Regina | Capital Pointe | 29F | 11F | 91M | ?M | Cancelled

[jigglysquishy]

Then Capital Point can just apply again.

City would be legally obligated to issue the permit

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

That was kind of my point: people keep saying the City has no optiona (the LP headline essentially says it), but I've seen more than one statement asserting that the City can declare the permit expired if there isn't "meaningful progress on construction" by March 15th (see today's article).

Now, this could be poor reporting, but if it is, someone needs to clarify.

If it isn't, then the City has an option - without need for new/revised provincial legislation.

an expired permit still does not force the owner to do anything.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Stormer

an expired permit still does not force the owner to do anything.

I'm not sure of the legality, but the city could theoretically force them to fill the hole for safety's sake, and add the cost to their taxes? And when the company can no longer pay the taxes, the city can take the land?

[PhotoJim]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Then Capital Point can just apply again.

City would be legally obligated to issue the permit

The city could just increase the fees for permit renewals in the absence of significant construction progress, and raise taxes on properties that have had expired building permits. That would open up the options without inhibiting reasonable development. There are all sorts of ways that I surmise would work.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by PhotoJim

The city could just increase the fees for permit renewals in the absence of significant construction progress, and raise taxes on properties that have had expired building permits. That would open up the options without inhibiting reasonable development. There are all sorts of ways that I surmise would work.

Prohibited under provincial law

[HomeInMyShoes]

Welcome to having a hole Regina. Time to write your MP instead of your councilor on the issue.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Welcome to having a hole Regina. Time to write your MP instead of your councilor on the issue.

[I believe you mean MLA (provincial), not MP (federal)]

If nothing else, Fortress is helping the City make its case for expanded powers. Most cases (e.g. strip mall delayed; house construction stalled; etc) I get the Province essentially saying "meh - you kids work that out"

A generational hole in the middle of a city? Someone needs the ability to do something about that. I'm not debating the laws/bylaws in place at the moment, just noting that allowing a hole to sit untouched for a decade, two decades, half a century, fundamentally doesn't pass the common-sense test.

There comes a time when either more aggressive action is needed.
When that time is? Not sure (a decade seems too long, at a gut level).
What the action is? Also not sure (throwing our hands up & accepting that we're powerless doesn't seem reasonable)

[HomeInMyShoes]

Yes MLA. Some days I wish there were one less level of governments floating around.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Festivus

I'm not sure of the legality, but the city could theoretically force them to fill the hole for safety's sake, and add the cost to their taxes? And when the company can no longer pay the taxes, the city can take the land?

The City expressly said they could do this but they said there is no safety issue at this time.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I'm sure we could maybe find a fender-bender around Albert/Victoria that may have been partially caused by the lane closure and buses needing to merge into traffic during heavy traffic periods. It's a heavily travelled corridor and there are six bus routes that use the stops at CUC and the next block.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Stormer

The City expressly said they could do this but they said there is no safety issue at this time.

I suspect with some dedicated attention, they'd be able to spot a safety issue or two in fairly short order

I recall a 20' section of the fence along Vic either fell into the pit, or was removed/replaced with a series of 42" jersey barriers. Doubt that met requirements. Took about 4-5days to get a proper fence back up.

I think they just need to focus on safety & they'll quickly find issues.

[blacktrojan3921]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Prohibited under provincial law

Let me guess; this law was passed in the last decade or so?

[Pi3141592654]

https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...672327543.html

Reminds consumers about the risks of syndicated mortgage investments
TORONTO, Feb. 2, 2018 /CNW/ - The Superintendent of Financial Services has issued orders (linked below) following a complex and detailed investigation by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). The orders were issued, pursuant to a settlement, against eight parties that were involved with syndicated mortgage investments for real estate development projects in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada for which Fortress Real Developments Inc. was a developer or development consultant. (Fortress Real Developments Inc. is not a mortgage brokerage or administrator and is not a party to the settlement or the subject of any of the orders.)

The orders provide that the following four brokerages will pay a combined total of $1.1 million in administrative monetary penalties on consent:
Building Development and Mortgages Canada Inc., formerly known by the name Centro Mortgage Inc.
FFM Capital Inc.
FMP Mortgage Investments Inc.
FDS Broker Services Inc.
The orders also provide that the mortgage brokerage or broker licences of the following, as applicable, are revoked on consent, requiring them to stop all mortgage brokering business immediately:
Building Development and Mortgages Canada Inc.
Vince Petrozza
Rosalia Spadafora
Michael Daramola
Glenn May-Anderson
Ildina Galati-Ferrante, Principal Broker of Building Development and Mortgages Canada Inc. (BDMC), has surrendered her broker licence, requiring her to cease all mortgage brokering activities.
In addition, the mortgage administrator for these syndicated mortgage investments, BDMC, has voluntarily agreed that its mortgage administration functions for existing syndicated mortgage investments in real estate development projects for which Fortress Real Development Inc. is a developer or development consultant will be managed by a new arms-length administrator, FAAN Mortgage Administrators Inc., which will conduct business in BDMC's name. The new administrator will be in contact with all syndicated mortgage lenders/investors in the coming weeks.
FSCO is committed to protecting consumers in the sectors it regulates, including mortgage brokering. FSCO considers syndicated mortgages investments to be high risk, and notes they may not be suitable for the average lender or investor. Potential lenders or investors, including consumers and retail investors, are strongly encouraged to seek independent financial and legal advice before lending money through, or investing in, a syndicated mortgage. FSCO does not have the authority to offer restitution for any financial losses related to investments or its enforcement actions.
Additional Resources
Read FSCO's helpful tips for consumers on syndicated mortgage investments.
File a complaint about a mortgage broker, agent, brokerage or administrator
See all Enforcement Actions FSCO has taken in the mortgage brokering sector and other regulated sectors
Check FSCO's website for up-to-date information about the licence status of your mortgage broker or agent.
SOURCE Financial Services Commission of Ontario

For further information: For media enquiries only, please contact: Malon Edwards, Financial Services Commission of Ontario, Telephone: 416-590-7536, Toll free: 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7795, Email: malon.edwards@fsco.gov.on.ca
Related Links
www.fsco.gov.on.ca

[StealthGirl]

CBC posted an article about this fine as well that I found a little easier read.

Ontario securities watchdog orders$1.1M in fines to brokers involved in financing Fortress projects

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Prohibited under provincial law

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but reading the Cities Act and Regulations, I think the City has plenty of room to design system of fees that increases with each renewal/extension.

Section 8(4)(a) and (b) of the Cities Act provide a lot of room for the City to establish & set fees.

The fact the fees need to be cost-recovery may give the impression that the City doesn't have the ability to scale-up fees for multiple renewals/ extensions. I don't buy this.

I have no doubt that a strong & reasonable argument could be made that the cost to administer, regulate, and enforce payment increases the longer a project takes to complete... so too should the permit cost-recovery fees. More renewals = higher permit cost. Why? The City should be devoting more time & attention to projects that are wildly off-schedule (multiple extensions, no progress, safety considerations/inspections increase the longer a project sits dormant), than projects that are on-schedule and routinely satisfy inspections.

This is risk-based compliance monitoring 101 - keep an eye on all projects, but keep a closer eye on projects with multiple risk-factors, including instances of non-compliance.

The Act also includes the authority to design a system of fines for non-compliance with Bylaws... the City's lawyers just need to craft some Bylaws to address situations like Capital Pointe. The Act allows for fines of up to $25,000 (for a corporation) for non-compliance, and then daily fines that aren't constrained by the $25k limit for ongoing non-compliance (so, these fines could scale-up exponentially). Over & above the fines, there's an ability to impose penalties.

I believe the Cities Act provides the City with plenty of options - but they would involve crafting new Bylaws; designing a system of fees; a risk-based inspection & regulation framework; and a system of fines and penalties. More importantly, it would take willpower on the City's part to enforce these.

This all goes back to my previous comment -

There comes a time when either more aggressive action is needed.
When that time is? Not sure (a decade seems too long, at a gut level).
What the action is? Also not sure (throwing our hands up & accepting that we're powerless doesn't seem reasonable)

[HomeInMyShoes]

Just the facts.

Capital Pointe completion date pushed back another year

Originally Posted by theArticle

Spokesperson says there's been a number of "excusable" delays for project

[ceedub1170]

SWEET! I can't wait to see it in 2020! :-)

[James Gablan]

I don't understand why the city can't force them to clear the side walks and street space.

Would not threatening to take back the public space force them into either building the building or filling in the hole?

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by James Gablan

I don't understand why the city can't force them to clear the side walks and street space.

Presumably the site permit for Capital Pit allows them to block the sidewalks and street space.

"The developer has until March 2018 to achieve "meaningful construction" on the site, before its latest foundation and site permit expires."

[StealthGirl]

Originally Posted by ceedub1170

SWEET! I can't wait to see it in 2020! :-)

Have a look now. This is the 2020 look.