01-29-2019, 10:30 PM
If they can't sell it for $450k, they're going to have to sell it for $1
The Shannondale (née Electrohome, 152 Shanley St) | 8 fl | U/C
|
01-29-2019, 10:30 PM
If they can't sell it for $450k, they're going to have to sell it for $1
01-30-2019, 04:28 PM
(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.
03-01-2019, 09:18 AM
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.https://www.therecord.com/news-story/919...tax-break/
03-01-2019, 09:18 AM
So now it just sits there longer?
(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.
03-01-2019, 11:04 AM
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.
03-01-2019, 11:22 AM
(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)Chris Wrote:(03-01-2019, 09:18 AM)Spokes Wrote: So now it just sits there longer? 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.
03-01-2019, 12:09 PM
(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.
03-01-2019, 12:59 PM
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.
03-01-2019, 06:37 PM
(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. Technically not criminal. But, no, I don't like this at all, either.
03-01-2019, 07:20 PM
Is there legal action a municipality can take to get back taxes?
03-01-2019, 09:21 PM
03-01-2019, 10:34 PM
(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. 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.
03-01-2019, 11:09 PM
(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. 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.
03-02-2019, 08:37 AM
(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. 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. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|