Downtown Update

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I looked through the change list. the changes the City recommended keeping are mostly minor housekeeping changes. All the substantial changes made by the MMAH are dropped.

1. No urban boundary expansion
2. 30 storey city-wide height limit, including equal to the height of the escarpment in the lower city (in many cases effectively lower than 30 storeys)
3. delete the 8-storey community nodes provision
4. delete language saying population targets are "minimums"
5. delete permissions to intensify along all transit corridors, whether designated growth corridor or not
6. re-institute requirement that all new major office buildings be located downtown
7. re-institute ability for the City to require a record of site condition even if provincial regulations otherwise don't require one
8. re-institute requirement for applications to be reviewed against community plans

I see a lot of problems with these policies and don't think a lot of them would have been approved unmodified by the MMAH under normal conditions, even under a Liberal Government - so it's quite shocking to see the Minister offering to approve them without change. my comments:

1. like it or not this is hyper political right now - having 0 urban boundary expansion is a mistake in my mind. I think a more appropriate medium between the 2,200 hectare expansion the MMAH imposed and the 0 expansion would likely be most appropriate, like City Staff originally recommended.

2. This is very silly. Council approved a 45-storey building above the escarpment height at literally the exact same meeting they voted to re-institute the 30-storey limit. Makes a big, fat 0 sense, especially in the context of no urban boundary expansion.

3. ehh, more mixed on this one. this lets Ancaster return to it's 3-storey height limit. I think this is a mistake as a whole, particularly in the eyes of no urban boundary expansion.

4. not the end of the world, but treating population targets as minimums is a good approach to trying to meet the housing construction goals the Province has set.

5. This is a mistake. We'll see townhouses and little to no intensification along many parts of BLAST corridors now as a result of this.

6. While well-intentioned, this policy will likely create issues attracting businesses to the city. L3Wescam just built a 300,000sf office building and engineering facility in Waterdown, moving from Burlington - this wouldn't have happened with this policy in place at the time. Wescam wouldn't have picked a downtown location, and likely would have stayed in Burlington instead. Not every major office tenant can operate out of a downtown context.

7. Again - well intentioned, but silly and unnecessary. The city is going to start requiring remediation of lands even without a change of land use (i.e. industrial redevelopment) through this, which is overkill and will kill investment in brownfield areas.

8. Community plans are largely extremely outdated and aren't policy and are generally unique to the City of Hamilton. In the context of the high levels of intensification needed to achieve no urban boundary expansion, they should not be used in development review. A mistake to re-institute them.

Thanks for the summary. Frankly, this is a nightmare update — all of the worst tendencies that we expect from the City have been allowed to go totally unchallenged by a government that is now scared of its own shadow after their own mistakes came back to bite them.

None of this, of course, will prevent certain folks from declaring “mission accomplished.” Sigh.

[bigguy1231]

I am sure the Land Tribunal or whatever they are called now will have something to say about the height restrictions and some of these other things. The city can pass whatever they want, but the province still has the ultimate say.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

We really need to follow the bread crumbs to see where this height restriction is really coming from - why does a city like Hamilton need a height restriction??? To not block the view of one of the world's largest lakes ? To not block the view of an escarpment that literally stretches hundreds of kilometers?? Or to not block some imaginary landmark heritage building in the center of our city ?? It's really laughable that the point of reference for a height restriction is an escarpment that has inconsistent variations of heights depending where you are

[Crapht]

I know the height limit is a much debated issue in this forum but am I wrong in believing it was to sustain views from the escarpment? Not of the escarpment? Idk. If you build 30 storey towers along Charlton you will be blocking everything. Id say anything north of Hunter is fine for increased height. The City Centre is prime for a 50 and 40 storey tower in my opinion. So tired of 30 storey towers just because.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by Crapht

I know the height limit is a much debated issue in this forum but am I wrong in believing it was to sustain views from the escarpment? Not of the escarpment? Idk. If you build 30 storey towers along Charlton you will be blocking everything. Id say anything north of Hunter is fine for increased height. The City Centre is prime for a 50 and 40 storey tower in my opinion. So tired of 30 storey towers just because.

I'd add that much of the interest in the height limit came from wealthy areas upon the escarpment. Considering these are predominantly west of James/Upper James, I don't see why the city hadn't/hasn't pushed back on how far across the lower city/downtown the limit actually ought to be. Saying everything east of James or John can be near-unlimited (not an uncommon designation for UGCs) can appease the loudest stakeholders without creating an artificial barrier to growth in the absolute core of the city.

And as for the rest of the changes, I mostly agree with @innsertnamehere. Somehow incentivizing employers to locate downtown is a good idea, the language merely ought to be changed to more permissive. I find it hard to believe the city wants to reject all of these changes made, considering that being a little ambitious would go a long ways.

[TheRitsman]

Looks like A New restaurant has leased 10 James St N, liquor licence application for "The Standard Restaurant Inc."

Also McMaster hospitality service opened a cafe in the David Braley building "Cafe on Bay".

[StEC]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Looks like A New restaurant has leased 10 James St N, liquor licence application for "The Standard Restaurant Inc."

Also McMaster hospitality service opened a cafe in the David Braley building "Cafe on Bay".

Always great to hear new restos/cafes are opening up in Hamilton but man is this ever one of the worst times to open given the current financial crisis and many restaurants all across this province closing or operating at a loss just hanging in there hoping things improve.

I wish them all the best of luck though!

[PaperSun]

Hamilton Council voted NO on the Vacant Unit Tax implementing bylaw.
For something so important for Ward 2 and 3 Kroetsch & Nann both absent. Although apparently Nann was in the Hospital with her mom but no excuse from Kroetsch, getting so sick of his bs.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by PaperSun

Hamilton Council voted NO on the Vacant Unit Tax implementing bylaw.
For something so important for Ward 2 and 3 Kroetsch & Nann both absent. Although apparently Nann was in the Hospital with her mom but no excuse from Kroetsch, getting so sick of his bs.

He made a really good point on Twitter regarding why this shouldn't have happened regardless. This item has already passed at council, and so council voting down it's implementation partway through the implementation in full tilt should not have happened or been expected.

Only Hamilton's council struggles with these types of issues where something with 5 successful votes can be killed at the last minute by a single no vote. LRT is another example of this, where every single vote is a nail biter that could kill all the work done so far.

This shouldn't happen, and I hope to see some future process changes as a result of this. Toronto has this happen almost never, to the point where when something is even successful in a proposal vote, the assumption is that it's happening without follow up because council won't kill something at 90% completion.

[Innsertnamehere]

I disagree with the vacant unit tax, but yes, switching now is odd. Shouldn't have happened.

[TheHonestMaple]

I also disagree with the vacant tax. It isn't the government's right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property. If I want to have a second condo in the city that I may only stay at a few weeks a year, then I should be able to do that. It's my money, and my right. Nrinder Nann should have no say in that whatsoever. Frankly, it's creepy authoritarianism that these progressives believe that is a good thing.

I'm happy it was voted down yesterday, and I hope this reopens a healthy debate on this subject.

[Innsertnamehere]

my opposition is more to do with how it's a "guilty until proven innocent" method of collecting it - it's not based on the principles of western democracy. Your unit is presumed vacant unless you provide evidence to the government that it's not - and that's not how it should be collected.

Honestly if it was to be constitutionally challenged I wouldn't be surprised if that method of collection would be shot down.

The tax as a whole is quite political and won't really achieve anything affordability wise. Toronto's vacant unit tax has done jack sh** to affordability there.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I also disagree with the vacant tax. It isn't the government's right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property. If I want to have a second condo in the city that I may only stay at a few weeks a year, then I should be able to do that. It's my money, and my right. Nrinder Nann should have no say in that whatsoever. Frankly, it's creepy authoritarianism that these progressives believe that is a good thing.

I'm happy it was voted down yesterday, and I hope this reopens a healthy debate on this subject.

You live in a society, which means you must participate in society. Your land is our land when it impacts the housing of people. Especially in a housing crisis.

Voting it down now is incredibly stupid, they are literally mid-implementation with mailers to be sent to register vacant units. I don't see how it's creepy or authoritarian.

No less creepy or authoritarian than property tax, income tax, or charging you for water or electricity. It's literally not your right, because it can be taken away, and the supreme Court hasn't shot down a vacant house tax. That's literally what rights are, laws that protect you enforced by the government. If a city can impose a vacant tax on your property it is literally not your right to have a vacant house without a tax.

It is absolutely your right to hold the unit vacant for a decade, but you'll have to pay a tax.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

my opposition is more to do with how it's a "guilty until proven innocent" method of collecting it - it's not based on the principles of western democracy. Your unit is presumed vacant unless you provide evidence to the government that it's not - and that's not how it should be collected.

Honestly if it was to be constitutionally challenged I wouldn't be surprised if that method of collection would be shot down.

The tax as a whole is quite political and won't really achieve anything affordability wise. Toronto's vacant unit tax has done jack sh** to affordability there.

I agree. It mostly just smells like political grandstanding.... "look, we're doing something about affordability, vote for us!"

It also leaves so many people behind. What if i'm working a job out of town where i'm only back in Hamilton for one weekend a month? Now I have to pay a tax for that? It isn't right. Is the property tax I already pay on the unit not enough?

There are other ways we can tackle affordability. Personally, i'm a fan of the free market. Reduce bureaucracy and cut down on the red tape, and developers will want to build. It's very interesting to me that the usual suspects voted down two massive condo projects in our downtown, that would house around 2000 people, why? What has that done for affordability?

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

my opposition is more to do with how it's a "guilty until proven innocent" method of collecting it - it's not based on the principles of western democracy. Your unit is presumed vacant unless you provide evidence to the government that it's not - and that's not how it should be collected.

Honestly if it was to be constitutionally challenged I wouldn't be surprised if that method of collection would be shot down.

The tax as a whole is quite political and won't really achieve anything affordability wise. Toronto's vacant unit tax has done jack sh** to affordability there.

I don't agree that it would be shot down. You have to register all kinds of things with the government, and many things are imposed if you do not act to have them not imposed. Furthermore, while I agree a VHT is unlikely to have a significant impact on housing prices, I still think it's generally good policy, and a minor part in a larger plethora of policy to affect housing prices. There are likely 100 policies needed to impact the housing crisis, and any one of them is likely to look inconsequential compared to the change needed.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I don't agree that it would be shot down. You have to register all kinds of things with the government, and many things are imposed if you do not act to have them not imposed. Furthermore, while I agree a VHT is unlikely to have a significant impact on housing prices, I still think it's generally good policy, and a minor part in a larger plethora of policy to affect housing prices. There are likely 100 policies needed to impact the housing crisis, and any one of them is likely to look inconsequential compared to the change needed.

This policy crosses a line in my opinion. The benefits seem almost non existent, and it tramples on your right to do whatever you wish with your own property. I'm so happy that the debate has been reopened with yesterday's vote.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

This policy crosses a line in my opinion. The benefits seem almost non existent, and it tramples on your right to do whatever you wish with your own property. I'm so happy that the debate has been reopened with yesterday's vote.

I disagree, you still have every right to do what you want with your property, no one is removing any rights. By your logic, every single tax is infringing on our rights which is a ridiculous take

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I don't agree that it would be shot down. You have to register all kinds of things with the government, and many things are imposed if you do not act to have them not imposed. Furthermore, while I agree a VHT is unlikely to have a significant impact on housing prices, I still think it's generally good policy, and a minor part in a larger plethora of policy to affect housing prices. There are likely 100 policies needed to impact the housing crisis, and any one of them is likely to look inconsequential compared to the change needed.

what other taxes apply in that manner? Income taxes need you to declare income or you don't pay any. Property taxes need you to own a unit or you don't pay property taxes.

There are lots of things that you have to pay taxes on if you own them.. but nothing as far as I know where the government assumes you need to pay it unless you prove otherwise.

It's not a massively consequential policy either way, but the way it's been implemented is silly and likely unconstitutional.

[drpgq]

I'm also against the vacant homes tax for a variety of reasons. I definitely lean on the side of people being able to do what they want with their property rather than anti-productive municipal micromanaging.

Hamilton also isn't Vancouver. From what I've seen the increase in housing values over the last 20 years has brought back a lot of derelict vacant properties.

Further the city has had plenty of opportunities to allow more housing to be built, but consistently asks for less units.

Finally and I think the most important aspect is the productivity aspect. What's the cost of everyone's time making these declarations? And more importantly, creating 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 bureaucratic jobs funded by these additional taxes. Bloating up the city with more and more of these types of jobs is just nonsensical to me

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by drpgq

I'm also against the vacant homes tax for a variety of reasons. I definitely lean on the side of people being able to do what they want with their property rather than anti-productive municipal micromanaging.

Hamilton also isn't Vancouver. From what I've seen the increase in housing values over the last 20 years has brought back a lot of derelict vacant properties.

Further the city has had plenty of opportunities to allow more housing to be built, but consistently asks for less units.

Finally and I think the most important aspect is the productivity aspect. What's the cost of everyone's time making these declarations? And more importantly, creating 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 bureaucratic jobs funded by these additional taxes. Bloating up the city with more and more of these types of jobs is just nonsensical to me

This 100%. Of course the proponents completely ignore all of these totally valid points. Kroetsch et al.