Development of Heritage Neighborhoods (Granville, Yaletown, Chinatown, etc.)

[jollyburger]

In an email Thursday, Holborn chief operating officer Yi-khy Saw said: “We have taken council’s comments to heart and the entire team is committed to learning from this experience and doing better. We will continue to work with the city to achieve a plan that reflects the needs and aspirations of the neighbourhood and broader community. We want to contribute positively to the city where we live.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vancouver-hundreds-vacant-buildings-problems

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It think it should be obvious that I support the developer having the right to demolish this building and I'm not going to condemn them for exploiting loopholes to do what I believe has to be done. Holburn certainly isn't my favourite developer in the world for various other reasons, but I'm not going to support punishing them for this.

Sometimes the rule breakers and benders are the dark knights we need. I applaud the immigrant homeowners of the 70s that exploited building code loopholes to build the Vancouver Specials with twice the FSR normally legally allowed and build illegal basement suites. I tentatively applaud the Shaughnessy homeowners that burn down their multi=million dollar heritage designation mansions though I wish it could be done in a safer way. I applaud MST Developments using anti-colonialism rhetoric to sidestep the heritage designation of 4949 Heather Street to redevelop it. I applaud the immigrant homeowners that build 8000sqft "SFHs" in the suburbs and house multiple families in them like small apartment buildings.

We are in a housing crisis and it's a universal fact that when inelastic demand hits a market with the supply legally banned, the consumers don't just leave. They're forced to turn to grey and black market supply to meet demand.

The problem is that Holborn is likely to demolish and then rush to do…nothing. Their standard m.o. This is exactly why the dumb “community garden” dodge needs to go. If we’re in a housing crisis then the city aiding landbanking is foolish and contradictory.

As to the bold rule breaker Miaofei Pan and his incredible combusting Shaughnessy mansion I shouldn’t feel too bad for him, it was just one of several homes he owned. I do have a question for SSPers regarding him though. His profession is listed as developer, anyone here know what he’s actually developed?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The problem is that Holborn is likely to demolish and then rush to do…nothing. Their standard m.o. This is exactly why the dumb “community garden” dodge needs to go. If we’re in a housing crisis then the city aiding landbanking is foolish and contradictory.

As to the bold rule breaker Miaofei Pan and his incredible combusting Shaughnessy mansion I shouldn’t feel too bad for him, it was just one of several homes he owned. I do have a question for SSPers regarding him though. His profession is listed as developer, anyone here know what he’s actually developed?

As has been explained to you several times, the City of Vancouver has no control over a developer installing a temporary public park or garden. The BC Assessment Authority determines property classification, in the case of the few temporary parks from Class 6 (Business, other) to Class 8 (Recreation), which reduces the tax rate.

Quite a few vacant sites (Bonnis on Robson for example) haven't bothered to go the temporary park route. It would be more logical for Holborn to request the Dunsmuir site become an extension of the parking lot they own next door, although they might not bother; they've been paying tax on the empty hotel for 12 years - $87,000 in 2024.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As has been explained to you several times, the City of Vancouver has no control over a developer installing a temporary public park or garden. The BC Assessment Authority determines property classification, in the case of the few temporary parks from Class 6 (Business, other) to Class 8 (Recreation), which reduces the tax rate.

Quite a few vacant sites (Bonnis on Robson for example) haven't bothered to go the temporary park route. It would be more logical for Holborn to request the Dunsmuir site become an extension of the parking lot they own next door, although they might not bother; they've been paying tax on the empty hotel for 12 years - $87,000 in 2024.

As I'm sure many have tried to explain to you in the past, the city incentivizes developers turning empty lots into community gardens. Vancouver is who sets property tax rates. It's not even an open secret, it's as close to official policy as can be. I know you have this mentality that developers can and should only do things when dictated to them directly by the city, but developer behaviour is indeed influenced by tax policy and not all developers are going to do the same thing.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

As I'm sure many have tried to explain to you in the past, the city incentivizes developers turning empty lots into community gardens. Vancouver is who sets property tax rates. It's not even an open secret, it's as close to official policy as can be. I know you have this mentality that developers can and should only do things when dictated to them directly by the city, but developer behaviour is indeed influenced by tax policy and not all developers are going to do the same thing.

I'm not sure what that word salad means. BC Assessment determines the classification of land for taxation. The City sets the tax rate for each class. Class 8, Recreation, has a lower tax rate than other uses. If the City charged a higher tax rate for Class 8 land, then all the parks and open spaces would be taxed at a higher rate. That would have significant tax implications for the privately owned Class 8 sites.

The City has been trying to find a way to change land classification for years, so that they can encourage vacant sites to be developed, but none of the changes that would be required are within their jurisdiction. So far no provincial government has made any changes that would be necessary. Without something like a land classification of 'vacant site', that could then be taxed at a higher rate, there's nothing obvious that the City can do.

There's a federal initiative to consider taxing vacant land, but it's not likely to be considered before an election, and I have no idea whether a conservative government would introduce the necessary legislation. Developers are understandably opposed to the idea.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm not sure what that word salad means. BC Assessment determines the classification of land for taxation. The City sets the tax rate for each class. Class 8, Recreation, has a lower tax rate than other uses. If the City charged a higher tax rate for Class 8 land, then all the parks and open spaces would be taxed at a higher rate. That would have significant tax implications for the privately owned Class 8 sites.

The City has been trying to find a way to change land classification for years, so that they can encourage vacant sites to be developed, but none of the changes that would be required are within their jurisdiction. So far no provincial government has made any changes that would be necessary. Without something like a land classification of 'vacant site', that could then be taxed at a higher rate, there's nothing obvious that the City can do.

There's a federal initiative to consider taxing vacant land, but it's not likely to be considered before an election, and I have no idea whether a conservative government would introduce the necessary legislation. Developers are understandably opposed to the idea.

The surely the sainted Ravi Kahlon should be acting on this pronto?

[WarrenC12]

I'm surprised the BC government did not look into the temporary park issue with some of their recent housing legislation. I don't like it either, and the parks are the lamest of lame public spaces.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm surprised the BC government did not look into the temporary park issue with some of their recent housing legislation. I don't like it either, and the parks are the lamest of lame public spaces.

The federal government hinted at a vacant land tax for residential land.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm not sure what that word salad means. BC Assessment determines the classification of land for taxation. The City sets the tax rate for each class. Class 8, Recreation, has a lower tax rate than other uses. If the City charged a higher tax rate for Class 8 land, then all the parks and open spaces would be taxed at a higher rate. That would have significant tax implications for the privately owned Class 8 sites.

The City has been trying to find a way to change land classification for years, so that they can encourage vacant sites to be developed, but none of the changes that would be required are within their jurisdiction. So far no provincial government has made any changes that would be necessary. Without something like a land classification of 'vacant site', that could then be taxed at a higher rate, there's nothing obvious that the City can do.

There's a federal initiative to consider taxing vacant land, but it's not likely to be considered before an election, and I have no idea whether a conservative government would introduce the necessary legislation. Developers are understandably opposed to the idea.

I'll help you catch up.

The City of Vancouver charges less property tax for Class 8 land. Developers are thus given incentive to convert their land to class 8 land to pay less property tax. Rather than incentivizing developers to utilize the land, the City incentivizes developers to have less of a rush to develop land and in fact leave land vacant for years. We do not want this, though it is incentivized.

Unless you can give me a compelling argument for all the class 8 land that we need to protect with tax incentives, you're out of luck here kid. Where are all the class 8 sites we want to give tax breaks to? Don't tell me you think the parks board pays property tax to the city.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'll help you catch up.

The City of Vancouver charges less property tax for Class 8 land. Developers are thus given incentive to convert their land to class 8 land to pay less property tax. Rather than incentivizing developers to utilize the land, the City incentivizes developers to have less of a rush to develop land and in fact leave land vacant for years. We do not want this, though it is incentivized.

Unless you can give me a compelling argument for all the class 8 land that we need to protect with tax incentives, you're out of luck here kid. Where are all the class 8 sites we want to give tax breaks to? Don't tell me you think the parks board pays property tax to the city.

Class 8 doesn't just cover recreational property. It also includes land used by non-profit organizations. All places of worship, and meeting halls owned by fraternal organizations fall within Class 8, and pay taxes based on the Class 8 tax rate.

If there were two separate classes, it might allow the City to have a higher tax rate on the recreational properties, although I think there are also some privately owned recreational properties that pay taxes based on Class 8, and a higher tax rate would be an issue for those too.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Class 8 doesn't just cover recreational property. It also includes land used by non-profit organizations. All places of worship, and meeting halls owned by fraternal organizations fall within Class 8, and pay taxes based on the Class 8 tax rate.

If there were two separate classes, it might allow the City to have a higher tax rate on the recreational properties, although I think there are also some privately owned recreational properties that pay taxes based on Class 8, and a higher tax rate would be an issue for those too.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unless you can give me a compelling argument for all the class 8 land that we need to protect with tax incentives, you're out of luck here kid. Where are all the class 8 sites we want to give tax breaks to? Don't tell me you think the parks board pays property tax to the city.

I have to assume that your compelling argument is that you want to give tax breaks to churches and the freemasons. Great argument.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I have to assume that your compelling argument is that you want to give tax breaks to churches and the freemasons. Great argument.

It doesn't really matter what I want, but it's an explanation of why it's unlikely that you'll get what you want, without a change to the property tax classifications, which up to now hasn't been a priority for provincial governments.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It doesn't really matter what I want, but it's an explanation of why it's unlikely that you'll get what you want, without a change to the property tax classifications, which up to now hasn't been a priority for provincial governments.

There is no reason for class 8 properties in Vancouver to have lower property taxes. This is fully within the control of Vancouver, you realise this right?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

There is no reason for class 8 properties in Vancouver to have lower property taxes. This is fully within the control of Vancouver, you realise this right?

You seriously think Council would consider increasing taxes on all the non-profit properties in the city, including the churches, synagogues, and mosques, just because there are a few pieces of land that are temporarily turned into 'parks' to avoid property tax for a few years?

Good luck with that alternate reality. As this is a sidetrack from the thread topic, I'm done.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As has been explained to you several times, the City of Vancouver has no control over a developer installing a temporary public park or garden.

Consider this debunked. The city can change the tax policy, they just choose not to. I personally don't believe in tax breaks for religious buildings or vacant land, but I guess you value that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Consider this debunked. The city can change the tax policy, they just choose not to. I personally don't believe in tax breaks for religious buildings or vacant land, but I guess you value that.

If you read the thread, you won't find what I think about lower tax rates for non-profit and recreational buildings and sites. You'll just see an explanation of why I think City Council would be unlikely to change the lower tax rate without the province helping by changing the classifications.

[jollyburger]

Holborn:

The company added it commissioned its own structural report in mid-October, which concluded that while 500 Dunsmuir should not be occupied and removal considered, it was not a public safety hazard and did not need to be demolished right away.

and this:

“Dunsmuir House as an SRO, was replaced by Belkin House in 2004 by the previous owner, the Salvation Army. In 2021, the City of Vancouver [not Holborn] re-classified Dunsmuir House from Residential to Commercial,” Holborn said in an email.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10935012/dunsmuir-house-holborn-properties-demolition-debate/

[Migrant_Coconut]

Attaboy Holborn, just keep on digging...

[jollyburger]

Not sure where the 2021 reference is from but this is from 2002. Maybe something came out in 2021 during the whole COV empty houses tax on Dunsmuir House court action by Holborn.

Mr. MacGregor sought clarification regarding the existing Dunsmuir House site. Major Mollard advised the property has been sold. The Development Planner explained the existing Dunsmuir House site could be developed for residential or office uses. Another SNRF could also be considered under the zoning. Mr. Hein noted the current Dunsmuir House facility is not recognized as a SNRF since it has existed since before the SNRF designation was defined by the City. The current permit is for residential hotel. Mr. Scobie suggested that if the existing SNRF use is not discontinued for 90 days (or up to 180 days on successful appeal to the Board of Variance) it could continue indefinitely. However, further clarification with the Law Department is required to determine whether it is a legal non-conforming use, noting that any non-conforming status may relate only to the existing use (now defined as SNRF) or to the approved residential hotel use.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/development-permit-board-sept-30-02.pdf

As well, the suit argues, the city’s current zoning doesn’t allow residential use on that site any more so, when it is eventually redeveloped, that won’t be a permitted use.
Vancouver created an empty-homes tax in 2017 amid rising concerns about condos and houses that had been bought by foreign investors being left empty. The goal was to motivate owners to rent them out or sell them to people who would live in them. It ended up catching both foreign and Canadian owners of vacation, second-home and investment properties.

Holborn has gone through two appeals with the city, arguing that “the property was not zoned for, and therefore incapable of, occupancy for residential purposes.”
But it has been rejected both times. The vacancy-tax review panel at the city dismissed a request for review this February.

The city has not yet filed a response and city officials would not comment on an unresolved legal case, but the Dunsmuir Property lawsuit says that the city argued, in debating the case, that “the existing zoning does not restrict the occupancy of the existing building on the property.” As well, a review officer stated that the building could still be used for residential occupancy under the bylaw that allows single-room hotel-type rooms to continue on a site even after the zoning has changed until a new development or rezoning has been approved by the city.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...-against-vancouver-over-empty-homes-tax/

[chowhou]

If I was Holburn, I'd be gearing up to find a willing buyer for this property. Play good cop-bad cop. Holburn comes in, takes all the public backlash for doing all the unpopular parts of development, then sells a clean slate to another developer who can develop their own vision on an empty lot.