changes from Bill 23 require municipalities to accept "encumbered" parkland dedications. We haven't seen the implementing regulations for these changes yet so it's hard to say exactly, but I would be surprised if this doesn't qualify.
 
Can someone explain in basic language what exactly this court decision means from a practical sense? From my understanding everything is still on track the only difference would be that Craft would have to pay a bit more in property tax until the buildings are built up and hence a more carrying cost? If so, does that really impact this project? Whats a couple more million dollars to these developers...

Also people keep mentioning parkland... how does the court decision impact that
 
Can someone explain in basic language what exactly this court decision means from a practical sense? From my understanding everything is still on track the only difference would be that Craft would have to pay a bit more in property tax until the buildings are built up and hence a more carrying cost? If so, does that really impact this project? Whats a couple more million dollars to these developers...

Also people keep mentioning parkland... how does the court decision impact that
Craft have been paying their taxes (I assume) based on the assessed value of the air rights. They would have calculated the risk in buying air rights and subsequently being taxed based on that value of~43 million. None of this likely was a surprise to them - but they were hoping to be successful on their appeal and pay less in taxes.

My guess? This changes very little. The decision of the court can be further appealed I think, but either way this outcome was likely baked in to their calculations/budgeting.
 
Craft have been paying their taxes (I assume) based on the assessed value of the air rights. They would have calculated the risk in buying air rights and subsequently being taxed based on that value of~43 million. None of this likely was a surprise to them - but they were hoping to be successful on their appeal and pay less in taxes.

My guess? This changes very little. The decision of the court can be further appealed I think, but either way this outcome was likely baked in to their calculations/budgeting.
Thanks for the explanation, I guess now just to wait till we see the first buildings to start popping up. I am guessing still another 5 years till the sale of any building.
 
Just got this email, similar to above:
7D584073-2487-4F67-8114-D8A529FDA06E.jpeg
 
Just got this email, similar to above:
View attachment 463357
finally an update on the official website

Open House on March 27 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at the Canoe Landing Community Recreation Centre

and online session on April 4 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm

something going forward?!

TY to you both for bringing this to the attention of UT.

You get a reward............

From the Docs: (March '23 Cover Letter)

1679498939503.png

1679498965826.png


1679498999807.png


1679499024750.png

1679499067574.png

1679499105471.png

1679499133194.png

1679499161327.png

1679499194542.png

1679499220866.png

1679499254475.png
 
Can't believe this is moving forward

Even if it gets approval; I would suggest to you that the economics on this one are challenging, relative to other nearby opportunities.

I wouldn't draw any inference about near-term construction.

Though, hey, anything's possible the way this City is growing.

***

Also, keep in mind, this is zoning/massing, not SPA, and not marketing. So this thing will morph quite a bit before it gets to market, if it gets to market.
 
Slipping ever more towards slabtastic banality.
Yeah...it's come to my experience that with "massing exercises" usually indicates what the shape of those buildings are going to likely be. And so far, there's no sweeping curves or inspiring angles...all will likely be a bunch grey glass boxes that happen to built over a rail corridor. So whoopy ding dong for me too. /sigh
 

Back
Top