800 replies to this topic

[Gary H]

Lots of steel beams being delivered...

 

 

 

 

 

[Kapten Kapsell]

Council CoTW is considering a 10-year property tax break for this development on Thursday Feb 22.

[Rob Randall]

^How much potential tax revenue will the City be giving up? Those are luxury units with a big price tag. The purpose of the tax holiday is to encourage saving and rehabbing heritage buildings that might otherwise be in danger of being lost. I don't know if that's the case here. 

[Rob Randall]

Here's a Vancouver Sun article:

 

http://vancouversun....s-inner-harbour

 

 

Among the project’s greatest challenges has been retaining the heritage features of the windows, including those at ground level, and adapting the interiors, which had the typical floor plates of office and administrative structures of the day, to modern-day living standards.

“The building has much larger floor plates than those in residential buildings,” he said, adding the original design has “long, narrow bowling alley-like footprints from the building’s core to the facade” that are not suitable for residential living. “We went through many iterations.” Also challenging is shoring up the heritage façade while performing seismic upgrades and excavating under the building to construct three levels of underground parking.

Patrick O’Callaghan, marketing manager of Magnum Projects, which is selling the homes, said about 50 per cent of the units — including one of the penthouses for $10 million — have been purchased since the sales campaign began in late August.

Edited by Rob Randall, 17 February 2018 - 07:07 AM.

[Mike K.]

It’s not up to the City to decide what is and isn’t luxury, though. There are single family homes worth as much as some of these condos that also enjoy a tax holiday under this scheme.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Council approved this with Issit and Loveday the sole dissenters.

[VicHockeyFan]

Council approved this with Issit and Loveday the sole dissenters.

 

http://www.timescolo...fire-1.23183021

[rjag]

It does seem wrong at first blush, but we live in a country where everyone should be entitled to the same government rules. This is a housing project, perhaps a very expensive project but its still housing and should be treated as such without the 'stigma' attached that they dont like it because they are high end. That should make zero difference. 

[Mike K.]

And on the flip side they also rejected a 44-unit rental project in Fairfield. Did anyone watch the hearing? The earlier concept had 36 condos, and increased by 20% in density with the switch to rentals. Did that trip up the approvals?

[VicHockeyFan]

^ This the one next to the hospital?  Or in CSV?

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 23 February 2018 - 09:00 AM.

[Kapten Kapsell]

^ This the one next to the hospital?  Or in CSV?

The project in this thread:  https://vibrantvicto...oreys-proposed/

[MarkoJ]

It does seem wrong at first blush, but we live in a country where everyone should be entitled to the same government rules. This is a housing project, perhaps a very expensive project but its still housing and should be treated as such without the 'stigma' attached that they dont like it because they are high end. That should make zero difference. 

 

+1 rule are rules.

[Greg]

^How much potential tax revenue will the City be giving up? Those are luxury units with a big price tag. The purpose of the tax holiday is to encourage saving and rehabbing heritage buildings that might otherwise be in danger of being lost. I don't know if that's the case here. 

 

The tax abatement only applies to the 22 units in the heritage building. The loss of tax funds is smaller than the investment being made in seismic upgrades. The go forward tax rate after ten years will be based on the new value generated through the capital investments, resulting in increased long term tax revenue.

 

This is exactly how the program is designed to work in both the spirit and the letter of the rules. It seems to me that the real story here should be that there are two city councilors who are more interested in playing class warfare politics than in applying established rules in an equitable manner.

[VicHockeyFan]

Those two councillors always do that.

[Nparker]

...It seems to me that the real story here should be that there are two city councilors who are more interested in playing class warfare politics than in applying established rules in an equitable manner.

Those two councillors always do that.

I would imagine they also voted against the rental project in Fairfield, so they aren't even consistent in their class warfare politics.

[DavidSchell]

Council approved this with Issit and Loveday the sole dissenters.

 

Typically the two people who do more damage to affordable housing than any other force on nature ... so short sighted and blinded by extreme left wing thinking.

 

I just don't have the energy these days to type out how stupid thinking these people are, but would love to sit down with a cup of coffee with them and spell it out in grade 2 economics.

[Rob Randall]

How would you respond to criticism that the developer would have done this seismic upgrade regardless, therefore no incentive is necessary?

[G-Man]

I guess we don't know. What we can guess is that is that without the tax holiday, two things could have occurred: the project would not have gone ahead or it would have gone ahead at a higher cost to buyers which has a knock on effect on other properties downtown. So I would rather these places be cheaper and not increase the overall prices downtown.

[VicHockeyFan]

How would you respond to criticism that the developer would have done this seismic upgrade regardless, therefore no incentive is necessary?

We can never know that. But what we can ask of our politicians is some consistency in applying the programs.

[Greg]

How would you respond to criticism that the developer would have done this seismic upgrade regardless, therefore no incentive is necessary?

 

I suspect that in a environment completely free of heritage regulation, the developer would have actually removed the heritage building and started fresh and had a much more profitable project. We have decided we as a city would like to retain heritage buildings. We are asking developers to spend their capital to perform required seismic upgrades on these buildings. We are offsetting some of that cost with a tax abatement that in the long run actually increases tax revenue for the city.

 

This seems like a pragmatic and proven approach. It feels to me like we are questioning it in this case solely because the units in this building are likely to be bought by affluent people. That is just wrong in my opinion.