Atlantic Canadian Politics Thread

[Taeolas]

Sounds like the Province may leave it up to the cities to decide what qualifies as "Vacant Land", other than with a generous definition at the provincial level.

We'll see how this develops, but I'm tentatively seeing this as a good call to take care of those big blank spaces that we've long complained about.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

My concerns are related to two items...



It's vital that this is only applied to serviced land in primary development areas. This would be a blatant cash grab if applied to outlying areas unless cities are going to start extending water mains and power lines gratis.

The realtor's right about this part:


But his reasoning and complaint are way off. Sitting on undertaxed land while paying a Netflix subscription for property tax is not cool! The carrot should be double-tax elimination and no HST on owner-occupied residential new construction sales.

So paying Netflix subscription tax bills for hectares of oceanfront timberland is fine?


There’s some critically under assessed vacant land and timberland in NB that should be long addressed… not just serviced land in the middle of our biggest cities.

[Mud]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

So paying Netflix subscription tax bills for hectares of oceanfront timberland is fine?


There’s some critically under assessed vacant land and timberland in NB that should be long addressed… not just serviced land in the middle of our biggest cities.

Because keeping those as timberland is productive and does not harm the urban fabric of its surroundings. What exactly needs to be "addressed" with these unserviced woodlots?

[adamuptownsj]

Who knows what he means, but cities better not get the green light to inflict confiscatory taxes on unserviced remote land. This policy should require participating municipalities to define Primary Development Areas that adhere to provincial metrics to participate.

I also think the fee should automatically be waived/pro-rated once a building permit fee/deposit is paid.

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Agree 100%

The problem is really serviced land in the cores of the cities (especially the oceans of surface parking in downtown Moncton). This is wasted space pure and simple. These lots accumulate weeds and drug paraphernalia, but still generate revenue in terms of long term parking fees. Many land owners <cough>Heritage<cough> would rather sit on their accumulated holdings rather than plan for denser development. There should be a cost for this type of mindset.

Agree with removing double taxation.

Well said. The city is missing out on major tax revenues with these undeveloped seas of asphalt right in the downtown core. It'll be interesting to see how they proceed.

Hopefully the standalone levy would be enough to influence the land owners to do something. Otherwise it will be ineffective.

[darkharbour]

No city staff is dumb enough to try and apply a levy to vacant land outside of the primary development area of a city or existing serviced previously-developed/brownfield sites. For Saint John I could see it only applying to the South Central Peninsula and North End for now, as they focus on the parts of the city that have existing secondary plans and then rolling it out as other parts of the city go through the same process.

[paperplane]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

No city staff is dumb enough to try and apply a levy to vacant land outside of the primary development area of a city or existing serviced previously-developed/brownfield sites. For Saint John I could see it only applying to the South Central Peninsula and North End for now, as they focus on the parts of the city that have existing secondary plans and then rolling it out as other parts of the city go through the same process.

There are some exceptionally dumb City staff...

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

No city staff is dumb enough to try and apply a levy to vacant land outside of the primary development area of a city or existing serviced previously-developed/brownfield sites. For Saint John I could see it only applying to the South Central Peninsula and North End for now, as they focus on the parts of the city that have existing secondary plans and then rolling it out as other parts of the city go through the same process.

At least for Moncton, the most sensible solution would be to use the Central Business District boundary used for the financial incentive program for development. That would be in line with the goal of stimulating development of at least some of the prime downtown land that's sitting vacant.

[bingun]

I am happy for there to be plenty of carveouts for woodland, farmland, or land outside of the primary development area. I will argue for any measure to develop vacant lots in dense areas.

Saint John -

Corner of Charlotte and Princess, 175 Germain Street, freshly demolished corner of Sydney/King St N, Corner of Coburg and Union, soon to be vacant Golden Ball site, etc.

Just to post some more of what Tim Somerville said -

“Rewarding them is beneficial to everyone. Once these vacant properties are developed, they are definitely going to provide a higher tax to the municipalities, as well as the province, so instead of penalizing the owners, by telling them that if they don’t build on it soon, they’re going to be taxed more, reward them by saying, if you are to build, for every whatever, $25,000 or $50,000 of assessed value that’s increased with development, that we will reward you back with some type of incentive for building.”

Somerville said a grant or payback plan would help convince people to develop their vacant lots, especially if it had a deadline, such as taking advantage of the program within five years.

“It gives people a reason to build. And if they do build, the difference on the tax amount on a parcel of land and one residential home that gets built is substantial. Everyone would win.”

That's right, after you've sat on your prime real estate for a decade or two, paying pennies of property taxes, the government should pay you to develop it. Will someone please think of these mom-and-pop speculators!

Then there are people of modest means who might have bought a vacant lot, hoping to build their dream home one day once they have enough money.

“All they’re doing is penalizing somebody who invested some money in a parcel of land in which again, I don’t think anybody should have to force a consumer’s hand like that without at least providing them some type of advantage of doing so.”

Give me a break, this isn't aimed at someone buying a SFH lot to build a house.

[CharlotteCountyLogan]

Man Tim Somerville seems out of touch doesn't he? Must be something in the water out in the Kennebecasis valley