Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
I don't want this to go off the rails but I don't really think who we've voted in for council is far worse than anyone that didn't get in. And this upcoming election cycle so far doesn't show much new promise.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
It's not that the city doesn't understand economics, but that they don't factor into land use changes (rezonings), nor for development permits (which include demolitions). Proponents seeking rezoning aren't required to provide pro formas. There's some debate about whether or not they should at least at the rezoning stage; other cities do (I believe Vancouver is among them), but I think that again any change of that nature would need to happen through an update to the provincial MGA.
As for Regency, lets just say they really played up an image of themselves with The Pearl that never really existed, and have since frankly exhausted.
Avenuer
Senior Member
...and the Pearl isn't even that nice of a building, imo. It is just tall (was the tallest residential building at the time of completion).
I mean, look at their website; it does not exude confidence.
roe_
Active Member
I had the impression that much of the challenge here was in connection with the limitations imposed under the MGA and the prohibition on differential rates of taxation for things like developed structures vs. parking lots. It is easy to simply criticize Council, but if there was an easy solution to this problem I would expect someone would have suggested it already. My guess is there are a range of things that are needed and it will be an ongoing process to fix the issue of derelict properties in the downtown.
Guy 1
Active Member
Agreed. It's easy to criticize council in these situations (and in some instances it is certainly justified), but they have all this responsibility of administering the land development and taxation process with a pretty limited set of tools. It may seem like the city could've just amended the MGA rules through the City Charter to deal with issues like this, but the way those two documents interact with each other is backwards and (imo) doesn't make a lot of sense. And I'm sure (like you said), if it was that simple somebody would've done it already. I don't think it's as simple a problem as city-level leadership, though I wish it was.
What we really need is an entire rethink and overhaul of the taxation and lawmaking abilities of the different orders of government - but that is a virtual impossibility.
David A
Senior Member
The BMO building wasn't derelict, it was vacant. However, I do think there does need to be something in place to keep building owners doing demolition by stealth, which has happened with some historical properties that were let to run down by disinterested owners until demolition seemed the most viable option. Unfortunately, our current city council isn't the swiftest in catching on to such schemes. I am not sure they really care much about this anyways, except for not getting blamed when it does happen. I think an administration and council that did care, could probably come up with some rules and enforcement mechanisms within their powers that could improve the situation. For instance, required periodic city inspections of buildings that were vacant for more than a certain period of time.
In the case of demolition for future development, perhaps tying the demolition to future construction where relevant and requiring some financial deposit that would be forfeited if agreed timelines and conditions were not met might be an idea.
In the case of demolition for future development, perhaps tying the demolition to future construction where relevant and requiring some financial deposit that would be forfeited if agreed timelines and conditions were not met might be an idea.
Disraeli
Active Member
at least with this current government
Clearshades
Senior Member
I never stated the city does not understand commerce. The problem with our society is the whole political system that we currently have whether it's civics, provincial or federal.
Lets bring this closer to our city level. Councilors have a time span of 4 years for each term. If you win one term and not the next, someone else has to come in and relearn the basics of a councilor's job. When one has to constantly replace deccession makers with differential thoughts and ideals, we continue to dance in circles like a mad dog.
On top of this, politicians constantly work on networking by what ever means to maintaining their positions. Sometimes, those compromises come back to real haunt us all.
Our system don't really foster true politicians. It is not the respective ward representatives that I think lacks abilities; it is the system that inhibits their abilities to be thd best politicians.
Lets bring this closer to our city level. Councilors have a time span of 4 years for each term. If you win one term and not the next, someone else has to come in and relearn the basics of a councilor's job. When one has to constantly replace deccession makers with differential thoughts and ideals, we continue to dance in circles like a mad dog.
On top of this, politicians constantly work on networking by what ever means to maintaining their positions. Sometimes, those compromises come back to real haunt us all.
Our system don't really foster true politicians. It is not the respective ward representatives that I think lacks abilities; it is the system that inhibits their abilities to be thd best politicians.
Edmontonium
New Member
I think minimum requirement from city to the owners, in this case, should be to form a green space,/park with benches if new development is two or more years away.
Clearshades
Senior Member
That sounds fair to me.
kcantor
Senior Member
^. ^^
or maybe we should insist that anyone demolishing a significant building should have to locate their offices on the site until such time as redevelopment actually starts? it would be good business for atco structures and it would make sure what they did and how they did it would be front and centre for that owner and their investors and clients. right now this owners offices are at 11189 ellerslie road and what’s front and centre for us is out of sight/out of mind for them.
or maybe we should insist that anyone demolishing a significant building should have to locate their offices on the site until such time as redevelopment actually starts? it would be good business for atco structures and it would make sure what they did and how they did it would be front and centre for that owner and their investors and clients. right now this owners offices are at 11189 ellerslie road and what’s front and centre for us is out of sight/out of mind for them.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
or maybe the site should have large signage on it saying “this blight is brought to you by regency. we’re embarrassed, they should be too.” the city insists on “development permit signage”, this could be “demolition permit signage”.
or maybe the site should have large signage on it saying “this blight is brought to you by regency. we’re embarrassed, they should be too.” the city insists on “development permit signage”, this could be “demolition permit signage”.
archited
Senior Member
How about a simple writing campaign with signatures requesting the company to be more civically responsible, a copy of which would go to the major local news outlets -- shaming people into action works in most societies?
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
Whats so sad is that all they have to do is clean up the site to make it presentable. They could even just make two or three gravel pathways with a couple gravel areas with a picnic table at each location, a few planters with flowers or small trees (if they dont want to plant trees), and then lay some sod, just enough to dress it up a bit.