Queen W & Portland fire

[UD2]

Neither. It is just being screwed over less. They had a legitimate expectation from the previous Municipal Act of a tax rate that was only 17% more than the residential rate. The current Act says from 60% to 110% of the residential rate, averaged to 85%.

And how does this compare to other major urban business centers in North America?

I believe it should be similiar.

 

[Glen]

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/ceo_interviews/article.jsp?content=20080910_114938_25528

Toronto has the highest-taxed offices in the world. It is the lowest-taxed residential city in the country. That isn’t right. Why is it that way? Because for years councillors have been afraid to do the right thing, at the expense of business. The status quo just isn’t working. A lot of councillors told us that they fundamentally agree with a strong mayor system, but not with this mayor. To me, that’s shortsighted. If the mayor has enough rope to hang himself, if he shouldn’t be here, let democracy play its course, but at least give him the rope. If I were a councillor and opposed this mayor, I would definitely vote for a strong mayor system, because I would want to give him enough rope and if he can’t deliver, then the city can make a change. If I were for him, I’d also definitely go for it, because it would allow him enough latitude to effect the necessary change. If you’re in the middle, then maybe you can debate the pros and cons. The reality is there are an awful lot of councillors who would rather see the city fail, go into further debt and further derail good programs because they gain political points.

The reality that confronts our city today is that its current obligations are way beyond its ability to meet them. You literally have a structural shortfall built into the system somewhere between $250 and $400 million. By definition, without making some dramatic changes, the city is to be in the hole by that amount. Since cities can’t go into debt, that means some pretty dramatic increases in taxes on an annual basis whether anybody likes it or not, and that in itself should get the attention of businesses and citizens. There is no way around the fact there will be an increase in taxes. Frankly, businesses don’t vote and citizens do, and so a big piece of that tax increase will be levied on things like office space because there is not one united voice for business. You’ll hear a lot more from citizens when taxes go up in tiny increments than you will from business when they go up dramatically, so by default councillors put the burden back on businesses.

The decisions that have to be taken have to be taken with conviction and have to be pushed. Some of them are going to be tough calls. Life’s about making serious tough decisions, and until you get a system in place that allows for that kind of decisiveness against which people can be measured, our committee was concerned about the financial well being of our city. We’re not in an environment that allows for a lot of luxuries and games at this point. We’re in a very serious time. We’re walking into an economy that will be worse, not better, and we have to take the financial well being of the city very seriously, not only to thrive, but to survive. Now is the time.

Comaprisons to other cities can be difficult as they rely on other sources of revenue like income tax, rent tax, etc. But because those are more agnostic to location they do not effect development and asset values the same way.

 

[WooWah]

Progress?

Just noticed today that the area is being cleaned up by some crew. Anybody have any ideas on what's developing along here?

 

[BobBob]

I think some pressure was applied recently on the property owners to have the site cleaned up, because it was essentially a big garbage dump. I don't think any progress has necessarily been made in figuring out a redevelopment scheme.

 

[MetroMan]

This is sad. I live in the neighbourhood and hated the interruption of Queen St. at Portland by the parking lot there. Now that that parking lot is being filled in, we're inevitably going to end up with a parking lot on the site of the fire for a decade or longer.

I spoke to the guys at Duke's and they say that while they thought they'd use their temporary location for longer than they wanted, they have no hope that they'll return to their original location any time soon -- if ever.

 

[Glen]

I spoke to the guys at Duke's and they say that while they thought they'd use their temporary location for longer than they wanted, they have no hope that they'll return to their original location any time soon -- if ever.

Gary told me that the economics don't work. That unless something changes they will not be returning to the old site.

 

[MetroMan]

^yeah. Most likely, the owners of the burned down properties will come together and use the land as a parking lot (the only way they can make money without paying absurd property taxes on a building) until a suitable developer comes in and buys the entire lot. In other words. We're going to see a parking lot there for quite a while. Cleaning out the site is probably the first phase towards that fate.

 

[BobBob]

Given that there has been quite a bit of development of new retail buildings along Queen, as well as that boutique hotel nearby, in the last couple of years, I am hopeful that something similar will happen here.

 

[Glen]

Given that there has been quite a bit of development of new retail buildings along Queen, as well as that boutique hotel nearby, in the last couple of years, I am hopeful that something similar will happen here.

Are you referring to the portion that goes from University to Spadina? If so, why? It has become another outdoor mall.

 

[BobBob]

There have been a couple of developments west of Spadina as well, (eg. Urban Outfitters).

Lowrise (3-storey) retail development on the burned-out lot is clearly the most likely outcome, and is a pretty good one also, IMHO. Certainly this is infinitely more desirable than the aforementioned parking lot option, your dislike of "outdoor malls" notwithstanding.

 

[MetroMan]

I think a big player has to come in. Unfortunately, the city can't set the precedent for opening exceptions on property tax...otherwise you'll start seeing other owners burn down their heritage buildings to build something new and keep the old property tax value.

I would love to see the old buildings design resurrected here but clearly only a big international chain could pay the bills that this land will demand. I highly doubt Dukes will ever return.

 

[Glen]

There have been a couple of developments west of Spadina as well, (eg. Urban Outfitters).

Lowrise (3-storey) retail development on the burned-out lot is clearly the most likely outcome, and is a pretty good one also, IMHO. Certainly this is infinitely more desirable than the aforementioned parking lot option, your dislike of "outdoor malls" notwithstanding.

It is not the development that I take issue with. It is the fact that the only type of tenants that seem to be able to afford it are national chains. I think that this is alarming.

 

[WooWah]

Foundation work

Foundation work is currently being done on the eastern most lot. I can't tell if it's for the building that still stands or for a new structure.

 

[BobBob]

It is not the development that I take issue with. It is the fact that the only type of tenants that seem to be able to afford it are national chains. I think that this is alarming.

So, it helps to have deep pockets if you want to set up shop on one of Toronto's busiest high streets. I think it would be alarming if that wasn't the case.

 

[Hank]

So, it helps to have deep pockets if you want to set up shop on one of Toronto's busiest high streets. I think it would be alarming if that wasn't the case.

Yeah, but would it be as busy if it was just a succession of Gaps, American Apparels, Second Cups, McDonalds, etc.? One of the big reasons that it's such a busy street is because of the variety of retailers there, many of whom are small retailers that can't afford to pay market value. Is it unfair to let them continue to pay below-market property taxes and reap the benefits of the higher traffic? Maybe, but I personally think the city benefits from the fact that they're there.

I want to keep these smaller stores, but I'm not really sure what the solution is. Someone mentioned in an earlier thread mandating maximum store sizes to keep out the big chains...I'm not sure if that would work, but I think that there's got to be some solution. The city would be worse off if the only retailers that could set up shop in Queen St were the big chains with deep pockets.