The Breithaupt Block Phase III | 11 fl | U/C

[tomh009]

The "land banking" she identifies certainly is a growing issue in the neighbourhood- the letter-writer identifies 18 Guelph Street, which is zoned R6, so could accommodate a four- or six-plex within existing zoning, but has been boarded up and left to deteriorate. That has had accompanying issues- squatters, and attention from the police- and I think she's right when she assumes that the owner of the property is speculating on an eventual variance being approved for more density.

I would argue (albeit without any evidence) that most of the "land banking" is simply waiting for someone to want to buy the land for enough money, and that most of those properties are not owned by people/companies who actually plan to develop them.

Here is a random sampling of long-term vacant properties from downtown; most of them are not lacking in terms of zoning:

• King & Cameron (now Drewlo): deteriorating for decades
  
• King & Madison: empty for decades
  
• Charles across from Kent (former Canadian Tire): empty for decades
  
• Charles at Borden: deteriorating for decades
  
• Weber & Scott: empty, empty, empty
  
• Duke & Young (now City Centre): empty for decades
  
• King & Breithaupt (now Google): deteriorating for decades
  

None of these were vibrant buildings that were allowed to run down. They were either empty in the first place, or they had run-down industrial buildings with no rental demand. Few landlord would want functional buildings to just rot while they wait for the values to improve, they would want to be collecting rent to at least cover costs, and hopefully even make a profit. (132 Queen S is a great example, the new owner renovated the existing building, even though the long-term plan is to tear it down and develop it.)

P.S. I have suggested before, and I will suggest it again: we should NOT be taxing vacant land at a lower rate than developed land. Lower tax rates just make it easier for the owners to sit on vacant land for the long term.