City of Ottawa

[caveat.doctor]

Seems reasonable based on the results. Having to change one's licence, health cards, billing, subscriptions, etc. would be a real hassle - wouldn't be fair to impose it on residents without majority support. The Langevin Av name change had residents' support, for example. Could just retroactively attribute the name to some other Trump perhaps.

Good reason though to remove naming rights from developers and have a city list with pre-approved names that new streets have to use. They could even be in a priority order so that people who need to be honoured can get names up soonest, without having to go through name changes. So much simpler and proactive.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Seems reasonable based on the results. Having to change one's licence, health cards, billing, subscriptions, etc. would be a real hassle - wouldn't be fair to impose it on residents without majority support. The Langevin Av name change had residents' support, for example. Could just retroactively attribute the name to some other Trump perhaps.

Re-name it for his (semi-)woke sister, the judge!

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Seems reasonable based on the results. Having to change one's licence, health cards, billing, subscriptions, etc. would be a real hassle - wouldn't be fair to impose it on residents without majority support. The Langevin Av name change had residents' support, for example. Could just retroactively attribute the name to some other Trump perhaps.

Good reason though to remove naming rights from developers and have a city list with pre-approved names that new streets have to use. They could even be in a priority order so that people who need to be honoured can get names up soonest, without having to go through name changes. So much simpler and proactive.

I agree with that. In 2011, Rick Chiarelli wanted to rename Robertson for Lloyd Francis, a former Member of Parliament that had recently passed. That was somehow touted as the solution to the fact that a short part of the retail strip was named Richmond Road. There was no consultation with businesses or residents.

Though approved by Council, the name change never happened due to heavy opposition from businesses. I think they ultimately renamed part of Richmond to Robertson all the way to Baseline (a much more reasonable solution that effects very few people), and the Richmond Road to Richmond Village was renamed Old Richmond Road.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/bells-cor...ck,but%20the%20move%20proved%20unpopular.

I don't believe we should target 50%+1. It should be 50%+1 for those who voted. If you didn't vote, too bad. Just like general elections. In the Trump case, it was a tie, so the name change wouldn't have passed either way.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Seems reasonable based on the results. Having to change one's licence, health cards, billing, subscriptions, etc. would be a real hassle - wouldn't be fair to impose it on residents without majority support. The Langevin Av name change had residents' support, for example. Could just retroactively attribute the name to some other Trump perhaps.

Good reason though to remove naming rights from developers and have a city list with pre-approved names that new streets have to use. They could even be in a priority order so that people who need to be honoured can get names up soonest, without having to go through name changes. So much simpler and proactive.

I really question any attempt to rededicate a street after someone else of the same name. Any historical research will point it back to the original dedication as it should.

The recent attempts to rededicate the town of Russell (which also means, Russell Township and the united county of Prescott and Russell, and Russell Road) after another 'Russell' is a denial of history, warts and all.

We need to accept our history. It is a learning opportunity.

We also have to avoid reinterpreting history in a manner that is politically correct or based on specific agendas. History needs to be balanced. By all means, point out the failings of historic figures but we need to be careful that this does not lead to distortions of the facts.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

No, there requires no long, complicated conversation about John A. Macdonald.

Without a long and nuanced conversation, many people will not be convinced. Sure many people won't be convinced regardless, but there will be many more who will definitely not support a name change without having a conversation about it first.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree with that. In 2011, Rick Chiarelli wanted to rename Robertson for Lloyd Francis, a former Member of Parliament that had recently passed. That was somehow touted as the solution to the fact that a short part of the retail strip was named Richmond Road. There was no consultation with businesses or residents.

Good background, thanks!

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't believe we should target 50%+1. It should be 50%+1 for those who voted. If you didn't vote, too bad. Just like general elections. In the Trump case, it was a tie, so the name change wouldn't have passed either way.

I'd disagree, because imposing the name change is actually causing a harm/inconvenience to people who would then have to change their addresses on all their accounts, etc, without any actual benefit to them. Keeping the bar higher (50% +1 of actual residents) is a better threshold given that it comes with an imposed burden. But yes, no change either way here.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I really question any attempt to rededicate a street after someone else of the same name. Any historical research will point it back to the original dedication as it should.

We need to accept our history. It is a learning opportunity.

In the case of "Trump Av" it's not "our history". It was a developer's gimmick. Given the desire for some on the street to eliminate the current link to the namesake, and the desire of others to not, it makes sense to simply change the meaning of the name, which will satisfy both perspectives without harming anyone.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I really question any attempt to rededicate a street after someone else of the same name. Any historical research will point it back to the original dedication as it should.

The recent attempts to rededicate the town of Russell (which also means, Russell Township and the united county of Prescott and Russell, and Russell Road) after another 'Russell' is a denial of history, warts and all.

We need to accept our history. It is a learning opportunity.

We also have to avoid reinterpreting history in a manner that is politically correct or based on specific agendas. History needs to be balanced. By all means, point out the failings of historic figures but we need to be careful that this does not lead to distortions of the facts.

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

In the case of "Trump Av" it's not "our history". It was a developer's gimmick.

While we are at it, can we stop letting developers name streets, because they suck at it?

[silvergate]

I like to keep this quote in mind when considering past historical figures:

"It would've required a supernatural intervention for him to have your morality given his environment"

A lot of our historical figures probably don't deserve the honour we give them now, and definitely agree we should have stopped naming stuff after people like John A. years ago. Let's just keep in mind the difference in environment between then and now.

In terms of reconciliation, putting more money into housing and social services for first nations and Inuit living in Ottawa (especially those who don't have a home) is never a bad idea.

[Acajack]

In terms of making peace with controversial historical figures (including but also beyond renaming stuff that bears their names) I think that a broad debate would probably be more desirable than simply addressing things in a piecemeal way every time someone googles the name of a street or a building.

Alas, our times are not favourable to this type of rational assessment and debate.

I say this because there are innumerable skeletons in Canada's toponymic closet just waiting to come out.

I mean, the biggest city in New Brunswick is named for a dude that played a leading role in the attempted, semi-successful ethnic cleansing of the ethno-cultural group I am mostly descended from.

[waterloowarrior]

Just going to lock this thread for a bit while we sort out the posts...

[rocketphish]

I have deleted a bunch of provocative and\or offensive posts. Let's keep this conversation respectful of other forum members and their opinions.

Thread unlocked.

[rocketphish]

SURVEY:

In December 2020, City Council approved a motion which directed the City to study the power to impose an optional property tax on the assessment of vacant residential units and report back on the feasibility of such a tax. The survey is now available here:

https://engage.ottawa.ca/vut

[Richard Eade]

So, the City will get to decide if a property should be rented out or not? Wow. I believe that City Staff think way too highly of their ability – and their powers.

I understand that the City would like units to be available, but what makes them think that would-be landlords are deliberately holding back units? If the prices are ‘way up’ as staff claim, then why wouldn’t owners take advantage of that to make money? Could it be that there is some reason – beyond what City Staff can comprehend – that the unit is not on the market?

A few of cases:

1. My 80-year-old father-in-law is building an apartment in his basement. The plan is to build it now, while he can do most of the work. In the future, he plans to rent it out to a care-giver, so that he can stay in his home until death. It is the same plan that his mother followed (in BC) with great success. Does that mean that he MUST start renting the unit within 6 months of when the City deems it rentable?
2. A neighbour buys older units and spends his retirement time up-grading them to more luxurious units. Would the City consider the units rentable from ‘day-1’ since he buys units that are currently on the market and the changes he makes, in my opinion, are not substantial enough to make them uninhabitable during upgrading. Would taking 8 months to add crown molding and paint (remember, he does this work himself, on a few places at once) mean that he will be dinged for two months of VUT?
3. My mother died a while back, and it took me 16 months before the Royal Bank would stop questioning whether I was the true Executor. During that time, her house sat vacant, but well cared for. A friend’s mother died about the same time, and it took them 14 months before they could get clearance to sell her house. How will the City deal with legal delays that are blocking a unit from being available?
4. My brother-in-law rented a place on Champagne Street when he was going to Carleton. The place was very cheap because it was, slowly, being renovated. For example, there were no windows for two days in the winter because the landlord was replacing them. (And, no, the openings were not covered by the landlord, but my brother-in-law borrowed a stapler and hung some towels to slow the wind down.) This place should not have been rented in the condition it was in. Will more sub-par units be rented, to avoid the VUT?
5. You and your partner buy a very small, 1946 ‘Vet House’. It is fine for the two of you, but with the arrival of the third child, you really need to have more room – but in order to raze the house and build a larger, suitable dwelling on that property (you have come to really like the neighbourhood and will be building a home that ‘fits in’), you need to make it a multi-dwelling building. Fine, you decide, you’ll add a small ‘apartment’ at the back, which you will save for when your son moves back home after college. You have no interest in becoming a landlord, but in order to get the house you needed, you had to add an apartment. Will the City force you to have others living in ‘your house’ as tenants?

I’m sure that City Staff think that they are on to a great idea to increase the number of units available, and make extra money for the City, but this idea is a can of worms.

If their plan is to make it more expensive for owners to let their properties fall into disrepair over time (demolition-by-neglect cases) than it would cost to fix them and rent them, then Staff should come up with a policy to deal with that. This is not a good option for that.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So, the City will get to decide if a property should be rented out or not? Wow. I believe that City Staff think way too highly of their ability – and their powers.

I understand that the City would like units to be available, but what makes them think that would-be landlords are deliberately holding back units? If the prices are ‘way up’ as staff claim, then why wouldn’t owners take advantage of that to make money? Could it be that there is some reason – beyond what City Staff can comprehend – that the unit is not on the market?

A few of cases:

1. My 80-year-old father-in-law is building an apartment in his basement. The plan is to build it now, while he can do most of the work. In the future, he plans to rent it out to a care-giver, so that he can stay in his home until death. It is the same plan that his mother followed (in BC) with great success. Does that mean that he MUST start renting the unit within 6 months of when the City deems it rentable?
2. A neighbour buys older units and spends his retirement time up-grading them to more luxurious units. Would the City consider the units rentable from ‘day-1’ since he buys units that are currently on the market and the changes he makes, in my opinion, are not substantial enough to make them uninhabitable during upgrading. Would taking 8 months to add crown molding and paint (remember, he does this work himself, on a few places at once) mean that he will be dinged for two months of VUT?
3. My mother died a while back, and it took me 16 months before the Royal Bank would stop questioning whether I was the true Executor. During that time, her house sat vacant, but well cared for. A friend’s mother died about the same time, and it took them 14 months before they could get clearance to sell her house. How will the City deal with legal delays that are blocking a unit from being available?
4. My brother-in-law rented a place on Champagne Street when he was going to Carleton. The place was very cheap because it was, slowly, being renovated. For example, there were no windows for two days in the winter because the landlord was replacing them. (And, no, the openings were not covered by the landlord, but my brother-in-law borrowed a stapler and hung some towels to slow the wind down.) This place should not have been rented in the condition it was in. Will more sub-par units be rented, to avoid the VUT?
5. You and your partner buy a very small, 1946 ‘Vet House’. It is fine for the two of you, but with the arrival of the third child, you really need to have more room – but in order to raze the house and build a larger, suitable dwelling on that property (you have come to really like the neighbourhood and will be building a home that ‘fits in’), you need to make it a multi-dwelling building. Fine, you decide, you’ll add a small ‘apartment’ at the back, which you will save for when your son moves back home after college. You have no interest in becoming a landlord, but in order to get the house you needed, you had to add an apartment. Will the City force you to have others living in ‘your house’ as tenants?

I’m sure that City Staff think that they are on to a great idea to increase the number of units available, and make extra money for the City, but this idea is a can of worms.

If their plan is to make it more expensive for owners to let their properties fall into disrepair over time (demolition-by-neglect cases) than it would cost to fix them and rent them, then Staff should come up with a policy to deal with that. This is not a good option for that.

My experience is that the City have a very poor experience or knowledge of how businesses operate and their attempts at social engineering are not often welcomed with open arms by the housing industry/landlords..but the City think they know best.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So, the City will get to decide if a property should be rented out or not? Wow. I believe that City Staff think way too highly of their ability – and their powers.

I understand that the City would like units to be available, but what makes them think that would-be landlords are deliberately holding back units? If the prices are ‘way up’ as staff claim, then why wouldn’t owners take advantage of that to make money? Could it be that there is some reason – beyond what City Staff can comprehend – that the unit is not on the market?

A few of cases:

1. My 80-year-old father-in-law is building an apartment in his basement. The plan is to build it now, while he can do most of the work. In the future, he plans to rent it out to a care-giver, so that he can stay in his home until death. It is the same plan that his mother followed (in BC) with great success. Does that mean that he MUST start renting the unit within 6 months of when the City deems it rentable?
2. A neighbour buys older units and spends his retirement time up-grading them to more luxurious units. Would the City consider the units rentable from ‘day-1’ since he buys units that are currently on the market and the changes he makes, in my opinion, are not substantial enough to make them uninhabitable during upgrading. Would taking 8 months to add crown molding and paint (remember, he does this work himself, on a few places at once) mean that he will be dinged for two months of VUT?
3. My mother died a while back, and it took me 16 months before the Royal Bank would stop questioning whether I was the true Executor. During that time, her house sat vacant, but well cared for. A friend’s mother died about the same time, and it took them 14 months before they could get clearance to sell her house. How will the City deal with legal delays that are blocking a unit from being available?
4. My brother-in-law rented a place on Champagne Street when he was going to Carleton. The place was very cheap because it was, slowly, being renovated. For example, there were no windows for two days in the winter because the landlord was replacing them. (And, no, the openings were not covered by the landlord, but my brother-in-law borrowed a stapler and hung some towels to slow the wind down.) This place should not have been rented in the condition it was in. Will more sub-par units be rented, to avoid the VUT?
5. You and your partner buy a very small, 1946 ‘Vet House’. It is fine for the two of you, but with the arrival of the third child, you really need to have more room – but in order to raze the house and build a larger, suitable dwelling on that property (you have come to really like the neighbourhood and will be building a home that ‘fits in’), you need to make it a multi-dwelling building. Fine, you decide, you’ll add a small ‘apartment’ at the back, which you will save for when your son moves back home after college. You have no interest in becoming a landlord, but in order to get the house you needed, you had to add an apartment. Will the City force you to have others living in ‘your house’ as tenants?

I’m sure that City Staff think that they are on to a great idea to increase the number of units available, and make extra money for the City, but this idea is a can of worms.

If their plan is to make it more expensive for owners to let their properties fall into disrepair over time (demolition-by-neglect cases) than it would cost to fix them and rent them, then Staff should come up with a policy to deal with that. This is not a good option for that.

They covered exceptions in the survey - many of them sounded similar to what you describe. Vacant homes taxes are more geared towards stopping non-local buyers from parking money in real estate and then not using it.

I think the idea of asking residents is to ensure their decision making can be informed by the opinions of citizens. That said, the pseudo-free market here has demonstrably failed to provide housing that meets everybody's needs, so whether or not city staff know better, the system is already half-broken anyways.

[waterloowarrior]

I personally don't agree with this, as an unoccupied unit is already paying the full tax rate while not using most city servics. But if you look the Vancouver example, renovations, death of the owner, secondary units, are all exempt.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/will-your-home-be-taxed.aspx#pd__section46591

[TransitZilla]

Ottawa would not be the first city in Canada to implement such a tax.

I think the estimate of the number of vacant homes in Ottawa is about 20,000. That's significant when there is a shortage of rental housing. The tax seems to be working in Vancouver.

[J.OT13]

One exception should be if the owner lives in the building. Generally, that will mean that the property is well maintained.

But in the Market and Lowertown, there are rows and rows of early 20th Century townhouses that have been abandoned for years until they are finally demolished because they become safety hazards. Those should be the target.

Commercial properties (think Somerset House, McGee House, Our Lady School, or Charles Ogilvy and Caplan's at the time) should also be included. The City also needs to include a expropriation clause for heritage buildings that are abandoned, with restorations costs substracted from the value.

[Richard Eade]

If ‘Demolition by Neglect’ is what the City is trying to deal with, then they should be looking at that problem, specifically. There are property standards that can be strengthened and enforced. The use of a by-law that forces everyone to deal with their potential (according to the City) rental properties in a way that the City wants them to is a bad idea.

I expect that the City’s imagined, sorry, estimated, 20,000 units that are being kept out of the rental market is a small drop in the bucket, when it comes to the total number of units that are available or rented across the city. In general, people buy rental properties to rent them out, not to sit on them until they rot away. Those exceptional cases should be dealt with specifically.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa set to charge tax on vacant homes
Staff suggesting additional 1% on units left empty half the year

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Jun 01, 2021 3:34 PM ET | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

In a bid to keep properties from sitting empty when they could be housing people, the City of Ottawa is set to begin taxing vacant residential units next year.

City staff are still working out the details, but have suggested taxing vacant homes at an additional one per cent, or about $4,150 on a residential home assessed at $415,000, if they sit empty for a total of more than 184 days, or half the year.

"It's nice to be leading the pack on this issue in the province of Ontario," said Mayor Jim Watson, who chairs the city's finance and economic development committee, which tasked staff with coming up with the new tax.

Vancouver has a vacant homes tax, and Toronto and Mississauga are looking at the idea after Ontario gave its municipalities that power in 2017.

Ottawa plans to follow Vancouver's example and require all 307,000 homeowners to declare annually whether their property is occupied or vacant. Those who don't could face a fine and have their properties deemed vacant.

The new tax would apply to buildings with up to six units including condos, but not to units considered a primary residence, or to commercial, industrial or larger multi-unit buildings. There would be exemptions for occupants who die or are hospitalized, or if extensive renovations are taking place.

The first bills would go out in 2023 for buildings that were assessed as vacant in 2022.

The Hintonburg Community Association's Cheryl Parrott had urged councillors to consider such a tax during budget deliberations last November.

Parrott said her neighbourhood has seen evictions and houses boarded up for years while they await redevelopment.

"There has to be a better way, and we think this is the way," she told the Tuesday committee.

Another Hintonburg resident, Anne Hanna, said speculators and developers shouldn't be allowed to let buildings sit empty during a declared housing emergency, while neighbours have to cope with the mess and safety concerns surrounding vacant properties.

The Ottawa Small Landlord Association pointed out there are currently risks preventing some property owners from renting out their units.

Tony Miller said landlords have had more problems during the pandemic with tenants who refuse to pay rent or move out. He said it can take eight to 12 months to get a hearing before Ontario's landlord-tenant board, a trend that predates the pandemic.

He asked the city to exempt them from the tax until the tribunal's delays are fixed.

"The city must not penalize small landlords who are making the difficult decision to leave their units vacant," Miller said.

As of March, the city had received complaints about 206 vacant properties, but staff cited a five-year-old Statistics Canada report that placed the actual number as high as 22,000 units.

Staff estimate the new tax would generate between $5 million and $6 million from between 1,000 and 1,500 vacant properties, and would cost the city just over $1 million to administer.

The money generated would go toward creating affordable housing, the mayor said.

Full city council must endorse the idea at its meeting June 9.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/vacant-home-tax-ottawa-preliminary-1.6048483