Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    53
kcantor said:
there’s a better solution, at least imho…

don’t allow owners to reduce their property tax obligations through demolition.

make it a condition of demolition that the owner agrees to pay the city the equivalent amount that property taxes would have been if demolition had not taken place.

this could be done contractually without having to amend the mga.

you might even want to include a nominal annual reduction for every year the site is maintained the way alldrit has been doing recently instead of the way this site has been.

if we had done that 50 years ago there wouldn’t be any vacant land in the warehouse district or the quarters or the north edge and we would probably have seen some really innovative building activation in those areas…
Click to expand...
Not that I disagree with the concept, but I don't imagine the courts would take kindly to the City contractually preventing a developer from demolishing a building that would otherwise be permitted under the applicable bylaw. Everyone has to follow development rules, including the city.
 
tkoe_ said:
Not that I disagree with the concept, but I don't imagine the courts would take kindly to the City contractually preventing a developer from demolishing a building that would otherwise be permitted under the applicable bylaw. Everyone has to follow development rules, including the city.
Click to expand...
If the development rules were followed, the bmo building would still sit on this site:

“Demolition is the complete removal of a structure from a site including removal of any foundations, footings, piles or slabs to a minimum 0.5m below grade. A Development Permit and a Building Permit are required to demolish a building.”

they are lots of legally available options under which what was proposed could be implemented and enforced even if they were development and/or building permit related. both of those are often conditioned and need to be in place prior to the city issuing a demolition permit if there is a concern that conditioning the demolition permit might be problematic.
 
kcantor said:
If the development rules were followed, the bmo building would still sit on this site:

“Demolition is the complete removal of a structure from a site including removal of any foundations, footings, piles or slabs to a minimum 0.5m below grade. A Development Permit and a Building Permit are required to demolish a building.”

they are lots of legally available options under which what was proposed could be implemented and enforced even if they were development and/or building permit related. both of those are often conditioned and need to be in place prior to the city issuing a demolition permit if there is a concern that conditioning the demolition permit might be problematic.
Click to expand...
If the city or a developer isn't following the law there is a process, but that isn't what you were proposing. You suggested that the city contractually bind developers to avoid having to deal with problems in the MGA. One would think encouraging the city to use its discretion whenever it wished to impose additional conditions on developments wouldn't be a terribly good idea for business certainty.

We all want DT to look good, but what we need is better rules and enforcement, not discretionary powers that are used because they're expedient in the moment.
 
tkoe_ said:
If the city or a developer isn't following the law there is a process, but that isn't what you were proposing. You suggested that the city contractually bind developers to avoid having to deal with problems in the MGA. One would think encouraging the city to use its discretion whenever it wished to impose additional conditions on developments wouldn't be a terribly good idea for business certainty.

We all want DT to look good, but what we need is better rules and enforcement, not discretionary powers that are used because they're expedient in the moment.
Click to expand...
maybe i wasn’t as clear as i should have been. as it stands, the mga sets out how property taxes are assessed. as such, if you demolish the structures on a lot the taxes revert to land only. my suggestion was that instead of changing that, make it a development permit condition that the owner pay an amount equivalent to that differential until such time as the proposed development is completed. it shouldn’t be arbitrary or discretionary, it should simply be in our zoning bylaws as a condition of the development permit under which the demolition permit is issued. it would be contractual in the same way all development permit conditions are contractual, not necessarily as a stand alone agreement although a supplemental agreement may facilitate the process in the same way we have supplemental servicing agreements etc. already.
 
Last edited:
I suppose the problem is that what seems simple from the outside is often much more complex. Issuing a development permit is an administrative decision, not contractual. If the city does not follow it's own bylaws in deciding where and when to issue permits, it can be appealed. This is a principle of the rule of law -- the city must follow its own development rules, just as residents must.

If the problem is that the current bylaws do not or cannot require property tax assessments that are not based on the current state of the property, the solution is to change the law (whether municipal or provincial), not to impose additional contractual requirements that are not required by the law.
 
you will get no disagreement from me when it comes to the city setting and following its own development rules, just as residents must.

its interesting however, that in this case the city specifically agreed - albeit at council and not administratively although i can't remember what administration's recommendation was - not to follow its own development rules. it approved the demolition of the bank of montreal building without a development permit or building permit being in place.

the only benefitting party from this whole fiasco - although it's far from the only time this type of fiasco has been visited upon the city - is the owner/developer who has seen his property tax payments reduced as a result of the demolition of an existing building with no plans in place to replace it. i'm not sure why you think it would be particularly problematic to eliminate that incentive.

you noted that "if the city does not follow its own bylaws in deciding where and when to issue permits, it can be appealed" but that right doesn't really exist in these circumstances does it? a development permit decision is usually only appealed by the owner/developer for being refused, not for being issued. i'm not sure why anyone would appeal something granted to them.

as far as i know, there is no right for anyone else to appeal a development permit or a demolition permit unless there are grounds to be made that relaxations were provided that shouldn't have been or if there were actual errors in process and even then, once the demolition is done there's not much recourse of substance available.

amending the mga to address this is not simple (and it's time-consuming) and wasn't my recommendation.

amending our bylaws and permit fees to accomplish the same thing should be pretty simple. if you demolish a building and as a result reduce the property taxes payable by $xxx.00 per year, there should be an annual fee payable to the city of $xxx.00 until such time as there as completed improvements on the site on which the city collects a minimum of $xxx.00 in property taxes. like a servicing agreement or a heritage designation or a deferred reserve caveat etc., the city should be able to ensure payment by registering that interest on title.
 
With respect, you seems to be confusing the desired result with the process to get there. I don't disagree that this site looks terrible and there should not be incentives for property owners to demolish buildings to reduce their tax burden. I also agree that the status quo isn't great. The solution, however, is not to make bylaw changes to allow the city to contractually require property owners to pay increased taxes until a build occurs. In fact, I suspect the MGA explicitly prohibits this since property taxes must be based on actual assessed value and, unless there is some special provisions for municipalities, I would be surprised if cities had the power to unilaterally override that and assess based on different criteria.

Designing generally applicable rules to resolve specific problems is not simple.
 
Perhaps in this case City Council should have just said no. If not, perhaps dates could have been set in an agreement for completion of demolition, clean up and beginning construction, with bonds or deposits required to be forfeited if that didn't happen.

However, I agree with the comment the current system gives a perverse incentive to tear down usable buildings and leave an ugly mess. If this was the first time in the history of Edmonton this ever happened, perhaps I could forgive the city for being shocked, surprised or unprepared. No specific problem is easy to fix, but that vague generality can become an excuse for inaction.

So, to use a saying here - either City Council got played here or perhaps the developer was at least smart enough to make political contributions to the right people.
 
This could have been a visually appealing garden or park next to the street level lrt. Other than Frank Oliver park, which is scheduled for removal, there will be no green spaces between Jasper Ave and 105 ave and 99 st and 105 st. That's a big gap for a major city. "Build another skyscraper to add vibrancy" they said.. how about considering adding some outdoor areas for the new downtown residents and visitors?
 
Not to nitpick:
Churchill Square​
Centennial Plaza (currently under renovations)​
ICE District Plaza​
TELUS Park​
Abbey Glen Park​
Michael Phair Park​
Beaver Hills Park​
Alex Decoteau Park​

That said, that's a commendable idea, @Mmira - something Regency must do if no tower is forthcoming.
 
I want a resurrected Tegler, it would add character to a somewhat nondescript area, but I doubt the current owner of the site is up to making anything of note on this site.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top