Royal Connaught Hotel | ? | 36 fl, 33 fl, 24 fl & 13 fl | U/C

[emge]

I got lambasted for saying this on RTH, but I entirely agree.

eh, i said it too there. i just posted what i sent my councillors on RTH as well - a little redundant, but the best i could do on my lunch today.

[Jon Dalton]

I got lambasted for saying this on RTH, but I entirely agree.

Of course you get lambasted because it's too easy for people to do that. If you oppose anything that is ostensibly for poverty reduction, it is assumed you are against poverty reduction because you are bourgeois and insensitive. The sad part of that fallacy is that this proposal for the Connaught is not about charity at all, it's about easy cash for the owners.

[adam]

The people condemning you are bourgeois themselves but want everything to think they aren't so they buy hats that look worn, rip their $100 jeans, etc. LOL!

[markbarbera]

Quick question to those opposed to this redevelopment proposal: If you would rather a higher end redevelopment (i.e. one that would prohibit seniors from living downtown) would you be willing to allow the Connaught to remain empty until the banking industry's opinion on downtown Hamilton investment improves enough to allow financing? Looking at a few more years to crack that nut...

[paleale2]

Its 100% true Mark , Battaglia @ co, have legitimately been trying to secure financing for this project for a number of years now, but to no avail. Numerous studies recently are revealing that the city just cannot currently support a hotel of this magnitude with current economic conditions. You just have to look at the falling occupancy levels of the Crowne Plaza & Sheraton, the past few years, to understand why banks are so reticent to lend for this scope of project; at least for the short to mid term.

As we are all aware Harry Stinson also was unable to secure the type of financing necessary for this project.

Believe me, the current proposal is not what I would be favouring as a nearby business owner; that being said, how much longer should we be expected to wait for this abandoned and rotting building, to reinvent itself?

It's a bit sad, but anything at all would be better than what is currently there


Mike

[FairHamilton]

Poll on The Spec's website. Get out and vote; www.thespec.com

[FairHamilton]

What do you think. Was this story 'planted' on Wednesday to help support behind this new scheme?

http://www.thespec.com/article/631170

Note, this was the very same day when the Councillors were to (and did) sign-off on the recommendation.

[emge]

Its 100% true Mark , Battaglia @ co, have legitimately been trying to secure financing for this project for a number of years now, but to no avail. Numerous studies recently are revealing that the city just cannot currently support a hotel of this magnitude with current economic conditions. You just have to look at the falling occupancy levels of the Crowne Plaza & Sheraton, the past few years, to understand why banks are so reticent to lend for this scope of project; at least for the short to mid term.

As we are all aware Harry Stinson also was unable to secure the type of financing necessary for this project.

Believe me, the current proposal is not what I would be favouring as a nearby business owner; that being said, how much longer should we be expected to wait for this abandoned and rotting building, to reinvent itself?

It's a bit sad, but anything at all would be better than what is currently there


Mike

For many other buildings, I'd agree. But this one is different. Not for one that anchors a major public space at the exact centre of our downtown, however. We already have affordable housing surrounding that space in other areas.

This one is historical and iconic - it would be a great loss to allow it to become affordable housing or even mixed-use. We need more hotel space.

This is simply a developer leveraging government money so he can make profit in an expedent manner, regardess of the effect it has on the downtown. We should not set the tone of the Gore based on the financing options availiable in recession

[Jon Dalton]

.

[Jon Dalton]

Quick question to those opposed to this redevelopment proposal: If you would rather a higher end redevelopment (i.e. one that would prohibit seniors from living downtown) would you be willing to allow the Connaught to remain empty until the banking industry's opinion on downtown Hamilton investment improves enough to allow financing? Looking at a few more years to crack that nut...

That's like asking if I'd rather be in a coma or have a flesh eating disease. I disagree with the 'anything is better than nothing' argument. That argument assumes that a vacant building is the most detrimental use of land. I would argue that there are possibilities even more detrimental to the state of the downtown core, like a crackhouse for instance. Let's say a vacant, but intact building is a zero on the vitality scale and a 5 star hotel with fully occupied ground floor commercial is a 10. A crackhouse is -8, surface parking is -6. Proponents of the better than nothing argument would place subsidized housing at maybe 2. I'd place it at -4. This isn't the Michigan Central Depot that we're talking about, it's not even the Lister Block. This building is grandiose and it looks every bit of it, until you see the boarded up entrance. It's a reminder that great cities were built because people made money doing it, otherwise it would have been impossible. That's the truth of every city past and present. Maybe the opposite holds true and ghettos are built by losing money and getting bailed out. So yeah, I'd rather wait a few years until someone can make a legitmate profit on this building.

[realcity]

I just can't imagine giving friends/family a tour of Hamilton and walking through the Gore and they point at the biggest feature building which is the Connaught

and ask "wow what a nice building what is it"?

and I answer "a public housing project".

[realcity]

"ya you know what? maybe this tour isn't a good idea. let's go home, I'll make us some fresh coffee".

[SteelTown]

Mixed housing
Concept becoming more popular in the hope it will prevent ghettos

September 12, 2009
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/633334

When Regent Park's first condo project went on sale earlier this summer, there was a waiting list of buyers eager to live in Toronto's social housing hub.

Their interest, and investment, added confidence to the city's $1-billion plan to revitalize the troubled neighbourhood by mixing public and market housing.

"There are a lot of benefits to mixed housing," said John Fox, acting vice-president of development for Toronto Community Housing.

The concept of mixed-income projects is becoming increasingly popular as cities try to move away from concentrated developments or "poor ghettos."

Hamilton may soon see its first private mixed-income development in the core if the owners of the Royal Connaught are successful in their plan to convert the hotel into affordable and market units.

Though a few public buildings are mixed, the majority of the city's social housing stock is solely rent geared-to-income. Keith Extance, director of the municipally controlled housing provider CityHousing Hamilton, said his board knows that needs to change.

"Over time we want to begin to transition the buildings to mixed," he said. "If you have a mix of people you create a community environment."

Though the market has proven that mixed projects can be attractive in the right location, debate continues on whether the projects help residents escape poverty.

Mark Joseph, a professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, has studied the topic extensively. In interviews with low-income families, he found that moving from concentrated social housing to a mixed neighbourhood leads to a better quality of life.

Joseph credits the improvement to the fact that residents paying market rent tend to have higher expectations for behaviour and services, such as policing and recreation. Those residents are also more likely to be vocal in their demands and reach out to officials, explained Joseph.

"And the powers that be respond more quickly."

The market also responds to mixed neighbourhoods, increasing the likelihood of new businesses that typically steer clear of social housing complexes, said Joseph. Regent Park will gain a grocery store, bank and coffee shop thanks to the new condo.

However, evidence hasn't shown that mixed-income housing actually helps residents improve their socio-economic status. Many residents, explained Joseph, can feel increased stigma and judgment because of the economic divide, though they are living in a better neighbourhood.

"It does not necessarily change their life circumstances," he said, noting some feel more isolated. "At the end of the day they feel cut off."

The division within a mixed neighbourhood can make it difficult for residents to develop a network or shared agenda, said Joseph. However, he thinks that can be overcome with active community building and support programs.

"The jury is still out on the sustainability of these new communities," Joseph admits. But he's quick to add that doesn't mean the old model is better.

"We absolutely know that concentrating people does not work."

[realcity]

Huge difference.

Regent was already a housing project, getting turned into a mixed-use.

Connaught was a 4 star hotel getting turned into a housing project (with a bit of mixed-use)

Regent = definite improvement
Connaught = it doesn't get any worse then a downtown hotel to a downtown housing project

I know it's vacant. but this totally kills the possibility that it will ever be a hotel again. The building was meant to be a hotel.

[drpgq]

Yup that was a ridiculous puff piece.

Considering the social costs the residents will incur on the city, it is a major loss in my opinion and I'm happy to wait. The city should at the very least wait until they know what is happening with the Coyotes.

Plus what will the building be like after 10 years of social housing (ie First Place)? I'm guessing not pristine and more grow-ops than you can shake a joint at.

[SteelTown]

I think some are getting carried away with this ghetto theme. Half will be market rate rentals and the other have will have 80% of the market rate rental. In 2003 the average rent for 1 bedroom was $633, so the affordable units will be $506.40. In 2003 the average rent for 2 bedroom was $778, so the affordable units will be $622.40.

Rent typically goes up 10.5% every 5 years. So to put it in 2008...

Average 1 bedroom market rate - $699.47
Average 2 bedroom market rate - $859.69

Affordable 1 bedroom rate - $559.58
Affordable 2 bedroom rate - $687.75

Ontario rental housing statistics: http://www.ontariotenants.ca/research/rents-vacancy.phtml

[SteelTown]

Now compare those numbers with this

http://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/researchpublications/ResearchProjects/WelfareIncomes/2002Report_Spring2003/Factsheets/PovLineSingleEmplENG.pdf

Welfare Employable $6,833
Welfare Disabled $11,763
Poverty Line $19,256
Average Total Income $35,267

From 2003
Affordable 1 bedroom rate - $506.40 - For 1 year $6,076.80
Affordable 2 bedroom rate - $622.40 - For 1 year $7,468.80

You can draw your own conclusion with these numbers. But lets say $6,076.80 subtract $11,763.00 gives you just $473.85 to function each month.

[emge]

For a welfare disabled person living in a 1 bedroom at 80% of market rate?

I know that number initially seems low, but $473 a month after paying rent is doing fairly well. I think that kind of margin is more than acceptable to a lot of people.

I'd personally be richer to have $473 left a person after rent each month (for our very nice and inexpensive place!), but the realities of my job (I get a small clergy stipend), school, and student loan repayments mean my husband and I live on about a $700 budget after rent each month.

That's for both bare necessities like food and hydro and transit and life/contents insurance and such--- and many not-so-bare-necessities like our sponsored kid, art supplies, books, dinners and movies on occasion, and the more-than-occasional latte.

Sure, I look forward to the day when I can own a house, and can travel again, but living like this for the past couple years is certainly not I'm-scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, woe-is-me material!

Some on disability may prefer to own a car, or to spend their money on other things in exchange for a cheaper rent, but $473 for food and the other necessities of life besides rent isn't doing all that bad, even taking into account that some necessities like hydro don't always go down with only one person in a unit.

If someone has kids as well as being on disability, that can be a whole different story of course.

All that to say, I'm sure many people on disability would find the Connaught quite affordable were it to be converted.

[SteelTown]

$473.85 is what you would have left over after rent. Obviously you'll need food. But odds are you'll also need transit, hydro, line or cell phone bill and perhaps cable.

[SteelTown]

Anyways they could do a mixture of affordable housing and hotel space.

With that you could get federal funding for the affordable housing and the City's residential loan program to cover the cost of the hotel space, gave a loan to Staybridge. I would think there be less protest of Hotel/Affordable housing project.

[emge]

$473.85 is what you would have left over after rent. Obviously you'll need food. But odds are you'll also need transit, hydro, line or cell phone bill and perhaps cable.

$473 a month pays for all those necessities and even some luxuries. I know. I've lived on less than that after my rent for a couple years now, and worked to earn what I spend. See my previous post, I broke it down.

It won't last if you're blowing it all on smokes and fake nails and fast food or if you own a car -- but it's very possible to live a very reasonable life with the proper insurance, utilities, and even some luxuries on $473 per month after rent - and many people on disability will look at that amount and say "yeah, i'll live there, that'll work just fine for me."


Anyways they could do a mixture of affordable housing and hotel space.

With that you could get federal funding for the affordable housing and the City's residential loan program to cover the cost of the hotel space, gave a loan to Staybridge. I would think there be less protest of Hotel/Affordable housing project.
If it was a mix of affordable housing and hotel space -- I think it would go better with some regular rental in there too.

Of course, what would make the most sense would be to do an Options-for-Homes type thing where people can actually own the units in the end instead of the dead-end black hole of renting.

[FairHamilton]

Anyways they could do a mixture of affordable housing and hotel space.

Kingston Road in Toronto has many great examples of this use.

[SteelTown]

But with hotel brand chain? I doubt they would do an independent hotel chain.

[emge]

Wouldn't it be a great place for a boutique hotel?

I know not everyone loves that type of hotel, but it could be a good fit and leverage its' location and history.

[DHLawrence]

One article I read in the Spec said that they plan to only use part of the Connaught for living space. There's still going to be a section for future hotel use.

The property is large enough that there could still be a hotel portion if the market changes, said Battaglia.

Was this just blowing smoke or a serious comment?

[flar]

According to CMHC, as of April 09 Hamilton's vacancy rate was 3.6% and average 2br rent was $860/mo. Anybody who says you can't make money off market rentals in Hamilton is full of crap because these stats are around average for Canadian cities.

[FairHamilton]

But with hotel brand chain? I doubt they would do an independent hotel chain.

Please provide a hotel brand chain that has developed what you are suggesting. Somehow I highly doubt there's a reputable hotel brand that would put that brand with anything like what is being recommended.

[FairHamilton]

One article I read in the Spec said that they plan to only use part of the Connaught for living space. There's still going to be a section for future hotel use.

Was this just blowing smoke or a serious comment?

If you believe that, I have some great land (waterfront) in Florida you might be interested in purchasing. Also, I have a bridge in NYC for sale.

Let's remember these are the same guys who solicited and took city money on the pretense of a 5 Diamond hotel being put into the location back in 2006.

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C9AF1835-0850-47E9-9549-166AF59E52DB/0/Apr04PED06103REVISED.pdf

Took the money, did the work (with controversy on costs submitted) and oops, 5 Diamond isn't in the cards. But thanks for the $230K gift City of Hamilton.

[FairHamilton]

According to CMHC, as of April 09 Hamilton's vacancy rate was 3.6% and average 2br rent was $860/mo. Anybody who says you can't make money off market rentals in Hamilton is full of crap because these stats are around average for Canadian cities.

This is nothing about affordable rents, this is about maximizing the property owners profits without having to bear any risks. Best of both worlds.

[DHLawrence]

If you believe that, I have some great land (waterfront) in Florida you might be interested in purchasing. Also, I have a bridge in NYC for sale.

It was a perfectly simple question, no need to get sarcastic. I don't live in Hamilton, remember? All I know is that LIUNA commits the most crimes against tasteful architecture in the city.

[SteelTown]

Please provide a hotel brand chain that has developed what you are suggesting. Somehow I highly doubt there's a reputable hotel brand that would put that brand with anything like what is being recommended.

I was responding to your post

Kingston Road in Toronto has many great examples of this use.

[FairHamilton]

It was a perfectly simple question, no need to get sarcastic. I don't live in Hamilton, remember? All I know is that LIUNA commits the most crimes against tasteful architecture in the city.

Sarcasm wasn't intended, sorry you read that into it. My apologies.

It was meant to be tongue planted firmly in cheek, a little good natured ribbing.

[SteelTown]

Developer, city defend downscaling Connaught

September 11, 2009
Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/article/632699

So you don't like the idea of the iconic Royal Connaught Hotel being turned into affordable housing.

You think the downtown landmark deserves better, something that will make a bigger splash for rejuvenating the core.

Well, don't tell that to Ron Marini, director of the city's downtown renewal office. Not unless you want to hear an earful, complete with F-bomb and assorted salty language.

For Marini, that attitude smacks of nose-in-the-air elitism, the kind of stuff his immigrant grandparents had to put up with.

"That's NIMBYism," he says. "What's wrong with affordable housing?"

Marini sees the surprise proposal as straightforward downtown regeneration, a chance to bring more residents into the heart of the city.

"This is supposed to be an inclusive country and this is what it's all about," says Marini.

"These guys aren't stealing. They haven't got diseases. They just don't have the same economic wherewithal."

True, there is already too much poverty in some areas of the core, says Marini.

"But at the same time, these are supposed to be working people. What the hell is wrong with a guy that's working for a living?"

Truth be told, there's a little confusion over who actually would be living in the project if it gets the city's blessing and provincial and federal support.

The hotel owners are looking for more than $18 million in public assistance to build 100 affordable rental units. They also plan to build another 106 market-rate apartments and lease some 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

Keith Extance, director of city housing, says 90 of the 100 affordable units would be set aside for seniors while the other 10 will be modified for people with disabilities.

But Tony Battaglia, spokesperson for the local consortium that owns the hotel, insists the units are intended for the working poor as well as seniors and disabled.

Like Marini, Battaglia takes a dim view of those who feel the Connaught is too good for low-income earners.

"I think it's prejudicial to start with," he says.

"How can you say we don't think the working poor should be in that building?"

Battaglia recognizes the current proposal is a long way from the $65-million luxury hotel and condo tower the consortium envisioned when it bought the faded and vacant hotel in 2004.

And it certainly falls short of last year's grandiose but failed plan by developer Harry Stinson to turn the building into a 100-storey tower.

But Battaglia says it's better than sitting empty, costing the owners money and doing nothing for the core.

Though not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the Connaught has been a city landmark since it was built in 1916.

"Certainty it's a grand old building with a grand old history and everybody, including us, would have loved to see it completely restored back to its glory," Battaglia says.

"Unfortunately, we have to deal with reality and reality is the hotel market is in a bad state of flux and there are no lenders out there who are going to give mortgage financing on a hotel project."

The group is only looking for public dollars for the affordable housing part.

Battaglia says developing the other 106 open-rate units and commercial space will be privately financed.

He figures monthly rent for the the private units would be in the $800 range.

According to Canada Mortgage and Housing, the average apartment rent in the core is $687.

Battaglia argues the plan is a way to kick-start the stagnant redevelopment while still leaving room for luxurious add-ons down the road.

"This is not the end of the day for the Connaught, it's just the beginning," he says.

To which someone with Marini's temperament might add, "Effing right."

[FairHamilton]

Battaglia argues the plan is a way to kick-start the stagnant redevelopment while still leaving room for luxurious add-ons down the road.

B.S.

[drpgq]

They can't even keep their story straight. Is it an old folks home or not? I think it is important to know the exact composition of the project with the ridiculous amount of public funds being shoveled down it.

For Marini, that attitude smacks of nose-in-the-air elitism, the kind of stuff his immigrant grandparents had to put up with.

"That's NIMBYism," he says. "What's wrong with affordable housing?"


You know you have a bad argument when you have to reach back to supposed slights against your grandparents. Unless that's just something Dreschel added in for colour.

[LikeHamilton]

I always thought that Hamilton has some of the most affordable housing in southern Ontario and especially in the core/lower city area. That is why people are flocking here to live. So why do we need to take a perfectly good prestige location and turn it into garbage? The handouts will not stop here. They will come back in the future and say they need more money for something important because they do not get enough money from rent to do it.

I do not know what the problem is on getting money for the project. The people who own this building can most likely float this on their own. They just really do not want to spend any of their own money on the project.

Bill Kelly interviewed Battaglia last week and he asked if it was still for sale. He said not it was not but they are getting people calling all the time wanting to buy it. So sell it! Lets get someone else in to build a good project.

A dumb quote in the paper “The property is large enough that there could still be a hotel portion if the market changes, said Battaglia.” Of course it is going to change! It always does! Now is the time to build a hotel when money, materials and labour or relatively cheap and not when it is at peek and your trying to get on the band wagon! They should be leading the way.

If they do not think a hotel will work, they should be looking at higher end project. With what I believe confidently that we will get an NHL team at Copps and a LRT line will go by this property in front or back, they should still be looking at higher uses for the property. But no, wait, they will have to use their own money for the project and that won’t do!
:2cents:

[SteelTown]

Back when the Connaught was owned by Howard Johnson it held 206 rooms. The owners intend to make 206 units. But I'd imagine that would be difficult because you would need to install at least a kitchen.

[markbarbera]

Not sure where you got that room count for when Howard Johnson's occupied the Connaught, but there were much more than 206 rooms to the hotel. At its peak, the Royal Connaught operated with 400 hotel rooms available. I do remember that HoJo had closed off a good chuunk of the hotel during its final throes in the early 21st century, so maybe that's where you get the smaller room count.

For those wondering why it has been so hard to revive this as a hotel, remember that the hotel struggled for over a decade prior to its permanent closure in 2004. This really adds to potential financiers' reluctance to invest in the property as any hotel format, let alone as a luxury hotel.

[SteelTown]

You'll find the 206 rooms here

http://toronto.hotelguide.net/data/h100008.htm

[markbarbera]

You'll find the 206 rooms here

http://toronto.hotelguide.net/data/h100008.htm

Right, as I said HoJo was only operating a portion of the building during the hotel's final days.

Exeprt for the news report covering Sheraton purchase of interest in a group of hotels, including the Royal Connaught, in Feb 1950:

The transaction gave Sheraton control of the 1100 room Mount Royal hotel, Montreal; the 1000 room KIing Edward, Toronto; the 300 room Gen. Brock, Niagara Falls, Ont.; the 300 room Prince Edward, Windsor, Ont.; the 400 room Royal Connaught, Hamilton, Ont.,...

[FairHamilton]

Bill Kelly interviewed Battaglia last week and he asked if it was still for sale. He said not it was not but they are getting people calling all the time wanting to buy it. So sell it! Lets get someone else in to build a good project.

Why not sell it? Because they want a healthy profit, and want something like Stinson offered, $9.5M for a property they paid $4.5M. You could argue the $918K for removal of asbestos increased the value of the property. But, you could also argue since the asbestos was an unexpected "surprise" to the investors, it's removal only took the property back to the value they perceived at purchase, $4.5M.

In a time when 100's of millions of people have lost money on their investments in the past year, or so, these guys don't want to take a loss on an investment, which without government gifts was a bad investment.

Investment risk carries 2 things; the opportunity for reward, and the potential for loss. The more risk you take the the greater the reward, or the greater the loss.

That basic principal seems to be lost on these guys.

[FairHamilton]

They can't even keep their story straight. Is it an old folks home or not? I think it is important to know the exact composition of the project with the ridiculous amount of public funds being shoveled down it.

For Marini, that attitude smacks of nose-in-the-air elitism, the kind of stuff his immigrant grandparents had to put up with.

"That's NIMBYism," he says. "What's wrong with affordable housing?"


You know you have a bad argument when you have to reach back to supposed slights against your grandparents. Unless that's just something Dreschel added in for colour.

The best defense is a strong offense. That's what I see here, period. I'm not against affordable housing, I'm against it in this building and happening in a subversive way without guarantees and transparency.

[markbarbera]

I suspect the number of serious buyers that have approached Battaglia about the Royal Connaught is roughly equal to the number of serious bidders that had approached Bettman about the Phoenix Coyotes.

[adam]

.....hey do you guys think Balsillie be interested in a hotel?!

[FairHamilton]

^^ Good one, markbarbera! :)

[FairHamilton]

.....hey do you guys think Balsillie be interested in a hotel?!

I think he'll have his hands filled with a hockey team.

[realcity]

I think the annex and the original hotel get confused. Probably about 200 rooms in each building

[realcity]

So Marini got owned....

[realcity]

The Connaught will never see these future add-ons. Once the building is fully rented (or close to it) they will sell it

[Jon Dalton]

So the best arguments Ron Marini and the developers have are not even arguments.

NIMBYism is a non-starter because the majority of the project's detractors don't live in the immediate vicinity of the Connaught. It's not that we don't want it in our backyard, it's that we don't want it in a symbolic landmark building downtown. It has nothing to do with where we live.

Of course their most powerful ammunition is to turn it into a social policy debate. Anyone who objects to this project is assumed to ideologically opposed to poverty reduction and to have a disgust for all lower income citizens. In fact, few would oppose a project even a few blocks away.

This is not about principle at all, it's about results. It's about what works and what does not work for cities. What will happen to downtown Hamilton's economy, image and liveability if the project goes forward. That needs to be central to the debate.

[Jon Dalton]

The best defense is a strong offense. That's what I see here, period.

I used that line in my letter to the spec, hope that's ok.

[FairHamilton]

I used that line in my letter to the spec, hope that's ok.

All yours! I have no copyright on that one ;)

[emge]

hah. that just makes me think of the CSI episode where David Caruso stares at somebody and goes "An honest life is the best defense."

I hope to see your letter published.

[SteelTown]

Apparently a grocery store is part of the commercial space for the Connaught.

[FairHamilton]

Apparently a grocery store is part of the commercial space for the Connaught.

"proposed", I'm sure.

[SteelTown]

It's part of the whole project, which currently is entirely a proposal.

[FairHamilton]

Okay, I'll change my wording. "promised" in a future phase, without guarantees.

[markbarbera]

A proper grocery store anywhere in the downtown would be warmly welcomed no matter where it was to go. This was something also mentioned in prior proposals for the Connaught. I'd like to see it happen.

[drpgq]

Well I think we all would like to see it happen, but until I see the sign up, I don't believe it, at all.

[FairHamilton]

Well I think we all would like to see it happen, but until I see the sign up, I don't believe it, at all.

Don't believe it until you see stock on the shelves.

[highwater]

Sign the petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/the-mad-connaught

[SteelTown]

Connaught owes $500,000 in taxes
Owners say they'll pay when project proceeds

September 16, 2009
Andrew Dreschel
http://www.thespec.com/News/Columnist/article/634313

The consortium that wants $18 million in public assistance to turn the Royal Connaught into mixed-use housing owes more than $500,000 in unpaid taxes on the hotel and related properties.

According to city records, the Grand Connaught Development Group Inc. is in arrears on property taxes for the hotel for 2009, 2008, and a portion of 2007.

The total amount owing is $332,169.

The group has run up an additional tax tab of $178,111 on three parking lots which, though registered separately, form one large lot adjacent to the Connaught.

Tony Battaglia, spokesman for the group which bought the hotel after it went into receivership in 2004, says the arrears will be paid as soon as they get rolling on turning the downtown landmark into an affordable housing project.

“That would be one of the first things we have to do is get the taxes paid up,” said Battaglia.

Asked why they haven’t been paid, Battaglia replied, “It’s managing your cash flow.

“It’s an expensive property to maintain and you just have to manage your cash flow to the best of your abilities.”

When you factor in a 30 per cent tax rebate for being vacant, the hotel’s property taxes for this year are $141,316.

Tonight city council will vote on the housing proposal which, if selected by the province, would see the project receive $12.9 million from a government housing program and $5.6 million in tax and fee breaks from the city.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who strongly supports the $27-million plan, was taken aback to learn about the unpaid taxes.

“I would think that people of the means we’re talking about would keep their taxes up to snuff,” said Eisenberger.

“I’m surprised by that, disappointed to hear that, and would certainly look to ensure that it’s fully paid before any project monies flow to them.”

The consortium — Battaglia, hotelier Oscar Kichi, builder Ted Valeri and American businessman Mehran Koranki— wants to redevelop the historic hotel as a high-rise apartment with 100 lower income units and 106 market-rate units.

Yesterday, Battaglia, Valeri and consultant Rudi Spallacci appeared before a committee of council to assure them the project is the only viable option given their inability to secure hotel financing.

Battaglia argued the project would act as a catalyst for downtown rejuvenation by bringing more residents into the core.

He noted the site could easily accommodate a new hotel if market conditions change or if Jim Balsillie were to bring an NHL team to town.

In fact, Battaglia said he was assured by at least one lender that if Hamilton does get a team, they’ll be right back at the table.

Eisenberger, who was unable to attend yesterday’s meeting, believes enough councillors support the project to get it approved, but he’s worried the unpaid taxes might cause some to pause.

To make matters worse, taxes on the parking lots are not only overdue, all three now have a tax lien on them, meaning they are so far in arrears, the city has the right to sell them off.

Technically, if the taxes on the Connaught itself are not paid by year’s end, the hotel could also have a tax lien registered against it.

This is not only a major embarrassment for Battaglia and his partners, it’s nothing short of offensive for a group that’s looking to guzzle from the public funding faucet.

It’s also a nasty poke in the eye for all diligent residential and commercial taxpayers in the city.

Hopefully, councillors won’t be so soured by the group’s tardiness that they’ll kill the proposal.

But a lecture on good corporate citizenship is clearly in order as is a crack down on the rules that allow these kind of delinquencies to persist.

[coalminecanary]

Excellent letter mr dalton!

this consortium sickens me.

[drpgq]

So now the public funds help them to get out of their tax hole. This is becoming more ridiculous every day.

[BrianE]

This is just flat out criminal IMO. I would love to know the daily income is for a typical parking lot in Hamilton. Especially in that area where parking is at a premium. Is it not unreasonable to estimate that those 4 lots take in $2000 per day from parking fees? That's probly on the low end.... who knows? Anybody?

$2000 x 365 = $730 000 PER YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They owe $500 000 after 2 years of not paying taxes on the Connaught and the 4 other parking lots. That's $250 000 per year in property tax. That means they're walking away with $480 000 for doing nothing!!!!! Cash flow problems my ass!

I'm not a big fan of expropriation of property.... but come on. If there was ever a case of a municipality excercising their right to collect property tax from a dead beat, this is it!

[jgrwatson]

I agree with you guys about taxes paying for the company's arrears, that isn't right.

But I REALLY support mixed housing and/or only low-income housing for he site. Personally, an abandoned building versus 100+ ppl downtown contributing to the local economy is a great thing. I would be curious to know how many of you who oppose the idea actually live in the downtown area, I find it a very elitist comment.

(FYI, I live a block away)

[highwater]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one would not have a problem with a mixed use development on almost any other site than this one. This is a grand, landmark hotel. If it's restored, it will be a huge asset to the downtown and a much bigger economic generator than a mixed use housing development. We cannot afford to lose the economic potential. Far better for it to sit empty for a few more years, than to forever lose it as a public asset.

And yes, I believe a hotel is a public asset. Many people have wonderful memories of attending proms in the ballroom, eating in the dining room, etc. All this will be lost if the Connaught becomes a housing development, even an upscale one.

[highwater]

Another Connaught Spec poll.

http://thespec.com/

[FRM]

I agree with you guys about taxes paying for the company's arrears, that isn't right.

But I REALLY support mixed housing and/or only low-income housing for he site. Personally, an abandoned building versus 100+ ppl downtown contributing to the local economy is a great thing. I would be curious to know how many of you who oppose the idea actually live in the downtown area, I find it a very elitist comment.

(FYI, I live a block away)

if they are low-income what kinda businesses do you think they will attract?? more bingo halls? more dollar stores?? come on :yuck:

and yes i live a blog away from copps coliseum and pass by downtown almost every day.

[SteelTown]

Poeple gotta eat no? More potential customers for a grocery store in downtown.

Plus there's 106 market rental rate.

[markbarbera]

if they are low-income what kinda businesses do you think they will attract?? more bingo halls? more dollar stores?? come on :yuck:



..because people who live in subsidized housing only go to bingo halls and dollar stores? What about the people who would live in the 106 market-rate units?

[drpgq]

I agree with you guys about taxes paying for the company's arrears, that isn't right.

But I REALLY support mixed housing and/or only low-income housing for he site. Personally, an abandoned building versus 100+ ppl downtown contributing to the local economy is a great thing. I would be curious to know how many of you who oppose the idea actually live in the downtown area, I find it a very elitist comment.

(FYI, I live a block away)

I live closer to St Joe's so I don't know if it counts and I oppose any subsidized housing in that building (OK I could live with 10% like the Vancouver model and I wouldn't be so angry if it was 25% or for artists specifically).

While it may make me unpopular, I would oppose any more subsidized housing for Hamilton, period. Supply creates its own demand. Lower city Hamilton already has enough market rate cheap housing as it is. Creating more just makes Hamilton a dumping ground for Toronto, Burlington, Oakville, Milton and the rest of the GTA for those that consume a boat load of social services.

It is often discussed how sprawl has costs (road maintenance) for the city that are not recouped by development fees. What if these residents need DARTS? That's hugely expensive and should be counted in the accounting for these projects.

If I have to wear the elitist tag so be it. This city will never get ahead building subsidized towers downtown (or anywhere in Hamilton for that matter).

[coalminecanary]

I agree with you guys about taxes paying for the company's arrears, that isn't right.

But I REALLY support mixed housing and/or only low-income housing for he site. Personally, an abandoned building versus 100+ ppl downtown contributing to the local economy is a great thing.

According to those in this consortium (many of the same people who wanted to rebuild the lister from scratch instead of repairing it), it is "cheaper to build new than to restore".

So why don't they take one of their 3 parking lots and build a new mixed-use, partially-subsidized building there? If they did that, then I'd believe that they are doing something good for the core AND good for those in need. Plus they'd be using less public money to do so. Everyone wins, and they can continue to work on the connaught until they find a way to do it RIGHT.

This connaught proposal is a cash grab plain and simple, and we will all suffer from the loss of this fine hotel.

Once it is converted to affordable housing, it will never ever be a hotel again. Never. Just keep that in mind.

[Jon Dalton]

The fact that the city could aquire a large downtown parking lot due to taxes owed, is enough reason on its own to deny the proposal. They could resell it as developable land. Even if that happens in 10 years it's worth the investment. Downtown parking lots and their opportunist owners are a huge barrier to redevelopment and we don't get this chance often.

I wrote to Bob Bratina today (he replied in 10 minutes - wow) and also a slightly condensed version to Fred.

Dear Mr. Bratina:

I'm a resident of Ward 2 who voted for you in the last election and hopes to do so again in 2010. First I'd like to say thanks for your hard work as councillor, especially in bringing more train service to Hamilton. I live steps from the TH&B station and ride the new 7:17 train every day.

Now please allow me to explain why the proposed Connaught development does not represent the interests of Ward 2. Tens of thousands of people live in the neighbourhoods of Durand, Corktown and Central, and for us the downtown core is close and easily accessible. Yet few of us have any reason to venture down King Street east of James. My travels routinely take me up and down James Street and into the unfortunate urban failure called Jackson Square, but I can't remember the last time I headed east on King for any practical reason. The historic commercial centre of our city offers almost no destination for anyone with means.

I would much rather shop and do business in a district full of old buildings, with sidewalks full of people and Gore Park across the street, than in a downtown mall or some outlying area, which is often necessary. Hamilton's inner city residents deserve a proper commercial district, but instead we have a welfare district dominated by the most bottom-of-the-barrel establishments you can imagine. This is not only a concern for would-be downtown shoppers but for anyone who understands how cities work. Hamilton is not personified, in the minds of newcomers or investors, by Locke Street or Limeridge Mall, though they offer much more to the average person. The downtown core will always define Hamilton, and currently it is a total embarrassment. Though forward steps have been made in recent years, the most definitive part of downtown, King Street between James and John, remains at its worst.

There is a vicious cycle of disinvestment in this area. Low end businesses, appalling building presentation, and a concentration of poverty repel investors and retail tenants, even though the population surrounding downtown has intensified. All the downtown attracts in this state is those who are served, or more likely used, by those low end businesses. The result it more of the same. The Connaught development group is suggesting that by 'bringing more people downtown', or more accurately, a further concentraion in poverty, the change will be positive. If you have any faith in this statement, I suggest walking past the Spallacci building on your way to today's council meeting.

It just came to my attention today that the owners of the Connaught have not been paying their property taxes to the City, even as they have applied for public funding. Notwithstanding the horrible example that would be set by doing business with these people, this brings up one more reason why approval should not be granted. If it is true that the city now has the authority to expropriate the land containing three surface parking lots, this should be pursued with haste. Surface parking lots are the most parasitic use of land downtown, and any rare opportunity to convert one to developable land must not be wasted. This in itself ought to be reason enough to deny the proposal.

Please don't be fooled by the 'better than nothing' argument. I can think, and point to, many things downtown that are far worse than nothing, and subsidized housing in the Connaught is one of them.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I wish you success in your fine work for the city.

Jonathan Dalton

[Jon Dalton]

100+ ppl downtown contributing to the local economy

That's the part people don't think about. Not everyone contributes to the local economy. If you buy crack downtown, you are spending money downtown, but is it a net contribution to the economy given the indirect costs? Buying crack is an extreme example, and I'm not suggesting that we will have 100+ crackheads, but it does illustrate that not all economic activity is contribution.

[SteelTown]

Wonder if this project will include a parking garage? 309 parking spots will be required.

Our bylaw is whatever unit x 1.5 parking space. So....
206 x 1.5 = 309 parking space.

[Jon Dalton]

Wonder if this project will include a parking garage? 309 parking spots will be required.

Our bylaw is whatever unit x 1.5 parking space. So....
206 x 1.5 = 309 parking space.

There are some exceptions. Gore Building for example?

[LikeHamilton]

The katest in Raise the Hammer.

Council Should Repossess the Connaught
http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog.asp?id=1505

[SteelTown]

"Embarrassed" Connaught to pay its tax bill

http://thespec.com/News/Columnist/article/634313

The consortium that owns the Royal Connaught says it will pay its $500,000 tax bill today.

In an e-mail to downtown councillor Bob Bratina today, Tony Battaglia said the group will present a cheque for the full amount today.

The Grand Connaught Development Group owes Hamilton more than $500,000 in taxes and fees for the hotel and associated property.

"I would like to let you know now, that all outstanding taxes will be paid in full today," Battaglia said in his e-mail, adding that the coverage in the Spectator and thespec.com was "embarrassing". "Therefore we have taken immediate action to rectify the issue."

[FairHamilton]

"Embarrassed" Connaught to pay its tax bill

http://thespec.com/News/Columnist/article/634313

The consortium that owns the Royal Connaught says it will pay its $500,000 tax bill today.

In an e-mail to downtown councillor Bob Bratina today, Tony Battaglia said the group will present a cheque for the full amount today.

The Grand Connaught Development Group owes Hamilton more than $500,000 in taxes and fees for the hotel and associated property.

"I would like to let you know now, that all outstanding taxes will be paid in full today," Battaglia said in his e-mail, adding that the coverage in the Spectator and thespec.com was "embarrassing". "Therefore we have taken immediate action to rectify the issue."

Too little, too late!!!

[markbarbera]

I'm glad they decided to pay up in advance of the council meeting. Hopefully the cheque is certified.

Bit of a tempest in a teacup. Many owners of redevelopments in waiting allow their taxes to accumulate in arrears. Not the first, certainly won't be the last.

We may see more property turnover/quicker redevelopment if the reduced tax rate for vacant properties was removed. It seems to me that this is something applied province-wide by the Ontario Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry via the Municipalities Act. Can anyone confirm or correct?

[markbarbera]

:previous:

Answered my own question. Reduced tax rates are prescribed by Section 313 of the Municipal Act, so it isn't the city's doing but the province's doing.

[FairHamilton]

Supply creates its own demand. Lower city Hamilton already has enough market rate cheap housing as it is. Creating more just makes Hamilton a dumping ground for Toronto, Burlington, Oakville, Milton and the rest of the GTA for those that consume a boat load of social services.

Supply is one thing we have no shortage of in the downtown core; http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/2609D91F-5F8B-4F19-9A27-9EE3B12D397A/0/BuildingSelectionForm.pdf

[markbarbera]

I can understand how that form can give the perception that there are a lot of units in the downtown core. After all, just under 23% of the entire stock is located here - 3573. Given this, an additional 100 units certainly isn't going to tip the scale and cause the core to implode upon itself. In fact, when all the prosed units are added to the pool citywide, the percentage in each area remains about the same.

Interesting to note that 40% of subsidized housing is located on the mountain, as opposed to 50% in the lower city. The remaining 10% are in the former municipalities that joined the city at amalgamation.

It is also interesting to note that the most imppoverished part of the city, the North End, has less than 3% of the city's subsidized housing. That does not support the perception that subsidized housing and poverty in a neighbourhood are positively correlated.

[emge]

Areas such as the North End (certain areas) don't need additional subsidized housing, because they're already full of lower-than-average rent. Subsidized housing wouldn't offer any real benefits over what's being charged in many places in those areas, so it's not pushed for.

[SteelTown]

Whoa! Something just major happened at City Council....

Council is now at recess and Cable 14 cut it off.

[SteelTown]

Now it looks like Council has been cancelled.

[SteelTown]

Okay they are back now.

[SteelTown]

Amazing, council will talk/vote about the affordable housing list off camera.

It seems like lately all the major decisions are being made off camera. What's the point of showing council live on cable than?

[matt602]

Gotta love the back room deals.

[drpgq]

Amazing, council will talk/vote about the affordable housing list off camera.

It seems like lately all the major decisions are being made off camera. What's the point of showing council live on cable than?

This is becoming East Germany. Where's the transparency?

[FairHamilton]

Amazing, council will talk/vote about the affordable housing list off camera.

It seems like lately all the major decisions are being made off camera. What's the point of showing council live on cable than?

I just want to confirm something. Are they making the decision 'in camera' meaning without any public scrutiny, or just (not that I want to minimize) not on camera, but in front of those there in-person?

Just want to make sure I clearly understand the use of the term "off camera".

[SteelTown]

They voted and approved to have the issue "in camera"

[emge]

Trying to understand my terms here too...

Okay.. so does "in-camera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera)" means a private meeting tonight after the one that's "on-camera"? No one gets to report on it, CATCH won't hear what happened, etc.?

Apparently Bratina said there were some more issues that came to his attention... I certainly hope we find out what these "issues" are, or at the very least the decision is postponed, if not shot down.

[SteelTown]

Okay.. so does "in-camera" means a private meeting tonight after the one that's "on-camera"? Yes

Will CATCH not even get to report on it? Yes, no camera and no reporters allowed during "in camera".

[FairHamilton]

^ Our democracy at work!!

[highwater]

Okay.. so does "in-camera" means a private meeting tonight after the one that's "on-camera"? Yes

Will CATCH not even get to report on it? Yes, no camera and no reporters allowed during "in camera".

Yes. In camera (camera being the latin word for room, not a tv camera) means a private meeting, council and relevant staff only, no public or media. What happens in camera stays in camera.

[highwater]

I was at the meeting, but left when they deferred the vote. When I left they were talking about a possible deferral till a COW after the council meeting, or another meeting later in the month. I guess some point after I left, they decided to go in camera.

[SteelTown]

Connaught pays tax bill, but council has questions
But meetings on development proposal continuing late tonight

September 16, 2009
Nicole MacIntyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Columnist/article/634313

The city’s bank account is more than $500,000 richer after the owners of the Royal Connaught paid their back taxes in full today.

Tony Battaglia, spokesperson for the Grand Connaught Development Group Inc., said the consortium was “embarrassed” to have its tax arrears reported by The Spectator. The group is seeking $18 million from the public purse to convert the downtown landmark into mixed-income housing.

Battaglia said the group recognized their outstanding tax tab could put council in a “precarious position” when deciding if the city should support the affordable housing proposal.

“We wanted to just remove that obstacle.”

Council was still debating the project late tonight after a move by Councillor Bob Bratina to defer the decision. The downtown politician said there are numerous questions that still need to be answered, but did not reveal his concerns in public.

He suggested council needed to go behind closed doors because of the legal issues.

Council initially endorsed the delay in a 10-6 vote, but then decided to continue the debate in a special meeting later tonight after the regular meeting ended, after staff raised concerns about timelines. The city’s prioritized list of projects must be submitted to the province by Sept. 30.

[SteelTown]

In camera session starts at 10:30.