News   Feb 26, 2026
Province Awards Contract for New Science Centre at Ontario Place
 1.7K     8 
News   Feb 26, 2026
Finch West Line 6 Slowly Triggering New Development Proposals
 915     0 
News   Feb 26, 2026
State of Construction: Clark Construction Management Builds Independent Path in Toronto’s High-Rise Market
 700     0 

Cabbagetown Fixer Upper for $1.8 Million

Admiral Beez

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
14,556
Reaction score
9,199
377 Sackville is on sale, see photos on www.mls.ca, enter MLS # C1748807

It's dated on the inside, and is right beside two of the worst rooming houses in the area, but someone will buy up this house, build a basement apartment, fix up the interior, landscape the garden and make it wonderful.
 
She's a beauty. I'm holding out for anything on Sackville Place.... not like I could afford this one anyway. It reminds me of Hamilton stragely. The Scots in Hamilton built lots of similar stone houses, like these.

EDIT: Or my all time favourite, these.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain to me how a house valued at $1.8 million only pays $8100 in property taxes? That means that the city only values it at around $900 000. Seems like quite a premium.
 
At $900000, the tax rate is under $7700. That $8100 tax rate values it at closer to $950000.

Anyways, it's not that uncommon for a house at the high end of pricing for a neighbourhood to be taxed less than what otherwise be expected based on current fair market prices. Furthermore, the assessments from the city often lag the market significantly anyway.

That particular house for example is a single house on a double lot, whereas many houses in the area are single houses on single lots, and would be priced much less.

---

Oh and I wouldn't consider that house for $1.8 million. Nice area and lot size, but the required renovations would probably put it well into the $2+ million range. I guess the good news is that if the City of Toronto continues to undervalue it, the taxes would be cheap. :)
 
Eug said:
At $900000, the tax rate is under $7700. That $8100 tax rate values it at closer to $950000.

Anyways, it's not that uncommon for a house at the high end of pricing for a neighbourhood to be taxed less than what otherwise be expected based on current fair market prices. Furthermore, the assessments from the city often lag the market significantly anyway.
Click to expand...

God, no wonder Toronto has no money. Our property taxes need to double and should be based on most recent selling price (even if that was in 1955). End of story.
 
simuls said:
God, no wonder Toronto has no money. Our property taxes need to double and should be based on most recent selling price (even if that was in 1955). End of story.
Click to expand...

Heh. So you end up like California where you people get a life-lease on a property instead of purchasing outright so property taxes stay low.
 
simuls said:
God, no wonder Toronto has no money. Our property taxes need to double and should be based on most recent selling price (even if that was in 1955). End of story.
Click to expand...
I don't think that makes much sense at all.

It's pretty stupid to have one resident paying 10X the tax of the other simply because the first person moved there last year and the other has been there for decades.

What Toronto should have done is increased property taxes across the board fairly, instead of incorporating this punitive land transfer tax. And I say this as someone who bought before Toronto brought in this unfair land transfer tax. Oh and they should have tried harder to CUT COSTS. The garbage strike is a great illustration of Toronto's inability to seriously entertain the idea of cutting costs.
 
Last edited:
I'd fully support a capital gains tax on resale values. If I bought my house in 1960 for $20,000 and it's now worth $800,000 in 2009, and I sell it, I should be taxed on the difference, indexed to inflation between those two prices (i.e. profit). $60,000 in 1960 was worth $440,254 in 2009 dollars http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html. Thus, you should be taxed capital gains on the $359,000 profit you made on the house. I suppose there would be some way of deducting the cost of repairs over those 49 years, but there would be a depreciation formula for most renovations, etc.

By taxes profit on resale, you could reduce the property taxes people pay when their home's values shoot up due to monster homes coming into the area, or a new trendiness driving up values.
 
I wouldn't support that at all, for primary homes. And neither would 98% of the population.

We already have capital gains tax on investment properties, which is appropriate.
 
Eug said:
I wouldn't support that at all, for primary homes. And neither would 98% of the population.
Click to expand...
If it would stop longterm home owners from being taxed out of their homes, I don't see why not. I know a senior couple on the lakefront in Etobicoke, bought their house in the 1950s for a reasonable amount at the time, but now it's apparently worth close to a million dollars, and their seeing their property taxes skyrocket. Why? They're not using any more city services. But, regardless, they're now faced with the choice of not paying their taxes and losing their home, selling the house or getting a reverse mortgage. If the home is paid for years ago, I don't see why we need to use taxes to force seniors out. Of course we might say they should sell, they'll have almost a million bucks taxfree in their pockets, but they don't want to sell, and why should they have to?
 
Admiral Beez said:
If it would stop longterm home owners from being taxed out of their homes, I don't see why not. I know a senior couple on the lakefront in Etobicoke, bought their house in the 1950s for a reasonable amount at the time, but now it's apparently worth close to a million dollars, and their seeing their property taxes skyrocket. Why? They're not using any more city services. But, regardless, they're now faced with the choice of not paying their taxes and losing their home, selling the house or getting a reverse mortgage. If the home is paid for years ago, I don't see why we need to use taxes to force seniors out. Of course we might say they should sell, they'll have almost a million bucks taxfree in their pockets, but they don't want to sell, and why should they have to?
Click to expand...


even though the property may be worth $1MM, it is highly unlikely that they are paying anything near the mill rate at CMVA. which would be $8500 in property taxes.

most older properties in the City of Toronto have had their taxes capped to 5% annual increases ever since CMVA was accepted.

chances are they are paying more along $3000 p.a., which is not completely unreasonable as everything is expected to increase with inflation.
in addition, the city also has a program for seniors on limited incomes that they could apply to.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top