What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    47
tomatohat said:
I thought there was this initiative: https://www.edmonton.ca/residential..._assessment/derelict-residential-tax-subclass

But I'm not sure if it applies to commercial properties.
Click to expand...

Tax forgiveness at the bottom is ridiculous. Whatever money comes from a derelict tax should go into a reserve fund to pay for improvements or reclamation but it shouldn't go back to the owner. To do so completely ignores the losses, whether they be financial or aesthetic, to the community.
 
Stevey_G said:
Tax forgiveness at the bottom is ridiculous. Whatever money comes from a derelict tax should go into a reserve fund to pay for improvements or reclamation but it shouldn't go back to the owner. To do so completely ignores the losses, whether they be financial or aesthetic, to the community.
Click to expand...
Derelict property owners who clean up their properties can apply to be refunded their taxes paid at the higher derelict rate for the months of the year after they cleaned up their properties.

Looks like it's just meant to refund any derelict tax paid after the clean-up was finished, which seems fair to me. What is unfair though is that people are being taxed for this while the BMO site gets away scot-free.
 
^Yes, that's exactly right. They want to create an incentive for timely clean-up of properties. The way it was before, the property owner would be dinged for the entire tax year, even if they took remedial steps in a quick fashion. This is meant to provide an appropriately "pro rated" penalty, not zero penalty, to the offender.
 
IMG_0218.png
IMG_0219.png
 
degrandprix said:
Derelict property owners who clean up their properties can apply to be refunded their taxes paid at the higher derelict rate for the months of the year after they cleaned up their properties.

Looks like it's just meant to refund any derelict tax paid after the clean-up was finished, which seems fair to me. What is unfair though is that people are being taxed for this while the BMO site gets away scot-free.
Click to expand...
I get the idea of a soft-handed approach getting the properties cleaned up but it doesn't consider the neighbours and the losses they experience financially and aesthetically. Just tax them until they clean it up then make them prove the lots have been cleaned. We shouldn't tell owners of the future that they can keep their lots in disarray and that when the tax comes in they can just clean it up. Strict enforcement is key.
 
Gus Haynes said:
Isn't this exactly what the current approach is?
Click to expand...
There's no penalty though, just a deposit. This tells me as a build owner I can demo a vacant building for example and create a blight on the community and reap the tax benefits until the lot is identified as a problem lot.

Then when it is I'll just go clean it up, which I should have done as a responsible owner from the get-go. But if all I care about is cash, and I live in LA, why would I?
 
Stevey_G said:
There's no penalty though, just a deposit. This tells me as a build owner I can demo a vacant building for example and create a blight on the community and reap the tax benefits until the lot is identified as a problem lot.

Then when it is I'll just go clean it up, which I should have done as a responsible owner from the get-go. But if all I care about is cash, and I live in LA, why would I?
Click to expand...

How is it a "deposit"? Problem properties are taxed at a higher rate until they are cleaned up, it's pretty simple.

Yes an owner could get away with not paying the derelict tax for a while until their property is reported as such, but that's an enforcement issue, not an issue with the tax itself.
 
Stevey, you're misreading the policy. The original news release spells it out fairly clearly:

Under the subclass, properties assessed as derelict are charged a tax rate that is approximately three times higher than the general residential rate. With this new policy, property owners can apply for a refund of the derelict residential property tax for the portion of the year that their property was cleaned up. For example, if a derelict house is demolished on May 1, this prorated tax forgiveness would mean the property owner would pay taxes at the derelict tax rate for January-April, and then would receive a refund so that their net amount paid is equivalent to the general residential rate for May-December.

“We’ve seen great progress from our residential derelict tax subclass in only one year, and this is another positive step,” said Cate Watt, Branch Manager of Assessment and Taxation. “Incentivizing property owners to clean up their derelict properties more quickly has a positive impact on community safety and vibrancy, and reduces the disproportionate amount of City costs associated with derelict properties for services like fire rescue response and bylaw enforcement.”
Click to expand...

Under the city's example, the derelict property owner would still be paying triple tax for January-April, but back to the regular rate for May-December. The refund is not a total refund of the penalty, just a prorated refund as of the date of compliance.
 
Gus Haynes said:
Stevey, you're misreading the policy. The original news release spells it out fairly clearly:



Under the city's example, the derelict property owner would still be paying triple tax for January-April, but back to the regular rate for May-December. The refund is not a total refund of the penalty, just a prorated refund as of the date of compliance.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. My bad.
 
I'm really not a fan of the dog in the manger approach to leaving things sit for such a long time, so if they don't have the capacity to do something nice here, I hope someone else who does buys it instead.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top