(05-17-2016, 10:03 AM)darts Wrote: The other side of it is it is their land, it doesn't seem right to force them to build something if they don't want to.

(05-17-2016, 10:22 AM)MidTowner Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 10:03 AM)darts Wrote: The other side of it is it is their land, it doesn't seem right to force them to build something if they don't want to.

I don’t find this too compelling because, in a lot of cases, vacant properties are owned on speculation. The owners are often hoping that activity on neighbouring properties, undertaken with other people’s (and the public’s) capital and other people’s risk, will increase the value of their own through no contribution of their own. It doesn’t seem like good policy to reward this with a lower tax rate, or to incentivize what we do not want (properties lying fallow) with the same.

(05-17-2016, 10:24 AM)zanate Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 10:22 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I don’t find this too compelling because, in a lot of cases, vacant properties are owned on speculation. The owners are often hoping that activity on neighbouring properties, undertaken with other people’s (and the public’s) capital and other people’s risk, will increase the value of their own through no contribution of their own. It doesn’t seem like good policy to reward this with a lower tax rate, or to incentivize what we do not want (properties lying fallow) with the same.

While I agree that you shouldn't have tax policies forcing someone to build something to make economic use of the land they own, at the same time I think it's more important that you don't provide a perverse incentive to a landowner to demolish what's there (a currently vacant building, perhaps) to put in place a land use with a lower tax burden. This is how some depressed downtown areas have gone from old reusable building stock to parking lots.

(05-17-2016, 10:56 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Are you referring to Len’s Mill Store when you say “After going up to the second floor I would question how safe that building really is”? I’m not sure that use can be described as “marginal,” by the way, it’s a successful retail business.

(05-17-2016, 11:19 AM)darts Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 10:56 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Are you referring to Len’s Mill Store when you say “After going up to the second floor I would question how safe that building really is”? I’m not sure that use can be described as “marginal,” by the way, it’s a successful retail business.

Sorry no the place where adventure rooms is located, I wandered around a little it was odd. If you look down the stairs you could see that they aren't straight.

I'm not sure how successful Len's is, it has existed all this time but it doesn't seem to have the best inventory turnover. Not sure what their targets are, it takes 4 turnovers in a year for a retail business to be able to self finance their inventory.

Sorry got a little off topic.

Would it help if the vacant lots were more green? I am sick of seeing the amount of concrete downtown.

(05-17-2016, 11:24 AM)panamaniac Wrote: One of the City councillors apparently suggested that the site be considered for a "pubic art space" that could be done at less expense than the temporary landscaping and fixtures. No detail, of course, just the suggestion because it could be cheaper. If it comes to that, I'd say just put hoardings around the site and commission a local school to design an paint a mural on it.

(05-17-2016, 11:30 AM)MidTowner Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 11:24 AM)panamaniac Wrote: One of the City councillors apparently suggested that the site be considered for a "pubic art space" that could be done at less expense than the temporary landscaping and fixtures.  No detail, of course, just the suggestion because it could be cheaper.  If it comes to that, I'd say just put hoardings around the site and commission a local school to design an paint a mural on it.

Well, a “public art space” is what’s been done in the lot across the street from City Hall, and to good effect in my mind. I find the paintings that have been hung there a lot more interesting than a view of a vacant lot.

But it’s not as good as a park, and “cost” is only one criteria. Council has now decided not to decide until at the earliest June 6. It’s a relatively small cost in the grand scheme of the city budget, and serves other initiatives that we are spending money on. Hopefully they don’t wait the whole summer to decide on whether the pop-up park should be installed.

(05-17-2016, 12:09 PM)MidTowner Wrote: “A place where the public could create/install art” sounds to me like the fence across the street where someone (anyone?) can hang something up, or maybe a blank wall to encourage graffiti? I have no idea who hung the pieces on the fence on King, but I’ve assumed it’s just some concerned citizen who wanted to liven up the space, and that it was no cost to the public.

If that’s the case, I’m grateful to that person. It’s something. There's no arguing with taste, and maybe no accounting for it, either. I was happy to see someone do something there. I would not be so pleased if our municipal staff took the time to plan a parkette with reusable features at a sensible cost, and our council instead opted to let people take it upon themselves to do something, and let's call it art.

(05-17-2016, 11:25 AM)panamaniac Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 11:19 AM)darts Wrote: Sorry no the place where adventure rooms is located, I wandered around a little it was odd. If you look down the stairs you could see that they aren't straight.

I'm not sure how successful Len's is, it has existed all this time but it doesn't seem to have the best inventory turnover. Not sure what their targets are, it takes 4 turnovers in a year for a retail business to be able to self finance their inventory.

Sorry got a little off topic.

Would it help if the vacant lots were more green? I am sick of seeing the amount of concrete downtown.

That needs a bit of elaboration, I think.  Downtown has all kinds of public space, including green spaces.  What "concrete" bothers you?  You mean surface parking lots?

(05-17-2016, 06:11 PM)darts Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 11:25 AM)panamaniac Wrote: That needs a bit of elaboration, I think.  Downtown has all kinds of public space, including green spaces.  What "concrete" bothers you?  You mean surface parking lots?

I meant there is always talk of adding more public space, but it usually looks like speakers corner or city hall plaza, where it is just concrete and it doesn't get used that much since there aren't that many events that will use it vs just simple green space ie lawn and some benches, maybe a few flowers.

(05-17-2016, 09:20 AM)tomh009 Wrote: No.  The rates actual are different for vacant land, that is most certainly allowed, and different based on the zoning.  But the problem is that the rates are lower for vacant land, and on top of that the property value is lower without a building.  I would like to see a property tax rate of 2x or 3x normal for vacant land within the downtown core, which would discourage parking lots and abandoned land.

https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resources/2016-Final-Rates_web.pdf