Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual
I agree with your sentiment, but it seems to me expropriation is a pretty heavyhanded tool in the circumstances. I wouldn't want its use here to deter serious developers from re-developing heritage properties in other circumstances.
I think you need to use both a carrot and the stick.
The carrot -- how about city provides some subsidies for a transfer of a heritage property, where the sale has, as a term, some heritage preservation purpose as determined by council (staff report and Council vote).
The stick -- Why not just provide for inspection powers, with the City able to slap large fines on property owners for allowing heritage properties to decay?
For the latter, the city could threaten large fines, but indicate that it will "suspend" the fines or forebear on them, if the owner sells the property to a buyer, with a heritage preservation term/condition (the "carrot" subsidies also apply here).
|
Yeah, expropriation is a huge step.
I like the idea of inspection powers for the city, and very large fines for not performing sufficient preventive maintenance.
To encourage restoration/renovation, those fines could be refunded upon the commencement of a renovation project, in addition to any grants or tax breaks already granted.
Threaded Mode