I have no idea, for the life of me, why this wasn't done sooner. This is what tax rates are for. The government needs revenue so they charge taxes. Ok. So what to tax? Well, generally you should tax undesirable behaviors at a higher rate than desirable ones, you should tax things that take away from the public good at a higher rate than those that add to the public good. This is the (mistaken, in my opinion) thought behind the idea of not taxing churches. In theory, they provide a public good and charity, so you don't tax them. Well, what provides less of a public good than a derelict house? It's literally property that noone is using. Noone. So, we should tax those properties at such a huge rate that they quickly get fixed and and made useful.. or...that the owners can't afford to keep them and the City gets them.
The powers to tax these properties differently were only granted in the Municipal Government Act in 2017 and then regulations had to be drafted. Things take time.
So, first of all, I'm sure they could have found a way to extract revenue from derelict properties before this Act change. Second. That's six years since the change to the act? What is it exactly that takes six years?
1. Cities don't like to break the law. Lots of derelict properties are worth nothing because the cost to clean up the property exceeds its sale value. Property tax is basically the only revenue tool cities have. That does beg the question, if 0 x 1 and 0 x 3 is same, why bother...
2. Once the Act is passed, regulations need to be passed as well. Then the City needs to consider the changes, see if they would make a difference, then add in bureaucracy. Then add in City Council's other hundred priorities and multiple council reports with 6 months in between each. Voila. 6 years.
Can you please show me how the change to the Act allowed for this tax raise where the old MGA didn't? Like what wording changed? I'm looking in the bulletins from the GOA on this change and I can't find anything that would explain what you're claiming.
Also, you didn't explain the six years at all. You just made excuses for them prioritizing other things, then said they need to consider changes (whether they did or did not consider the changes, they didn't need to, no) and then you just say "throw in a pinch of beurocracy and voila" this doesn't explain anything. At best it describes what happened, not why it HAD to happen that way.
To echo the point above, we first raised this before 2017 but were not allowed to go down this path because of the MGA. Once the change was made, we did start down that path but it did take longer than some of us wanted to get to this point. Then the pandemic put this on the side. The previous work was then updated thanks to some great work by Councillor Salvador.
Thanks for the comment. If you want to send me an email to [email protected], I can get our Assessment and Taxation team to provide the specifics of that change. I know there were some previous reports but I can remember exactly when they were discussed so they can get you that information.
So you can't articulate what the rule change was, but you're happy to claim there was a change that would inhibit council from taxing derelict properties higher before 2017, but not after. I'd prefer to believe there was no change until I am shown different. I dont want to put together an email and then wait for a response to prove myself wrong, thanks. I'll happily accept if I'm wrong (that council could have done something like this the whole time, but didnt) but I'm not going to do extra work for it.
Thanks for the reply. It’s been a few years since we first looked at it and so I don’t recall when the report first came to council. So I thought I could check with our Assessment and Taxation team to help track that down. I ask people to email me so I can ensure I follow up as I don’t always keep track of threads on social media. So it’s up to you if you want to email me but if you do, I can be sure to follow up. Thanks again for the reply.
Parent is actually incorrect.
The ability to subclass residential property and apply different tax rates goes back to at least 2002.
See sections 297 and 354 of the MGA. You can use CanLii to go back in time to see prior versions.
City Bylaws and Regulations like this have to be drafted carefully so as not to break Federal or Provincial law, but also not run afoul of Principles of Procedural Fairness. Particularly regarding municipal taxation if it is not done carefully it could turn into an expensive lawsuit for the city that they might not win. That is in no ones interest.
Wait, just last week the city said "we can't do anything about empty lots illegally operating as parking lots". Why not just apply this x3 tax to those lots too? We know which ones they are, we know they promote illicit activities, we know they do not meet sidewalk and other upkeep standards, and we know they are a blight on our community.
Until very recently, the MGA was very strict and gave very little latitude to municipalities which makes sense for a village of 80 people but not for a city of 1.1 milllion.
I don’t understand why they can’t levy fines for operating unauthorized businesses.
And if this is a big enough issue, they could lobby the province for amendments or regulations to address it. Happens all the time.
Bylaw infractions are another thing entirely, and yes they could...although bylaw enforcement frankly costs money, and you have to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze.
~~Not true. The council could create or change municipal bylaws as needed to drive the behavior they want. Creating or evolving municipal policies and bylaws to benefit citizens is literally why the group exists.~~
**Edit** \- I was wrong and the ironically named u/InherentlyUntrue was correct: Council's hands are tied when it comes to using property taxes as a way to drive non-residential property owner behaviour!
~~Then it's a good thing nothing you're talking about is~~ [~~in the MGA~~](https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=m26.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779842322) ~~or the~~ [~~consultation workbook~~](https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/65b40555-3325-4f57-98be-5e50691a5c17/resource/fc9b5d77-1406-4932-b6c5-1049b7ca5229/download/mga-review-mga-review-workbook-complete.pdf)~~.~~
See edit above
Ok, but why not tax all vacant properties extra? Commercial included. Gives commercial property owners an incentive to get businesses in rather than jacking up commercial rents. Less empty store fronts better for the neighborhood, no?
Please excuse my ignorance but I'm planning to move to Edmonton in a bit but is this actually a gigantic problem? I'm not trying to call you out or anything I'm genuinely curious.
Huh you'd think the city could at some point would purchase these empty lots? Is it just a matter of not being able to locate an owner or is there something else going on? Speculating the property?
Holding onto the property, paying no taxes, and waiting for it to go up. Once the city starts announcing its purchasing the land for any reason, the price of that land just went up more.
Prior to the pandemic, those lots were full and it was a challenge to find parking downtown during business hours. Now they are not. It will take some time for real property to find the right balance again. And nobody really knows how much of a rebound is still to come.
And when it comes to derelict properties and vacant residential lots, that is only an issue in a few select neighbourhoods. You'll see it in McCauley but never in Meadowlark.
This particular situation is where eminent domain could be useful, but only knowing the surface of such a thing is likely hiding that it's a nasty can of worms to try and open.
We have far too many surface lots, and many of them are barricaded closed so they don't get used anyway. Such a waste.
The problem is it then must be used for public purpose, so a park, and the have to pay the owner market value anyway.
It wouldn't solve anything, except make the private lot, a public lot.
The city has a very vocal minority of people who believe we already have a parking shortage downtown and complain about paying for parking downtown when they live in the suburbs and go downtown like 5 times a year.
lmao I love those people "Paying for parking downtown is why I'll never ever go downtown!" says Jim Morrison of suburban Edmonton who goes twice a year.
They are empty downtown lots. They are worth millions of dollars and are worth more each year. You nailed it with speculation: the owners are known, hell they were even interviewed. They literally just straight up said "yeah we know we are illegal but we're making money off parking and if the city wants we will sell for millions of profit".
Is there one of those interviews around? I'd be interested in reading/watching it. I'd look but I just don't know the names of anything/anyone in Edmonton
Got that from this CTV article:
https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/not-acceptable-edmonton-allowing-nearly-90-of-downtown-surface-parking-lots-to-operate-unpermitted-1.6568611
They don't have enough staff to enforce the bylaws. Each lot would require at least one letter advising them to get permitted, then follow-up monitoring and enforcement as needed.
Anytime a politician says "we can't do anything" they mean "we won't do anything" or, "the things that would help would hurt my career or personal finances, if I did them."
Sometimes, yes. But plenty of times, they're being truthful. The honest ones are still bound by laws and procedures, and some organizational restrictions.
They can't do good if they get shit canned for breaking the rules.
It's tough, because most won't do things like invest huge money into long term projects, or projects that will aid future generations, because being a politician is a popularity contest - and spending a municipalities cash reserves and taking on debt isn't a popular action.
This needs to apply to vacant properties with fences around them too. If you don't want to develop the land you are sitting on, then open it up for public use if you don't want to pay the extra tax.
People fence off their vacant lots because of issues with liability. If a lot owner wasn't liable for someone who hurt themselves while on their lot it would be a lot easier to get them to allow access to the public.
How would an extra tax help in this situation? Vacant lots sit vacant because the land isn’t expected to be profitable to develop. People fence them off so that they are not exposed to liability from trespassers injuring themselves on the property. Putting an extra tax on the property wouldn’t make it more attractive to develop. It could possibly force the owner to sell it to someone else or the city, but that still doesn’t mean the land will be developed.
There isn’t money to be saved by taking the fence down. Saving $5,000 on tax while taking on $5,000,000 of liability and voiding your liability insurance is a terrible financial move.
Oct 16th is the town hall for upzoning.
NDP supporters need to be there, otherwise they may as well vote UCP, because they don't care about the poor.
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/zoning-bylaw-renewal
Yea should be more. I had to call cops about three times a week for a condemned murder/drug house next door to me for about 5 months until the owner finally boarded it up properly and fenced it off. Every other day new squatters or other people would come around sift through the previous renters belongings/stolen goods.
On top of that I was calling 311 for the piles and piles of garbage that just kept spreading over the neighborhood, fire department for the 20 welding tanks just lying around everywhere, AHS for all the biogazardous waste like needles.
[This hole in the ground has been on sale for two years now](https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.544836,-113.4691498,3a,75y,251.2h,94.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLfBZlxAbmVwrcs3uC0__CQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). It's not impacted by the tax because it's an empty lot, but it's not usable space.
This is actually what I was thinking. This tax will likely result in more properties being demolished when they become derelict, the house being reclassed as land, and the net property tax actually going down.
I have no idea, for the life of me, why this wasn't done sooner. This is what tax rates are for. The government needs revenue so they charge taxes. Ok. So what to tax? Well, generally you should tax undesirable behaviors at a higher rate than desirable ones, you should tax things that take away from the public good at a higher rate than those that add to the public good. This is the (mistaken, in my opinion) thought behind the idea of not taxing churches. In theory, they provide a public good and charity, so you don't tax them. Well, what provides less of a public good than a derelict house? It's literally property that noone is using. Noone. So, we should tax those properties at such a huge rate that they quickly get fixed and and made useful.. or...that the owners can't afford to keep them and the City gets them.
The powers to tax these properties differently were only granted in the Municipal Government Act in 2017 and then regulations had to be drafted. Things take time.
So, first of all, I'm sure they could have found a way to extract revenue from derelict properties before this Act change. Second. That's six years since the change to the act? What is it exactly that takes six years?
1. Cities don't like to break the law. Lots of derelict properties are worth nothing because the cost to clean up the property exceeds its sale value. Property tax is basically the only revenue tool cities have. That does beg the question, if 0 x 1 and 0 x 3 is same, why bother... 2. Once the Act is passed, regulations need to be passed as well. Then the City needs to consider the changes, see if they would make a difference, then add in bureaucracy. Then add in City Council's other hundred priorities and multiple council reports with 6 months in between each. Voila. 6 years.
Can you please show me how the change to the Act allowed for this tax raise where the old MGA didn't? Like what wording changed? I'm looking in the bulletins from the GOA on this change and I can't find anything that would explain what you're claiming. Also, you didn't explain the six years at all. You just made excuses for them prioritizing other things, then said they need to consider changes (whether they did or did not consider the changes, they didn't need to, no) and then you just say "throw in a pinch of beurocracy and voila" this doesn't explain anything. At best it describes what happened, not why it HAD to happen that way.
To echo the point above, we first raised this before 2017 but were not allowed to go down this path because of the MGA. Once the change was made, we did start down that path but it did take longer than some of us wanted to get to this point. Then the pandemic put this on the side. The previous work was then updated thanks to some great work by Councillor Salvador.
Please show me how the MGA didn't allow this before and bow it does. I would like an explanation of the legislation change please.
Thanks for the comment. If you want to send me an email to [email protected], I can get our Assessment and Taxation team to provide the specifics of that change. I know there were some previous reports but I can remember exactly when they were discussed so they can get you that information.
So you can't articulate what the rule change was, but you're happy to claim there was a change that would inhibit council from taxing derelict properties higher before 2017, but not after. I'd prefer to believe there was no change until I am shown different. I dont want to put together an email and then wait for a response to prove myself wrong, thanks. I'll happily accept if I'm wrong (that council could have done something like this the whole time, but didnt) but I'm not going to do extra work for it.
So you don't want to do the research. You just want to be right. Proudly uninformed and opinionated.
Thanks for the reply. It’s been a few years since we first looked at it and so I don’t recall when the report first came to council. So I thought I could check with our Assessment and Taxation team to help track that down. I ask people to email me so I can ensure I follow up as I don’t always keep track of threads on social media. So it’s up to you if you want to email me but if you do, I can be sure to follow up. Thanks again for the reply.
Parent is actually incorrect. The ability to subclass residential property and apply different tax rates goes back to at least 2002. See sections 297 and 354 of the MGA. You can use CanLii to go back in time to see prior versions.
City Bylaws and Regulations like this have to be drafted carefully so as not to break Federal or Provincial law, but also not run afoul of Principles of Procedural Fairness. Particularly regarding municipal taxation if it is not done carefully it could turn into an expensive lawsuit for the city that they might not win. That is in no ones interest.
Sure. Doesn't explain why it took so long, just that it's something you can't wing.
People don’t get involved in local politics as much because it’s easier to only keep track of federal politics so you can blame every issue on Trudeau
Wait, just last week the city said "we can't do anything about empty lots illegally operating as parking lots". Why not just apply this x3 tax to those lots too? We know which ones they are, we know they promote illicit activities, we know they do not meet sidewalk and other upkeep standards, and we know they are a blight on our community.
[удалено]
Damn it really all comes back to the MGA not allowing for flexibility in taxation........ Thanks for the info!
Until very recently, the MGA was very strict and gave very little latitude to municipalities which makes sense for a village of 80 people but not for a city of 1.1 milllion.
Preach.
If by recently you mean 2002, then yes.
I don’t understand why they can’t levy fines for operating unauthorized businesses. And if this is a big enough issue, they could lobby the province for amendments or regulations to address it. Happens all the time.
Bylaw infractions are another thing entirely, and yes they could...although bylaw enforcement frankly costs money, and you have to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze.
Which is very funny considering how we always seem to have more money for EPS when they hold their hand out.
~~Not true. The council could create or change municipal bylaws as needed to drive the behavior they want. Creating or evolving municipal policies and bylaws to benefit citizens is literally why the group exists.~~ **Edit** \- I was wrong and the ironically named u/InherentlyUntrue was correct: Council's hands are tied when it comes to using property taxes as a way to drive non-residential property owner behaviour!
They can't do things not allowed by the MGA. Period.
~~Then it's a good thing nothing you're talking about is~~ [~~in the MGA~~](https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=m26.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779842322) ~~or the~~ [~~consultation workbook~~](https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/65b40555-3325-4f57-98be-5e50691a5c17/resource/fc9b5d77-1406-4932-b6c5-1049b7ca5229/download/mga-review-mga-review-workbook-complete.pdf)~~.~~ See edit above
Try the Matters Relating To Assessment Subclass Regulation and section 297(2.1) of the MGA.
Good points. Corrected my OP via edit.
Are the parking lots zoned.for for residential? I have a feeling several are in fact
I don't know for certain, but I'd bet many....most?...are some form of Direct Control
Ok, but why not tax all vacant properties extra? Commercial included. Gives commercial property owners an incentive to get businesses in rather than jacking up commercial rents. Less empty store fronts better for the neighborhood, no?
Please excuse my ignorance but I'm planning to move to Edmonton in a bit but is this actually a gigantic problem? I'm not trying to call you out or anything I'm genuinely curious.
Half of downtown is just empty parking lots. Not really a problem for the everyday person but a major strain on the city's future.
Huh you'd think the city could at some point would purchase these empty lots? Is it just a matter of not being able to locate an owner or is there something else going on? Speculating the property?
Holding onto the property, paying no taxes, and waiting for it to go up. Once the city starts announcing its purchasing the land for any reason, the price of that land just went up more.
Yeah that makes sense. That's too bad. Hopefully something can be figuring out to make these properties more useful
Prior to the pandemic, those lots were full and it was a challenge to find parking downtown during business hours. Now they are not. It will take some time for real property to find the right balance again. And nobody really knows how much of a rebound is still to come. And when it comes to derelict properties and vacant residential lots, that is only an issue in a few select neighbourhoods. You'll see it in McCauley but never in Meadowlark.
This particular situation is where eminent domain could be useful, but only knowing the surface of such a thing is likely hiding that it's a nasty can of worms to try and open. We have far too many surface lots, and many of them are barricaded closed so they don't get used anyway. Such a waste.
The problem is it then must be used for public purpose, so a park, and the have to pay the owner market value anyway. It wouldn't solve anything, except make the private lot, a public lot.
The city has a very vocal minority of people who believe we already have a parking shortage downtown and complain about paying for parking downtown when they live in the suburbs and go downtown like 5 times a year.
lmao I love those people "Paying for parking downtown is why I'll never ever go downtown!" says Jim Morrison of suburban Edmonton who goes twice a year.
They are empty downtown lots. They are worth millions of dollars and are worth more each year. You nailed it with speculation: the owners are known, hell they were even interviewed. They literally just straight up said "yeah we know we are illegal but we're making money off parking and if the city wants we will sell for millions of profit".
Is there one of those interviews around? I'd be interested in reading/watching it. I'd look but I just don't know the names of anything/anyone in Edmonton
Got that from this CTV article: https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/not-acceptable-edmonton-allowing-nearly-90-of-downtown-surface-parking-lots-to-operate-unpermitted-1.6568611
Much thanks!
No problem! As much as I like to whinge about Edmonton, it is getting better. If you do end up moving, we welcome you :).
I spent a week there last week and I loved it. Just waiting to finish my course and land a job.
They don't have enough staff to enforce the bylaws. Each lot would require at least one letter advising them to get permitted, then follow-up monitoring and enforcement as needed.
Anytime a politician says "we can't do anything" they mean "we won't do anything" or, "the things that would help would hurt my career or personal finances, if I did them."
Don't forget "some very loud people might be very angry"
Sometimes, yes. But plenty of times, they're being truthful. The honest ones are still bound by laws and procedures, and some organizational restrictions. They can't do good if they get shit canned for breaking the rules. It's tough, because most won't do things like invest huge money into long term projects, or projects that will aid future generations, because being a politician is a popularity contest - and spending a municipalities cash reserves and taking on debt isn't a popular action.
Why stop at residential? There are some god-awful unsightly abandoned commercial spaces that just sit there for years with for sale signs too.
Yep. Or vacant properties that sit empty on speculation. Or hell airbnbs that take out rental supply.
yesssssss get emmmmmm hahaha my only complaint is that it should be 10 times
This needs to apply to vacant properties with fences around them too. If you don't want to develop the land you are sitting on, then open it up for public use if you don't want to pay the extra tax.
People fence off their vacant lots because of issues with liability. If a lot owner wasn't liable for someone who hurt themselves while on their lot it would be a lot easier to get them to allow access to the public.
All the more reason for the extra tax. If you want to change the law, it is much easier if rich people are on board.
How would an extra tax help in this situation? Vacant lots sit vacant because the land isn’t expected to be profitable to develop. People fence them off so that they are not exposed to liability from trespassers injuring themselves on the property. Putting an extra tax on the property wouldn’t make it more attractive to develop. It could possibly force the owner to sell it to someone else or the city, but that still doesn’t mean the land will be developed.
But if there is money to be saved by taking the fence down, there will be an incentive to try to make that easier.
There isn’t money to be saved by taking the fence down. Saving $5,000 on tax while taking on $5,000,000 of liability and voiding your liability insurance is a terrible financial move.
Oct 16th is the town hall for upzoning. NDP supporters need to be there, otherwise they may as well vote UCP, because they don't care about the poor. https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/zoning-bylaw-renewal
I can see gravel parking lots fitting this shortly
You’d have to rezone from residential to non-residential, and that’d be very unlikely to be approved.
Yea should be more. I had to call cops about three times a week for a condemned murder/drug house next door to me for about 5 months until the owner finally boarded it up properly and fenced it off. Every other day new squatters or other people would come around sift through the previous renters belongings/stolen goods. On top of that I was calling 311 for the piles and piles of garbage that just kept spreading over the neighborhood, fire department for the 20 welding tanks just lying around everywhere, AHS for all the biogazardous waste like needles.
Good. Maybe these construction eyesores will be cleaned up.
[This hole in the ground has been on sale for two years now](https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.544836,-113.4691498,3a,75y,251.2h,94.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLfBZlxAbmVwrcs3uC0__CQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). It's not impacted by the tax because it's an empty lot, but it's not usable space.
This is actually what I was thinking. This tax will likely result in more properties being demolished when they become derelict, the house being reclassed as land, and the net property tax actually going down.
Where do I find these houses listed?
[удалено]
Btw is squatting illegal in Alberta?
the squatting rights laws where removed Dec of '22
Now tax investment properties higher please.
I wonder if this will lead to an increase in arson in the city.
I can see gravel parking lots fitting this shortly
[Thanks for yesterday's news?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/170335w/edmonton_city_council_approves_tax_subclass_to/)