Comments on: High Vacancy, Low Rates

By: costumes

costumes — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:30:26 +0000

costumes…

once again i outdid yourself…

By: One Cylinder Short of an Economic Engine at ward3brighton.ca

One Cylinder Short of an Economic Engine at ward3brighton.ca — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:48:47 +0000

[...] thoughts here. Councillor says city must act on vacant downtown properties EDITORIAL STAFF The Guardian 23/01/09 [...]

By: Councillor Rob Lantz

Councillor Rob Lantz — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:01:47 +0000

Hi Nathan,
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be a priority and there is some disagreement about how to deal with this. I have discussed it a number of times with other councillors and city staff. I had been told in the past that the business community was concerned a tax penalty would unfairly target everyone, but I have been approached several times lately by people, such as yourself, who tell me otherwise.
I’ve had some meetings recently with “stakeholders”, as they say, and I think this issue may come to a head in the next few months.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:37:49 +0000

While this post is almost a year old, this issue is still relevant. The same properties are still vacant and Homburg has decided to sue one of the worst offenders before his investments are negatively affected by the properties that are “vacant, under-occupied, derelict, dilapidated, run down, unsightly, susceptible to fire, susceptible to crime and vandalism and are non-compliant with the city’s bylaws or building codes.”

Rob, I understand from the mayor’s comments that the city wants to steer clear of this particular dispute, but has the finance committee made any progress in the past year on the underlying tax issue that has perpetuated this situation?

By: Councillor Rob Lantz

Councillor Rob Lantz — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:32:07 +0000

I’m not sure if that’s necessary at this point Ann. By all accounts our finance committee is intending to tackle this, and if they need reinforcements to twist provincial arms, I’ll put the call out to the blogosphere.

Just FYI, I had mentioned before about a 5-year wait before you could revert to the non-commercial rate. That’s what I had heard, but the Act says nothing about that. Apparently you are eligible as soon as you clear the building out.

By: Ann

Ann — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:05:13 +0000

This seems to me a clear, albeit unintended, incentive for keeping buildings empty. And it seems like the kind of fancy loophole a clever building owner might embrace. And, apparently, has.
I hope something can be done about this.
Would letters to the province help?