Received a call from a member of the board of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Foundation regarding a large donation they are requesting from the city. Also, received several communications via email and phone from a property developer who is upset about a city decision.
Monthly Archive for February, 2008
I received an email this morning about a car that had been apparently abandoned on a residential street more than a week ago. Curbside overnight parking is not allowed at this time of year, and it had been blocking traffic and snow plows. I contacted the Police and just received word from the resident that it has now been towed away.
I received an email from a resident of Ward 3 concerning the delivery of advertising flyers. The concern was that these are often tossed in heaps on doorsteps and driveways, and they invariably get blown around the neighbourhood, causing a mess. I’ve contacted The Guardian, which manages flyer delivery.
Although Charlottetown has experienced a small boom over the last few years in downtown office construction, it is also quite apparent that we have a problem finding tenants for some of our existing office and commercial buildings. In some cases, as companies were setting up shop here, these vacant buildings were passed over in favor of new construction because the market, increasingly, demands a different kind of office space — larger footprints, providing more square footage per floor.
In other cases, property owners seem unwilling to lease their space. Are they just content to pay the property taxes on a vacant building rather than pay for expensive upgrades and renovations and take their risks in a competitive market? If yes, the provincial Real Property Assessment Act is potentially underwriting that risk averse trend, costing the City of Charlottetown unknown thousands (millions?) in tax revenue, not to mention the eyesore of dilapidated, boarded-up buildings in our downtown core.
The reason is right in the definitions on page 1 & 2 of the Act. Commercial is property that is used by a business. If you don’t have a business running you default to non-commercial.
(d) “commercial realty” means real property owned by the Crown or any person, used or occupied by any industry, trade, business, profession, vocation or government business and includes real property used or occupied
(i) “non-commercial realty” means all real property except commercial realty;
Essentially, once the business moves out a property no longer meets the definition of a commercial property in the Assessment Act. And as you can see from this table, that’s quite a significant drop in your tax bill, and all you have to do is close shop!
So this has nothing to do with municipal zoning (i.e. commercial vs. residential) which is a planning tool, but rather how the province defines properties for assessment purposes. In my opinion, once your building is vacant and in disrepair, this is an incentive to avoid the risks of re-entering the commercial property market. And by all accounts this is one source of the problem in Charlottetown.
What is the answer? Are commercial tax rates just too high, generally? Would forcing vacant property owners to pay the commercial rate really be enough incentive for them to get back in the game and make a go of it? Or is the commercial rate just too much of a burden for some property owners to overcome?
I don’t have the answers to these questions. But there is discussion on council about trying to correct this situation and I hope we do what’s best to create a vibrant and successful commercial environment in downtown Charlottetown.
I had a Google Chat with someone who wanted to know more about the idiosyncracies of the commercial tax loopholes in Charlottetown. I have a request out to city staff for more info.
Got another email last night regarding snow covered catch basin drains in a flood prone area. Given the heavy rain, I had a duty crew dispatched to clear the drains.
Below is an unofficial list of resolutions before Council at tonight’s regular monthly meeting. I typed most of this myself so I offer no guarantee’s of accuracy; it is for general information purposes only. Please note, resolutions may be added or dropped, so the actual agenda is not yet set in stone. I also had no time to type the Heritage Board resolutions.
Planning
Moved and seconded that the request for a variance to the side yard setback from the required 19.7 feet to the approximately 10 feet to permit the construction of a storage building on the property located at 28 Thompson Drive (PID# 604363) be recommended to Council for approval.
Received a call from CBC. Spoke to one reporter, then he handed off the phone to another. Questions about the proposed new building on Fitzroy and parking.
Peter Rukavina, whose office is located a few doors from a proposed 7-story office building for Fitzroy Street, has posted a notice from Charlottetown’s Planning Department, received by his landlords, asking for comments on this proposal. The bylaw requires notification of property owners within 100 feet of the application, but since many residents have an interest in the development of our downtown core, it would be interesting to know how the public in general feels about this, rather than just the immediate neighbours.
I should also note, the City owns a small portion of the land that would be required for this proposal. A market appraisal is underway to determine the fair value of that piece of land, and council would have to agree to sell it to the developer.
You may leave comments here or at Peter’s blog. I will be reading them all and taking them into consideration when Planning Board, and eventually Council, meets to discuss this proposal.
Recent Comments