[jje1000]

Yes, I have talked o the city about this before. The official response is that the ETBC and CIP programs were adequate. I disagreed. I have not talked to anyone at the city since Rob Ford has become Mayor, but I will soon.

What was the extent of your contact with the city? Talking can mean anything from talking to Miller himself to talking to the receptionist at the front desk.

You really need to get it across to Ford that commercial taxes cannot continue to go up. It doesn't seem like he understands so far- that's what you get with a populist.

 

[adma]

And again: in a case like Glen, one wonders whether his reputation precedes him--I mean, there's plenty of perennial City Hall "characters" out there whose perhaps-valid points are overshadowed by how they invoke a "oh, yeah, him again" response. If Ford's more responsive, it may be more because he doesn't "know Glen's number" the way a David Miller or Adam Vaughan might...

 

[taal]

Not another one of these stupid threads that comes down to the tax situation between the 905 vs 416. It has an impact but, it's hardly the underlying factor you guys make it out to be. Think of Mississauga City Centre. Also, the 905 is at least still in the 416's catchment and the political lines beyond some revenue bases are almost entirely arbitrary. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm surprised for a guy such as Glen, for example, being so passionate about Toronto's competitive advantage that he's so much more concerned about the 905 than the hundreds of Bay Street jobs being outsourced to India.

It's an absurd question that requires an absurd answer. A new Bay Street may end up outside of Canada.

I'm curious though, what explains the lack of growth (any growth) in suburban Toronto ? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just curious how you rationalize this. While I see the argument against MCC and NYCC - but we have other swaths of land that represent the areas of the 905 that office development is taxing place ?

Regarding the international factor - this is absoultly an issue - but it impacts all of the GTA (All of Canada).

 

[CN Tower]

I'm curious though, what explains the lack of growth (any growth) in suburban Toronto ? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just curious how you rationalize this.

City of Toronto 2007 2008 2009
Population 15+ (000's)
2,194.60
2,210.80
2,239.88
Labour Force (000's)
1,447.52
1,467.96
1,487.96
Employment (000's)
1,333.53
1,357.54
1,339.33
Unemployment (000's)
113.99
110.42
148.64
Not in Labour Force (000's)
747.08
742.84
751.92
Participation Rate (%)
65.96
66.40
66.43
Unemployment Rate (%)
7.87
7.52
9.99
Source: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey

http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/labour_force_overview.htm

I think 10% unemployment explains it. The office market is dismal.

 

[Glen]

And again: in a case like Glen, one wonders whether his reputation precedes him--I mean, there's plenty of perennial City Hall "characters" out there whose perhaps-valid points are overshadowed by how they invoke a "oh, yeah, him again" response. If Ford's more responsive, it may be more because he doesn't "know Glen's number" the way a David Miller or Adam Vaughan might...

Yes, I have been a real pain to him. I mean a constituent that contacts his councillor's office 11 times over 4 years could only prove to be a 'character'.

Maybe you would have better luck? Ask him for me what he is doing small businesses facing crushing property tax bills. He knows that it is a legitimate issue. He understands that once CVA capping expires most small business properties will face tax bills that, in his words,'threatens the viability of redeveloping these properties' . Adam has gone to great lengths to help a handful of small businesses on Queen St. that were destroyed by fire, but has done nothing for others. There were similar properties on Spadina that were destroyed by fire prior to the ones on Queen St.. The tax issue is what is preventing them from being rebuilt. Why has he gone to such lengths as passing a bylaw for the Queen St. property owners and done nothing for others? He has not raised the general issue at council before.

Here is Adam's original appeal to councillors
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-17451.pdf

Here is the staff report recommending against it.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-21527.pdf

Here is where it was adopted by council.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/decisions/2010-05-11-cc49-dd.htm

Adam can go to great lengths to help some people. Why can't he answer a simple question for others?

PS. For a councillor whom many like to think is very intelligent and abreast of issues, the fact that this issue only came to his attention because of of the Queen St. Fire is telling.

"Through the process of working with the six property owners of these buildings in the
aftermath of the fire, I have discovered that any new buildings constructed on the fire site
would pay property taxes at the full CVA rate, and would be ineligible for capping protection."

well duh!

 

[Glen]

CN Tower,

This is what taal is referring to....
http://www.renx.ca/PDF/07-mississauga-jlls.pdf

Between 2000 and 2006, slightly over 14 million s.f. of office space has been
developed across the GTA with the overwhelming majority (90%) taking
place in suburbs. The development community in the suburban west district
has been the most active, building more than seven million s.f. or 50% of the
overall new supply during this period. Of this, over three-quarters (77%),
representing an estimated 5.4 million s.f. has been built in Mississauga. A
closer look at the Mississauga development figures reveals the following:
• Airport Corporate Centre, most active submarket with 3.2 million s.f. (58%),
followed by Meadowvale with 1.5 M s.f. (27%)
• Bentall, most active developer with 1.4 million s.f. (26%) with Pauls Properties
a distant second at 685,000 s.f. (13%)
• 53% of the developments were design-built in nature
• Expansion & Consolidation (47%) was the lead tenant motivation for kick-
staring new construction
• Financial sector (41%) was the lead tenant industry group, followed by Hi-Tech
& Telecommunications (31%)

Compare how much was developed in Toronto, in particular the suburbs during that time.

 

[taal]

City of Toronto 2007 2008 2009
Population 15+ (000's)
2,194.60
2,210.80
2,239.88
Labour Force (000's)
1,447.52
1,467.96
1,487.96
Employment (000's)
1,333.53
1,357.54
1,339.33
Unemployment (000's)
113.99
110.42
148.64
Not in Labour Force (000's)
747.08
742.84
751.92
Participation Rate (%)
65.96
66.40
66.43
Unemployment Rate (%)
7.87
7.52
9.99
Source: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey

http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/labour_force_overview.htm

I think 10% unemployment explains it. The office market is dismal.

Refer to Glen's post above ... if you do something similar for the rest of the GTA you'll likely see a very similar situation - unemployment has been on the rise in the entire GTA over the last 2 or so years, that's not a Toronto issue.

We're talking about a micro issue in the sense that there's still some growth - and has been over the last couple of years - and even looking back 10+ years when employment has increased even in Toronto (and the unemployment rate decreased) there has still been a general lack of new development.

I agree the overall picture is increased unemployment throughout the GTA (for the next little while at least) but we still see growth! The question is where does that occur.

 

[taal]

PS. For a councillor whom many like to think is very intelligent and abreast of issues, the fact that this issue only came to his attention because of of the Queen St. Fire is telling.

"Through the process of working with the six property owners of these buildings in the
aftermath of the fire, I have discovered that any new buildings constructed on the fire site
would pay property taxes at the full CVA rate, and would be ineligible for capping protection."

well duh!

I'm very curious how your 'talks' with any of the new city hall staff / counselors / mayor proceed - to be honest I don't expect much at all and I'm not sure why you would.

I'm only hopefully that the provincial education component will indeed be rectified by 2014/15 - Ford, may, and I'm doubtful about this, stop increasing the commercial rate for a year or two and then keep the increases significantly lower then the residential rate.

Coupled with necessary increases in the 905 rate over the next decade which are bound to happen as new growth curtails - maybe, we'll be more competitive in a decade or so and maybe we'll start to see some new construction in areas like NYCC / SCC - but more likely, areas like DVP / 401 - this area and a couple others in Toronto very much resemble the areas in the 905 that have seen growth over the last decade - and these areas themselves saw a lot of growth in the 80s I believe.

 

[taal]

Also interesting, when I talk to people about this a lot of them point me to a few articles that actually pin Vancouver (and to a lesser extent Montreal) I believe to be in a very similar situation.

And on a regional / international level these are good points and Toronto is indeed in a very similiar situation (I believe it may not even be the worst?). But as I pointed out before the Toronto region has little to no problems on an international / rest of Canada basis (this is of course relative to the Canada as I know there are many other macro issues at play).

But the huge different no one seems to take into account - on a regional basis, Toronto is a different beast, from what I can tell, those other cities don't have the same problem on a regional level in the sense that they're suburbs have similar high commercial rates - so this doesn't impact anything in terms of where to build regionally.

Of course Vancouver has many other aspects in the sense of limited land and also has very built up suburban (i.e. 905) markets with a lot of office space.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Politically the problem is that any reduction in commercial taxes necessarily means a sharp rise in residential taxes - either that or a sharp reduction in city services (which I think is what Glen advocates). In either case, it's unlikely you'd see an elected politician argue passionately for either strategy.

The long-term approach is probably the most tenable. Slowly balance the rates while also keeping an eye on property tax rates in the 905 region, which should inevitably see significant increases over the next decade.

Despite some of the numbers people are sharing, I think it's fair to say that most Toronto residents don't feel like this is an issue at crisis levels.

You could also make up for commercial tax revenue by diversifying the city's revenues through new taxes and fees, so that the burden didn't fall completely on the shoulders of property owners & renters. But they tried this and it was kind of unpopular.

This is also probably something that could be mitigated by stronger cooperation between GTA governments. Some of the core-to-905 commuting patterns we're starting to see are really not in the best interest of anyone, particularly transit planners.

 

[taal]

Politically the problem is that any reduction in commercial taxes necessarily means a sharp rise in residential taxes - either that or a sharp reduction in city services (which I think is what Glen advocates). In either case, it's unlikely you'd see an elected politician argue passionately for either strategy.

The long-term approach is probably the most tenable. Slowly balance the rates while also keeping an eye on property tax rates in the 905 region, which should inevitably see significant increases over the next decade.

Despite some of the numbers people are sharing, I think it's fair to say that most Toronto residents don't feel like this is an issue at crisis levels.

You could also make up for commercial tax revenue by diversifying the city's revenues through new taxes and fees, so that the burden didn't fall completely on the shoulders of property owners & renters. But they tried this and it was kind of unpopular.

This is also probably something that could be mitigated by stronger cooperation between GTA governments. Some of the core-to-905 commuting patterns we're starting to see are really not in the best interest of anyone, particularly transit planners.

Some good points ... but I really don't feel the general public have any insight regarding the situation - and nor will they for many many years ... if anything, what they'll see is more press regarding the small business issue as for whatever reason that seems to resinate - but that issue effects other parts of the GTA to a certain degree as well.

With the general public, as we'll likely see slow - medium growth in the core for years to come it'll likely not be obvious at all that the rest of Toronto is 100% stagnant. It may be more obvious, though, if the rest of the 416 actually starts to lose jobs as opposed to having 0 growth that is, more empty office buildings start spreading around the outer core. You'll likely see a continued migration the middle class. All indirect signs but none that are simple to link to the problem at hand.


I agree though - no matter what anyone says, the only solution is to increase residential rates - yes Ford goes on about the fat but I doubt that'll amount to much and even if it does for political reasons that'll likely go to cutting residential rates. A long slow solution is likely the only option.

Unless Glen can convince Ford otherwise : ).