There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 31, 2012 at 10:32:17 in reply to Comment 73504
May I humbly suggest that the fundamental reason you have trouble - and the reason the Newcastle model won't work here - is that we currently reward landowners with significant tax savings for vacant spaces.
To implement this model, the rent would need to be greater than this tax break - plus more to cover different insurance needs of a tenanted building not to mention heating systems, roof repairs, utilities etc.
In order to do this "properly" we would first need to eliminate the vacant building tax credit, and even better, rework the tax credit system to reward building owners for making fundamental upgrades to their buildings.
When we moved Bike Hounds last year, the previous owner had a vacant building application with the city which we did not renew. As a result, in 2011 our taxes rose significantly from what the previous owner paid. On top of that we had to buy a $12,000 boiler system. This is not a sustainable situation for many new businesses, and we took a great risk in doing this, based on faith in the bike shop and faith in Downtown. Without this faith, it would not have happened.
But Imagine if the system was reversed - what if the previous owners had to pay full taxes? And what if we got a tax break for creating a use for the building? And what if we got a rebate for installing a new heating system? What if we were rewarded instead of penalized for using the building?
If we reworked the taxes in this way, then this sort of revitalization could be feasible for small start ups. Imagine the effect on downtown if all of a sudden these vacant buildings started bleeding money for the absentee landowners. They would jump at the chance to unload them, and those who bought them would be encouraged to actually use them. We could end this rampant speculation and demolition by neglect overnight.
To put it simply, our system is fundamentally broken, and until we change it, we'll see more of the same - namely, absentee landowners who know they'll be penalized if they try to do anything with their buildings.
The city created this problem. It's time to create the solution.
I vote down for offensiveness and up for humour. I cast no votes based on my level of agreement.
Permalink | Context