Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Shannondale (née Electrohome, 152 Shanley St) | 8 fl | U/C
#46
If they can't sell it for $450k, they're going to have to sell it for $1
Reply


#47
(01-29-2019, 10:30 PM)Spokes Wrote: If they can't sell it for $450k, they're going to have to sell it for $1

Even that might be a tough sell.

1) Heritage value so it might be tough simply to get rid of it.
2) The type of business it was, there is going to be major contaminants in and around the factory. This would be millions to clean up and restore.

Not saying it can't be done. It's just not worth the headache for 99.9% of developers. That .1% of developers are MIA.
Reply
#48
Tax sale of contaminated Electrohome site in Kitchener gives property owner $800,000 tax break
Quote:Kitchener's effort to force a tax sale of a notorious contaminated site has led to the owner getting an $800,000 tax break.

In January, the city launched its second bid to force a tax sale of the former Electrohome site at 152 Shanley St., which has sat vacant in the middle of a residential neighbourhood for decades.

Property taxes owed on the site at Shanley and Duke streets have piled up, amounting to about $1.2 million by the time of the sale.

The owner, a numbered company, has failed to pay property taxes for years. As well, the city has taken over basic maintenance such as snow clearing and grass cutting, adding those costs to the mounting tax bill.

But the city is now writing off about $800,000 of that bill, accepting the owner's payment of just under $445,000, which was the city's minimum price.
...
That effectively means the owner retains his property, having paid about 36 cents on the dollar for property taxes owed.
...
"It's incredibly disappointing," said Coun. Sarah Marsh, who represents the neighbourhood.

The property owner's move appears to put the brakes on city efforts to kick-start a redevelopment of the site, as the site remains in the hands of the company that has failed to carry out even basic maintenance.

But Marsh said she remains optimistic that the property will be developed, now that the owner has had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The sale attracted "a lot of interest" from potential developers, "so at this point, I remain hopeful that this property will ultimately change hands and be cleaned up and developed in a responsible manner." She stressed that the city intended to ensure any proposed developments respect the vision for the site, hammered out with community input last April.

The vision calls for the development of the site with a residential building of up to six storeys, with street-level retail. Most residents who live closest to the site signed a petition against that plan, saying a six-storey building would be too big for the neighbourhood.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/919...tax-break/
Reply
#49
So now it just sits there longer?
Reply
#50
(03-01-2019, 09:18 AM)Spokes Wrote: So now it just sits there longer?

I think it's due for a new owner quickly.

The shady owner of the building sees some interest in the property and gains control for pennies on the dollar and can probably sell this land for more than his tiny tax buyout. He rids himself of a headache and comes out ahead financially.

I don't think he'd want to run up any more property tax bills.
Reply
#51
I get that the city is trying to remedy the cost they are caring on their books, however, it set a precedence moving forward. I would argue that I wont pay my property tax bill as a resident for a while, then I will negotiate a one time pay back of pennies on the dollar to the city and continue along like nothing happened. I think it is a slippery slope they went down.
Reply
#52
(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)Chris Wrote:
(03-01-2019, 09:18 AM)Spokes Wrote: So now it just sits there longer?

I think it's due for a new owner quickly.

The shady owner of the building sees some interest in the property and gains control for pennies on the dollar and can probably sell this land for more than his tiny tax buyout. He rids himself of a headache and comes out ahead financially.

I don't think he'd want to run up any more property tax bills.

What does the owner think they'll get though?  The city tried to sell it and no interest.  I guess any bit of financial gain is worthwhile.
Reply


#53
(03-01-2019, 11:04 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I get that the city is trying to remedy the cost they are caring on their books, however, it set a precedence moving forward.  I would argue that I wont pay my property tax bill as a resident for a while, then I will negotiate a one time pay back of pennies on the dollar to the city and continue along like nothing happened.  I think it is a slippery slope they went down.

Remember, they only took this step because of the failed tax sale. The vast majority of properties are worth more than their back taxes; this is a unique category.
Reply
#54
The City should have expropriated it. The failed tax sale would have set a ceiling on the price the owner could possibly have demanded.

I’m sure there is some BS rule forbidding my suggestion. But it truly is ridiculous that scofflaws can get away with brazen criminality like this.
Reply
#55
(03-01-2019, 12:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: The City should have expropriated it. The failed tax sale would have set a ceiling on the price the owner could possibly have demanded.

I’m sure there is some BS rule forbidding my suggestion. But it truly is ridiculous that scofflaws can get away with brazen criminality like this.

Technically not criminal. But, no, I don't like this at all, either.
Reply
#56
Is there legal action a municipality can take to get back taxes?
Reply
#57
(03-01-2019, 07:20 PM)Spokes Wrote: Is there legal action a municipality can take to get back taxes?

A tax sale ...
Reply
#58
(03-01-2019, 06:37 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(03-01-2019, 12:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: The City should have expropriated it. The failed tax sale would have set a ceiling on the price the owner could possibly have demanded.

I’m sure there is some BS rule forbidding my suggestion. But it truly is ridiculous that scofflaws can get away with brazen criminality like this.

Technically not criminal. But, no, I don't like this at all, either.

Legally, it is not criminal (otherwise somebody would likely be going to jail). But it’s much worse than if I were to find a way to steal $800 from the City. Specifically, it is approximately 1000 times worse. And I could go to jail for that. So morally and ethically I consider it criminal. It’s a good example of a corporate crime that is not properly handled by our legal system.
Reply


#59
(03-01-2019, 10:34 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(03-01-2019, 06:37 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Technically not criminal. But, no, I don't like this at all, either.

Legally, it is not criminal (otherwise somebody would likely be going to jail). But it’s much worse than if I were to find a way to steal $800 from the City. Specifically, it is approximately 1000 times worse. And I could go to jail for that. So morally and ethically I consider it criminal. It’s a good example of a corporate crime that is not properly handled by our legal system.

Since it was with the city's agreement, I think "criminal" doesn't really apply.

And I expect that the city agreed to this because it allowed them to recover at least some of the back taxes. Even if they had succeeded in selling the property, they would not have received much more, and there would have been a significant element of uncertainty.
Reply
#60
(03-01-2019, 11:09 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(03-01-2019, 10:34 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Legally, it is not criminal (otherwise somebody would likely be going to jail). But it’s much worse than if I were to find a way to steal $800 from the City. Specifically, it is approximately 1000 times worse. And I could go to jail for that. So morally and ethically I consider it criminal. It’s a good example of a corporate crime that is not properly handled by our legal system.

Since it was with the city's agreement, I think "criminal" doesn't really apply.

And I expect that the city agreed to this because it allowed them to recover at least some of the back taxes. Even if they had succeeded in selling the property, they would not have received much more, and there would have been a significant element of uncertainty.

I mean the overall behaviour — contaminating the ground, then failing to pay property taxes and perform basic required property maintenance (including sidewalk clearing) for many years. As I said, what should have happened is that the City should have been able to expropriate the property years ago, when the taxes might actually have been covered by the value of the property. Any value the owner now gets out of the property, up to the $800,000 the City wrote off, is stolen from the taxpayers of Kitchener.

And again, I don’t mean that it is legally criminal behaviour, but morally and ethically criminal.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links