News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 7.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 7.6K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 2.6K     0 

Arlington Site | ?m | 33s | Kota Contracting | Der+Associates

The City required them to backfill, sod and secure the site... they began that process and then in classic style didn't complete things.

But no follow up, no bylaw visits, no nothing.
 
Absolutely. I've personally done it ~2109 times.

How it is permitted to be left like that astounds me. Weeds, dumping grounds, a pit, safety concerns, debris and litter...

Nobody cares or follows up.
 
Didama said:
You should really ask Kenney. They are the ones who scuttled the City Charters that would have actually allowed cities like Edmonton to do something meaningful about sites like this.
Click to expand...
sorry but no...

just like kenney is wrong in blaming everything that goes wrong in alberta on ottawa, edmonton has no excuse blaming everything that goes wrong in edmonton on kenney.

his disaster of a provincial government has only been with us for two years most of which has been under a pandemic. the arlington site as noted has been with us for 16 years now and many of the decisions that contributed to it were made long before then.

the city had options for decades before the last provincial election and still has most if not all of them (noting that some of the poor decisions made in decades past aren't currently being repeated, just not enough of them).
 
IanO said:
Absolutely. I've personally done it ~2109 times.

How it is permitted to be left like that astounds me. Weeds, dumping grounds, a pit, safety concerns, debris and litter...

Nobody cares or follows up.
Click to expand...
311 - now there's a strange beast...

my guess is that unless you're looking for transit information, you might as well not bother.
  • it's hours aren't much better than standard office hours (i.e. not after 11:00).
  • i think their mandate is end the call, not solve the problem.
  • i think they even change city permitting policy to minimize the complaints they get. outdoor concerts etc. used to get an events license but had to comply with the city's noise bylaw. now, they issue noise permits instead which exempt them from the bylaw.
  • some concerns are referred or transferred to the police non-emergency number whose menu in turn connects you back to 311 without ever reaching a live person.
perhaps others have had better experiences but i rarely call. the on-line app isn't much better either as it's not set up for too many things other than pot-holes and even then if it's something already reported they simply advise you of that and don't accept your complaint.

as i said, a strange beast... i'm tempted to say running amok but it's more like hiding amok.
 
JNO1 said:
I know very little about the Municipal Government Act, existing bylaws and the scuttled Charters, etc., but the powers that the CoE currently has over developers/properties like this are obviously next to nothing, and developers fully understand this. (or the CoE is doing nothing to exercise those powers). These "developers" are saving a ton of money on property taxes, insurance costs, building maintenance, security costs and utilities (cost of the commodities themselves (esp natural gas for heat) plus significant costs related to the fixed/delivery charges for power, gas and water) by sitting with an empty site rather than an empty building. I fear that we are going to be stuck with many of these derelict sites unless something significant changes in the near future (increase in CoE powers, significant upturn in the market, sale of property to a motived buyer).
Click to expand...
I posted the below research in another thread a little while back. I looked into this issue and of course the city has no jurisdiction to force developers to develop but they have every power to enforce the Community Standards Bylaw that the city has created to prevent these types of derelict sites...the city just doesnt enforce them...

"In the article, the City said it does not have the authority to compel an owner to develop their land, fair enough. BUT the article refers to the Community Standards Bylaw to set a minimum standards for nuisance on land like concerns like Regency's. I looked into this bylaw and it does lay out the following "...For the purpose of greater certainty a nuisance, in respect of land, means land, or any portion thereof, that shows signs of a serious disregard for general maintenance and upkeep, whether or not it is detrimental to the surrounding area some examples of which include...loose building or construction materials...unkempt grass or weeds higher than 10 centimetres...that obstructs any sidewalk adjacent to the land...any accessible excavation, ditch, drain or standing water that could pose a danger to the public...any construction project or activity not completed within five years of the date the building permit for the project or activity was issued by the City"

So it appears there are bylaws that are intended to protect the city and the community from exactly what Regency continues to do at multiple sites downtown. My questions are:1. are these bylaws strong enough (they appear to be?) or 2. is the city simply not enforcing any of those bylaws quoted above that Regency and/or others like the owner of the Arlington site continue to consciously ignore?

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/jasper-avenue-vacant-lot-recency-developments-1.5278155; https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/assets/Bylaws/C14600.pdf"
 
There was a Council directive for this site that continues to not be adhered to...
 
Singh owns the property and looks like he will leave the property like this for a long time. The city can't do anything about it.
 
I am not familiar with the Municipal Tax Code nor its guiding parameters, but it would sure be something if the City could charge punitive taxes on derelict properties (the "stick" part of a carrot and stick enticement) -- a good question in there somewhere for the mayoral candidates.
 
IanO said:
Big City Charters and/orMGA changes would be required.
Click to expand...
in some areas either of both of those might make some things easier but using that as an excuse to do nothing is a cop out.

the city is able to enact zoning and land use criteria without a big city charter or changes to the mga and they have the ability to enforce those criteria. they simply need to be prepared to grow up and act like the big city we are charter notwithstanding.

how about simply enacting a bylaw that says that "any undeveloped vacant lot facing a public roadway shall be graded such that no portion of the lot shall vary more than 18" above or below municipal grades at the property line and all sides of an undeveloped vacant lot facing a street or a lane shall have a minimum landscaped setback of 7.5 metres which shall include a minimum of one deciduous boulevard tree with a minimum caliper size of 15 cm every 7.5 metres..."

if the city can enforce grading and noxious weed bylaws etc. on more than 200,000 single family lots in edmonton, surely they could enforce something like this.

if they wanted to get really creative, the city could even insist that the boulevard trees and other landscaping elements be such that they would form the basis of an urban orchard using fruit trees and bushes and the plan would need to include raised gardening beds for vegetable and/or flower gardens.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top