[Quadra-Hillside] Tolmie & Fifth St. townhomes
#1
Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:52 PM
Council rejected the proposal this morning at Committee of the Whole, saying the project is inappropriate. Councillor Young was adamant that derelict landlords that allow their rental properties to deteriorate should not be rewarded by granting them permission to demolish and construct higher density buildings.
#2
Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:14 PM
#3
Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:21 PM
That's hilarious since there is high density across the street in Saanich!
Further evidence in my case for amalgmation.
#4
Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:25 PM
Councillor Young was adamant that derelict landlords that allow their rental properties to deteriorate should not be rewarded by granting them permission to demolish and construct higher density buildings.
That's right. They should be obligated to continue renting their deteriorating properties. And when the houses finally fall down, they should be obligated to leave the piles of rubble in place.
#5
Posted 19 June 2008 - 03:47 PM
I sat on the Property Assessment Review Board for SD 61 residential properties for three years. There were people that came claiming that their property value was assessed too high because the house was not only worth nothing, but was a negative on the property value because it would cost money to remove.
Actually I have many stories I could tell about people's reasons for lowering their property assessment - there was the one with the people in the Uplands who bulldozed a 7000 sq foot house with an indoor pool, but I digress.
The property taxation system needs to be changed to penalize owners that do not look after the buildings. I can see the case for an owner occupied exemption of some sort, but beyond that it is damaging to the neighbourhood, the environment and housing to have buildings being allowed to decay over time.
There is a case to be made that property taxation should be tied to the value of the property if it was properly looked after - this would have dealt with the shameful situation with the Janion and the Morley Soda Works buildings.
With residential homes one would put a standard minimum value on the house based on the size. I would favour a minimum of $100 per sq foot. This would mean developers and landlords with run down buildings could end up with assessments higher than what they could sell the building for.
There would have to changes to provincial legislation to be able to do this.
#6
Posted 19 June 2008 - 05:56 PM
#7
Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:29 PM
I wonder if council would have approved the proposal if the houses were well maintained?
#8
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:08 PM
#9
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:41 PM
That's the irony, of course. Maybe if he fixes the houses up they'll let him demolish them?
OY!
#10
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:30 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#11
Posted 20 June 2008 - 07:42 AM
I love how these things always make the developer look like a slum lord. In this case the developer has recently bought the derelict properties or perhaps just has the option to buy. They are not the cause of the state of the properties.
#12
Posted 06 April 2017 - 09:24 AM
Ah yes, 9 years later, let's reactivate this! The new proposal is for small-lot subdivision.
Now, this is in an area very near a City Councillor's home, so it will be a high "car-sleeping" area for sure. They will need to consider that in street widths, noise abatement* etc.
* the new houses should have good sound insulation, so the sound from little Jonny playing the drums in the basement does not waft out to the cars between 7pm and 7am.
- Rob Randall and Nparker like this
#13
Posted 06 April 2017 - 09:35 AM
Townhouses were a better proposal.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users