitated affordable housing, and an Indigenous housing stream that covers up to 40% of capital costs for projects.

 

[David A]

I don't know if the very Toronto-centric financial institutions have fully realized this yet, but in the future to be successful they may need to become more flexible about where they have many of their jobs located, rather than force everyone to move to places where housing is very unaffordable, like they have in the past.

A city like Edmonton, with quite a bit of downtown office space available and affordable housing could be a good alternative.

Soaring housing costs limiting population mobility across Canada: CMHC​

MSN

 

[David A]

I feel this is a good question to ask given our recently increasing rents and real estate prices. I will not spoil it, read the article for their answer.

Is Edmonton still an affordable city? Housing gives us an advantage, experts say

As Alberta's population swells, more people are moving to Edmonton trying to seize on what could be the last affordable major city in Canada

edmontonjournal.com

 

[policyenthusiast]

I feel this is a good question to ask given our recently increasing rents and real estate prices. I will not spoil it, read the article for their answer.

Is Edmonton still an affordable city? Housing gives us an advantage, experts say

As Alberta's population swells, more people are moving to Edmonton trying to seize on what could be the last affordable major city in Canada

edmontonjournal.com

Paywalled, anyone have access? I'm curious.

 

[kcantor]

^
I don't know if it's "paywalled" or if you've reached your limit of free articles. If it's the latter, you can try doing a google search of the article's headline and then clicking on one of the links from the search. That seems to bypass the counter or something...