HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Suburbs


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2023, 11:06 PM
Jay31 Jay31 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 68
As a recovering (just getting back at it post pandemic) frequent business traveller, I can understand the desire for a hotel at the airport that is directly connected to the terminal. This hotel would be a major step above the two existing ones - which are far enough from the airport that you'd need a shuttle or Uber/taxi to get to the terminal.

The fact that most routes out of Ottawa involve a connection at another airport means that 6am flights tend to be packed with people making such connections in YYZ/YUL/EWR/etc. Ottawa's airport serves a wide radius up the Ottawa Valley, south to Kingston and well into Quebec, and for people making an hour or more drive, it would make sense to overnight at such a hotel, and this one will be much more desirable.

Should tax payer money be used to subsidize it? You could reasonably argue that this would be a major upgrade for Ottawa's airport that may help encourage additional traffic and economic activity... particularly more US routes. I'm not sure how you'd quantify it though. I think this would be a better investment than the airport parkway updates which I don't understand (never encountered much traffic on that road).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2023, 11:21 PM
Williamoforange's Avatar
Williamoforange Williamoforange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay31 View Post
Should tax payer money be used to subsidize it? You could reasonably argue that this would be a major upgrade for Ottawa's airport that may help encourage additional traffic and economic activity... particularly more US routes. I'm not sure how you'd quantify it though. I think this would be a better investment than the airport parkway updates which I don't understand (never encountered much traffic on that road).
Should Ottawa Tax Payers subsidize it....well Ottawa council literally voted to do just that when they created the YOW CIP program last July. (This isn't directed at you specifically Jay31, just happened to ask the question)

If the Dev meets the requirements of the program (Which I would guess it does) then yes it should receive the grant. If council doesn't like that then may I suggest they stop approving CIP programs without considering just exactly what they would fund. Its this whole CIP program argument all over again from the money the city gave to Collonade bridgeport to the new dealership.

In the end if it gets built the city has 4,359,228 in "new property tax revenue" over the 25-year period.(Actually just a larger base to spread property tax over).

https://obj.ca/colonnade-bridgeport-...bells-corners/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 3:29 AM
movebyleap movebyleap is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 288
When I travel, I always book an airport hotel right next to my terminal so that all I have to do is walk into the airport via an overpass and check in. It's incredibly practical especially for early morning flights. So I feel that such a hotel ought to be welcomed here. Nearly every other city has one!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 5:23 AM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamoforange View Post
Should Ottawa Tax Payers subsidize it....well Ottawa council literally voted to do just that when they created the YOW CIP program last July. (This isn't directed at you specifically Jay31, just happened to ask the question)

If the Dev meets the requirements of the program (Which I would guess it does) then yes it should receive the grant. If council doesn't like that then may I suggest they stop approving CIP programs without considering just exactly what they would fund. Its this whole CIP program argument all over again from the money the city gave to Collonade bridgeport to the new dealership.

In the end if it gets built the city has 4,359,228 in "new property tax revenue" over the 25-year period.(Actually just a larger base to spread property tax over).

https://obj.ca/colonnade-bridgeport-...bells-corners/
This is my view as well. The city put in place an economic development program for the airport, and if this project meets the criteria, it should get the grant. I don’t want the city refusing some projects just because they don’t like the type of business proposed for whatever reason.

If the program isn’t doing what it was intended to do, then cancel the program. Don’t pick and choose recipients based on politics or worse, the personal feelings of politicians. That is unfair and a recipe for a lawsuit. This city has seen enough litigation recently, and that is definitely a waste of taxpayer money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 2:34 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,044
Absolutely. If a CIP is in place, and an application satisfies the criteria, then the city is obligated to provide the money – regardless of whether it is what the city intended in the first place. If the offer is there, the city can not ‘cherry-pick’ which applications it approves.

My beef, I guess, is that these CIPs are so acceptant of any application, they are open to potential abuse. It would be better to not have CIPs. They have become subsidies for projects which likely would have gone ahead anyway. Like the ‘Charities Support’ the city could, instead, have a pool of tax deferrals that could be applied for and then each application could be evaluated as to whether the city felt that it provided a real, and tangible, benefit to the city, in an area where the city wanted to further development. There would be a component of the evaluation which determined whether there was a ‘need’ for the city to subsidize the project, or whether it was likely to go ahead without the grant.

The Ottawa airport should have a terminal-connected (even if the door is at the hotel end and the bridge is open at the parkade end) hotel. And one has been planned for several years. I would have preferred for the hotel to be on the other side of the parkade, with the LRT station between the hotel and the parkade. I think that the station’s visibility might further encourage those at the hotel to venture into town. (And, of course, if that LRT went seamlessly directly to the core; well, that would be even better.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 4:24 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
The time to debate these issues is when the policies and programs are being developed, not after staff and applicants have spent significant time and money preparing proposals and negotiating agreements to ensure all program requirements are met. The same applies to many planning applications. Don't pass policies and incentives saying you want a certain type of development and they turn down people investing in what you said you wanted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 8:08 PM
Stinky Stinky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
The time to debate these issues is when the policies and programs are being developed, not after staff and applicants have spent significant time and money preparing proposals and negotiating agreements to ensure all program requirements are met. The same applies to many planning applications. Don't pass policies and incentives saying you want a certain type of development and they turn down people investing in what you said you wanted.
That's the problem. The YOW CIP was poorly designed and thought out and should have never been approved by Council last July right from the start. Now the City has an application that meets the requirements of the CIP - it will be interesting to see how the debate unfolds. The City should have put a moratorium on all CIP applications until a thorough program review was completed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 8:22 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky View Post
That's the problem. The YOW CIP was poorly designed and thought out and should have never been approved by Council last July right from the start. Now the City has an application that meets the requirements of the CIP - it will be interesting to see how the debate unfolds. The City should have put a moratorium on all CIP applications until a thorough program review was completed.
I’m not sure that I understand why this application is bad or why we need to review a program that has been in place less than a year. It would pretty clearly be an economic driver, and it certainly sounds like an investment that was stalled without the grant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 10:30 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,122
I agree with many of you; if the CIP exists and the proposal qualifies, there's nothing to debate. I'd go as far as saying that if this is the case, it shouldn't even go to Council. In any case, this grant will certainly be easier to accept for many that the Porsche dealership on Montreal Road.

With that put of the way, should the CIP even exist? In this particular case, we're supporting an airport hotel that by extension reduces the number of people who might invest in the local economy, and will do little to grow the ridership of the airport O-Train spur. Maybe the CIP should only be for new destinations near Uplands Station to grow ridership beyond occasional events at the EY Centre, maybe it should be for projects that will grow the number of destinations at YOW.

The other question is, why did Sutcliffe and Council pause (or kill) many CIPs and brownfields grants, but not the airport CIP? Why is the airport more deserving?

At the end of the day, this is a good project. YOW will benefit form its first attached hotel project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 11:01 PM
Stinky Stinky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
I’m not sure that I understand why this application is bad or why we need to review a program that has been in place less than a year. It would pretty clearly be an economic driver, and it certainly sounds like an investment that was stalled without the grant.
I have written several blogs about why the CIP programs (not just YOW) at the City are bad but I won't bore you here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2023, 11:17 PM
originalmuffins originalmuffins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 876
I don't agree with Alt getting this grant, but those questioning why this hotel is planned as part of YOW+ is because there is zero hotels directly attached to the hotel through the terminal, so for those who can't leave the airport, there is no where to go. So it makes sense why this is planned, just ridiculous they're holding the project hostage unless they get municipal funding (they said they would put the project on hold indefinitely last year). Ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 2:52 AM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky View Post
I have written several blogs about why the CIP programs (not just YOW) at the City are bad but I won't bore you here.
Oh, so a broader objection to CIPs. I don’t really have an opinion more broadly, though I would see airports as being a bit unique as regional economic drivers. Also coming out of COViD it does seem to make sense to give the airport an assist.

I’m not sure of the parallels, but I do know that the City of Kitchener has done some excellent things with grants targeting downtown. They definitely spurred development that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 2:54 AM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by originalmuffins View Post
So it makes sense why this is planned, just ridiculous they're holding the project hostage unless they get municipal funding (they said they would put the project on hold indefinitely last year). Ridiculous.
.

Why would ALT be obliged to build a hotel at YOW? Seems to me that they are fully within their rights to decide not to proceed, particularly in the current environment.

Last edited by phil235; Mar 27, 2023 at 3:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 3:10 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 12,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky View Post
I have written several blogs about why the CIP programs (not just YOW) at the City are bad but I won't bore you here.
I'm sure that there would be some folks here who would enjoy reading them. Welcome to the forum!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 2:35 PM
originalmuffins originalmuffins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
.

Why would ALT be obliged to build a hotel at YOW? Seems to me that they are fully within their rights to decide not to proceed, particularly in the current environment.
They aren't obligated, but they entered into a deal with YOW to be the anchor hotel with direct connection to the terminal. If they don't want to do it, they don't need to sit there and claim they need the money to make the project go through (when they really don't). Cancel it fully, and let YOW find another partner instead of holding the development hostage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 2:56 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by originalmuffins View Post
They aren't obligated, but they entered into a deal with YOW to be the anchor hotel with direct connection to the terminal. If they don't want to do it, they don't need to sit there and claim they need the money to make the project go through (when they really don't). Cancel it fully, and let YOW find another partner instead of holding the development hostage.
Ah, I see your perspective. I guess it is a key spot, and maybe they are blocking another hotel chain from coming in and building, though that would depend on the terms of their contract with the Airport authority. I just kind of doubt that anyone is lining up to build right now, and if I'm wrong and they are, they probably will want the same grant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 3:40 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
Ah, I see your perspective. I guess it is a key spot, and maybe they are blocking another hotel chain from coming in and building, though that would depend on the terms of their contract with the Airport authority. I just kind of doubt that anyone is lining up to build right now, and if I'm wrong and they are, they probably will want the same grant.
In the entire history of the airport, Germain is the first hotel chain that wanted to establish a hotel adjacent to the terminal. To echo your post, I doubt any other hotel chain is lining up to get the spot, and if there is, they will want the grant to.

if the grant is available, a developer will want it. They will claim that the project is only possible with the grant, even if they don't need to say that because the grant exists and they qualify for it anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 5:17 PM
originalmuffins originalmuffins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 876
I see both of your points too, I mean if they are eligible and it's something available then it is what it is. Not much to really combat except stalling a project that helps the airport, which we all think is important.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2023, 11:27 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 12,894
'It's a dilemma': Council to consider $13M tax break for new hotel at Ottawa airport
"People just don't buy their city tax dollars being used to prop up certain corporate business interests."

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Published Mar 27, 2023 • Last updated 1 hour ago • 3 minute read


Voting doesn’t come until next week, but debate at city hall has already taken off, as council members contemplate a $13-million tax break for a sleek new airport hotel, enabled by a program set up in the dying days of the last council term.

“It’s a dilemma,” said River ward Coun. Riley Brockington, who reported that he’d already heard from 10 or so residents, all united in their opposition to the tax offset that city staff are recommending giving Germain Hotels.

The company is proposing to build a 180-room Alt Hotel connected to the airport, and Brockington is aware that the last council — he among them — laid out a welcome mat for airport-adjacent developments like this one to get municipal tax breaks.

At the same time, he said, “People just don’t buy their city tax dollars being used to prop up certain corporate business interests,” especially when “they don’t see immediate benefit in immediate communities.”

Last July, council voted to establish a “community improvement plan” for underused federal lands surrounding YOW. The pitch at the time was that the city could encourage economic development in the area, and potentially, bolster service at the national capital’s pandemic-battered airport, by offering tax relief for development on land leased from the airport authority. The 10-year plan was described as self-financing, as it’s a portion of the property tax increase resulting from the development that gets forgiven.

Council was assured at that time that it would be up to them to approve individual applications for tax relief. Now, that first ask is here — heading to finance and corporate services committee next week, and from there to council.

To Stittsville Coun. Glen Gower, this hotel fits squarely in the type of development contemplated when the CIP was approved.

“They’re going to be paying rent to the airport and the airport can use that money to enhance passenger services, to try to attract new flights, new routes and new services to Ottawa, which is all a benefit to our local economy.”

The hotel itself, with its planned restaurant and meeting rooms, would produce 50 full-time jobs when it opens, according to city staff.

Their report states that the total estimated increase to municipal property tax, generated from the development, would be $17.4 million over the 25-year life of the CIP grant. The city would keep some $4.4 million of that increase and forgive up to $13.1 million.

The airport-area CIP provides for a maximum grant to applicants of $25 million, unless the project hits 100 per cent of eligible costs at a lower total.

To Brockington, it could be worth getting more specific about the projects that qualify for tax relief through the CIP program. And certainly, if council rejects this one, he says that becomes a necessity.

Other councillors, including the airport area’s Coun. Jessica Bradley (Gloucester-Southgate), have shared objections to the proposed grant and the CIP program that’s enabled it, citing competing priorities such as affordable housing for the money available to the city.

Capital ward’s Shawn Menard was one of several who voted against establishing the airport CIP last summer, noting at that the time that nothing in the plan required YOW to prove that development wouldn’t have happened anyway in order for tenants to receive tax breaks.

“The city needs to stop spending resident funds in this way,” he wrote in a message to this newspaper Monday, pointing to another controversial CIP development in recent years: a new Porsche dealership on Vanier’s Montreal Road.

While Brockington said he’s heard resident skepticism about the necessity of the tax break for this hotel to get built, city staff suggest in their report that without it, the development wouldn’t be moving forward.

Contemplated pre-pandemic, staff write that the project was shelved after it got another second look in fall 2021, due to the pace of pandemic recovery and rising construction costs. It was the Ottawa airport that came to Germain Hotels after the CIP was passed by council, offering information about the program to “try and resuscitate” the project.

“A YOW CIP grant would represent a material change to the project’s financial forecast and feasibility and was a deciding factor, in addition to positive trends in the Ottawa visitor economy and air travel generally, to move the project forward,” staff write.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ottawa-airport
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2023, 1:01 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,122
What's the dilemma? They approved the CIP last summer. Was the community opposing the CIP proposal last year? You can't just start opposing it now. This is getting pretty common that people only start complaining when it starts to effect them. Few people complained about the new Civic Hospital site until 5 years later when the hospital submitted an application. No one complained about the Montreal Road CIP until a grant was requested for a Porsche dealership.

And having some clause that requests "proof" something wouldn't be built without it is non-sensicle. You can't prove that.

Either have CIPs, don't or make them ultra specific (residential only, x% affordable housing, must include grocery store).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Suburbs
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:44 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.