Cannon and Ferguson, former Carter Chev Olds lot.

[Boost the Hammer]

Apparently, this large slice of land has been purchased by the City of Hamilton.

Can anyone dig up anything. Also hearing City may have purchased other properties nearby??

[craftbeerdad]

An educated guess on the 'what' would be for either affordable housing with the new health centre a block away or perhaps complimentary services being build out. This area has a lot of assisted services close by with Wesley and Good Shepherd.

[TheHonestMaple]

Really hoping the city sells the property cheap to a developer, like what other cities have done to encourage gentrification and further development.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Really hoping the city sells the property cheap to a developer, like what other cities have done to encourage gentrification and further development.

I've toyed around with a concept about this. City of Hamilton buys property for $500,000 for example sells to developer mortgaged over 30 years, no interest. This would make it cheap for a developer, or someone looking to invest to buy it. The additional property tax would take the place of interest, and would be far higher than interest would be. This would speed up investment and in the longer term would be a huge benefit.

Obviously this could be changed to different years (30, 25, or 20, or even 5 or 10). But I think this city needs to do a little more to incentivize development. They could add caveats to the purchase such as affordable housing units, affordable local commercial units, must be developed within a certain time span, et cetera. This would allow the city to dictate use and affordability with this gentrification as well which is a huge problem in the city, pushing long term residents out.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I've toyed around with a concept about this. City of Hamilton buys property for $500,000 for example sells to developer mortgaged over 30 years, no interest. This would make it cheap for a developer, or someone looking to invest to buy it. The additional property tax would take the place of interest, and would be far higher than interest would be. This would speed up investment and in the longer term would be a huge benefit.

You only need to look across the street to Stinson's knitting mills to see why this doesn't work. Nothing stops developers from accepting the City's cheap deal on land in low-demand neighbourhoods and then just sitting on them until they can flip it for a tidy profit. The City can't make anyone build anything.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I've toyed around with a concept about this. City of Hamilton buys property for $500,000 for example sells to developer mortgaged over 30 years, no interest. This would make it cheap for a developer, or someone looking to invest to buy it. The additional property tax would take the place of interest, and would be far higher than interest would be. This would speed up investment and in the longer term would be a huge benefit.

Obviously this could be changed to different years (30, 25, or 20, or even 5 or 10). But I think this city needs to do a little more to incentivize development. They could add caveats to the purchase such as affordable housing units, affordable local commercial units, must be developed within a certain time span, et cetera. This would allow the city to dictate use and affordability with this gentrification as well which is a huge problem in the city, pushing long term residents out.

Exactly! It's honestly a brilliant concept. The city does have the power to force the sale of land, they do it all the time for other uses. Imagine if they did it for every single lot in the downtown core and rezoned for medium rise condos and apartment buildings. It's a no brainer.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

You only need to look across the street to Stinson's knitting mills to see why this doesn't work. Nothing stops developers from accepting the City's cheap deal on land in low-demand neighbourhoods and then just sitting on them until they can flip it for a tidy profit. The City can't make anyone build anything.

I mean this would be easiliy solved by simply only selling it to them with a guarantee that something is built by x years in the future. If not, they forfeit the land back to the city.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I mean this would be easiliy solved by simply only selling it to them with a guarantee that something is built by x years in the future. If not, they forfeit the land back to the city.

They did something like that with the parking lot east of Bay and King, owned by McMaster. McMaster agreed that they'll have something built I think by 2019, so I look forward to that.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I mean this would be easiliy solved by simply only selling it to them with a guarantee that something is built by x years in the future. If not, they forfeit the land back to the city.

Pardon the sarcasm, my point is partly that the City can't force profit-driven developers to develop undesirable land (or even desirable land in the cases of Stinson and Mac). Sure, the City could expropriate any lot near Centre Mall or at Upper Ottawa and Stonechurch, but if there isn't a critical mass of people willing to pay $1700 for a 1BR there, it doesn't matter if the City gives the land for free.

Land costs are important but are relatively quite minor compared to construction costs that are entirely outside City control.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

You only need to look across the street to Stinson's knitting mills to see why this doesn't work. Nothing stops developers from accepting the City's cheap deal on land in low-demand neighbourhoods and then just sitting on them until they can flip it for a tidy profit. The City can't make anyone build anything.

They can though. They already do this when offering demolition permits, they include fines for lack of construction within a certain period.