Quote:
Originally Posted by djh
Yeah, I've always wondered about the rationale for this. Is there a tax break for having the property empty pre-Development phase? Or perhaps the developer can claim no/lower taxes on the site, since it no longer can be used for business as it is technically "under development ".
It really does seem a shame, in these examples and many others, that perfectly healthy businesses have to be evicted and then their location sits empty for years. Wouldn't it be beneficial to offer month-to-month leases for the un-demo'd locations, at reduced rates for whosoever is willing to take those terms?
|
No - the only tax break potentially available would be if the developer provides some sort of public space - like the community gardens that are sometimes provided, or a temporary public park. Then the property tax associated with the use is lower. (In those cases, the City can't do anything about losing tax - the use as a park is outright within the zoning, and the Assessment Authority decides what class the use falls within).
The only slight adjustment here will be having no assessed value for the buildings - just for the land, but 807 Seymour is assessed at $28m, and the buildings would probably have been under $100K, so the developer's income from the leases of the demolished buildings would have been far greater than any tax owed on that part of the assessment. It looks like they thought the project would sell easily (as strata office) and they were wrong about that. If that's the case, their bad advice, or expectations, are costing them a fair bit in tax, with no income - $228,000 this year.
Prev
Linear Mode
