If Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison and Councillor Brian Thompson had their way, all owners of vacant commercial properties would be penalized if their property sits empty for an extended period of time.
The pair were not only suggesting that the existing 30 per cent property tax reduction for vacant commercial and industrial properties be repealed, but that the municipality lobby for the creation of a new tax category making owners of vacant properties pay a higher rate.
Currently, owners of commercial and/or industrial properties that are partially or entirely vacant are eligible for a 30 per cent tax rebate if their property has been vacant for more than 90 consecutive days. The space must be rentable and cannot be used for storage. The property owners must apply for the rebate on an annual basis and it does not apply to vacant lands or seasonal businesses.
Aitchison, speaking at the June 28 council meeting, said the issue had been discussed at a District committee and said provincial legislation has forced municipalities to provide the tax break. “Who knows why,” said the Mayor, adding that discussions will continue at the District level. “If we want to create a new tax class in Huntsville, the District will have to approve it,” he said, and told Thompson: “We’re actually taking that issue up because I suggested what you suggested, that there should be penalty, and so we’re working on that now.”
Thompson agreed. “Especially, Your Worship, when we see buildings that have been vacant for 15, 20 years and we know there’s a need for rental space downtown but there seems to be no big desire for the owner of that building to get it rented for whatever reason, unless maybe it’s a tax write-off,” said Thompson.
I’d love to be able to say ‘Yeah, okay, you’re going to leave that building vacant for a year; then you’re going to pay 30 per cent more rather than 30 per cent less.Huntsville Councillor Brian Thompson
Those discussions were prompted by a letter signed by the board of the Downtown BIA, expressing concern with the number of commercial vacancies in the downtown.
“We did an inventory of our downtown space and discovered we have a 25 per cent vacancy rate. To say the least this number was a shocking statistic to our Board of Directors,” states the letter, which goes on to list five properties that have been vacant for more than five years in the downtown. They are: 6 Main Street East (former Canton restaurant); the Empire lot, which it states used to house 10 retail stores; 19 Main Street East (former grocery store); 17 Main Street East; and 15 Main Street East (the old CFBK location).
The letter goes on to say that the relocation of The Beer Store has also had a negative impact on the “general traffic” of the downtown. “Certainly, this Council is aware of the undesirable result of having empty buildings in Brendale square and the meagre appearance of the parking lot in that area, and the negative consequences it has on our downtown as such a close neighbour.”
The BIA board has several recommendations it would like council to consider such as the elimination of the 30 per cent property tax reduction granted to property owners of vacant buildings, stricter enforcement of property standards, a review of the Community Improvement Plan and how it is applied to the downtown, and the BIA’s ability to become a voice on the Town’s Economic Development Committee.
Aitchison opened up the issue for discussion. “My thought process was that it’s probably time for us to get some community engagement in this topic and engage the BIA and come up with a plan of attack for revitalizing our downtown. It’s been a few years since we’ve done stuff and it’s starting to show its age.”
Councillor Nancy Alcock said she agrees with looking at the existing Community Improvement Plan for the downtown and see what success stories have come about as a result of having the plan in place. “I know that Gravenhurst and Bracebridge both have a downtown improvement plan and they were both going on as to how it’s been really successful. So, I actually would like to know how successful ours has been downtown, so a review of that would be terrific,” said Alcock. She said expanding the plan to the Brendale area “would make a whole lot of sense.” She also reminded councillors that a group of university students would be embarking on a visioning project for the Brendale area in the fall. “So somehow that should be tied into whatever we’re doing, but I do think it’s a good idea to start this discussion for sure.”
Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano said she was unsure how effective the existing Community Improvement Plan has been in the downtown, although she noted such plans have been effective in the past. “I really like the BIA’s recommendation that we get a little stronger on our property standards enforcement, especially if our property standards [bylaw] allows us to be stricter,” she said, referring to the possibility as a “short-term win.”
Aitchison suggested that a working group, which would include the BIA, be organized to look at the whole downtown revitalization issue along with the possibility of providing financial incentives attached to an updated and expanded Community Improvement Plan.
The issue is expected to make its way to the Town’s General Committee in July for further discussion.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
I agree that there may be some rationale for eliminating the 30% tax rebate; although it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, after evaluating several criteria. Any tax penalty beyond that flies in the face of our free enterprise system. What next? Will vacant recreational land have its tax rate doubled? Will vacant shoreline have its tax rate tripled?
Property owners have the right to wait for a reasonable profit upon sale: government has no right to interfere.
I agree with Brian Tapley re creating a better image, “keeping up appearances” . The way it looks and remains so does nothing to the reputation and image of the owner. Keep your house or houses in order! Start the 151st year with a new resolution!
Be careful. Sometimes the end result is not what you might expect.
Trying to socially engineer business location by tax rate could get messy and complex pretty quickly.
One would think that a property owner who’s property is vacant would be working hard to rectify this. Sure they are getting a 30% tax break but they are getting a zero revenue and still have ongoing maintenance and utility bills and things like insurance costs.
Perhaps, as I think Karen Terziano suggested, better enforcement of property standards and maybe even higher standards might help.
For example the exterior of unused buildings could arguably be kept in much better shape, evict the pigeons and paint the place, put Tom Thompson murals in the windows…. you get the idea.
Maybe they could take down the beer store sign instead of just throwing some paint at it in an effort to make it unreadable?
Require the potholes be kept filled and all the lights working normally and maybe even a bi-weekly cleaning inside. Things like this will make the place look better even if it is empty and that might be the main benefit anyway.
We caused this issue by installing large box type stores around the outskirts of town. They would never come into town anyway as they want their vast free parking areas and they are too big to fit into the empty spaces downtown. The town was warned that this would happen, they said no it would not, but it has happened so now we need a solution all right but I’m not sure adding tax to the equation will help.
Possibly some form of short term (year or two) tenant subsidies might help drive business into some of these old buildings.
A final solution might also be what I call the Detroit solution and that is to tear down these old buildings and consolidate the land and start fresh with a modern, efficient building better suited to it’s retail or small manufacturing use. This might start a new 50 year cycle and be best for all in the long run.
These are just thoughts for discussion. I’m sure there are some great minds in the town that can come up with even better ideas.
Dale, I so agree with you. When I had a shop on Main Street the landlord kept putting my rent up so high I had to move. Some of them just let their buildings go and are collecting on nothing. We don’t have to go to Niagara on the Lake to see a beautiful Main Street. Just look at what Bracebridge has done and they do have big box stores. Visitors like wandering the town. Shopping big box, they can do at home. We have fantastic tenants who care, now let’s get the slumlords to clean up their spot, or sell. Tax break, just the people who need it. (not)
Absolutely, dump the 30% tax reduction at the minimum. If the district wants to impose further charges we should support that idea. Either rent it, sell it or tear vacant buildings down for additional parking.
The fact is that by order of resolution, town council facilitated both the relocation of key anchor tenants from its downtown core and the development of big box stores elsewhere, thereby orchestrating urban sprawl and the current “25% vacancy rate” downtown that they are currently attempting to scapegoat existing property owners for. All the while they were expressly forewarned of the resulting consequences.
Blaming and penalizing property owners for council’s stupid decisions makes absolutely zero sense and does nothing to help either the owners nor the Town, who’s interests in re-letting the vacancies are mutually aligned.
Brian Thompson obviously has his head in the sand if he thinks that “there’s a need for rental space downtown” when vacancy sits at 25%. Trying to rationalize the vacancies as advantageous to property owners because they can utilize this as a “tax write off” is equally as ridiculous, unless you are a Columbian drug cartel laundering money. I surmise that Council will have an expensive legal challenge to contend with if they think that they can rationalize an exemption to Province-wide legislation which mandates this issue. In this respect, I would highly encourage any property owner who has concerns to “private message” me.
I, for one, am appalled by the intrusion that the B.I.A. mafia is attempting to make in usurping the reasonable rights of property owners in exchange for their own self- interests.
The dynamics here are really fairly simple: Supply, thanks to the shortsightedness of our elected officials, is significantly greater than demand. Distorting the optics is advantageous to no one except maybe for councillors seeking votes for re-election.
I agree that owners of vacant – or half derelict – commercial properties would be penalized if their property sits empty for an extended period of time. I didn’t know they got a tax break nad I feel foolish for not realizing that it isn’t that properties don’t sell or can’t be rented but that rogue owners construct it that way deliberately.
I came home from a visit to Collingwood and Niagara on the Lake (and I know that we aren’t in that league) but I almost cried when I drove through our own downtown. It looks dismal. One single block is pretty and looks welcoming and it’s the block lacking its own private eyesore.
If indeed it can be proven that someone is asking some ridiculous price for a piece of real estate or in some other way almost guaranteeing that a property can’t rent or be sold by virtue of its slum-like condition or over-pricing, then they should be penalized.
It is such a detriment to those business owners who do their best to do everything right. I can’t believe they haven’t spoken up before now.
Agree strongly with the idea of eliminating the tax break for empty buildings. I expect the tax break was to help owners while they refinish a space when a tenant leaves, until a new tenant can be found. However, some places are just plain derelict: old restaurant on Main E and old Dominion. Probably infested and not even viable as they stand. Slum-like vacancies. Quite detrimental to those business owners who are trying to make a go of it. Enforce existing laws. Eliminate the tax break. Apply creative deterrents for keeping business spaces shut when there is a decent economy. Penalizing landlords who really are making solid efforts to regenerate their buildings should be avoided. Properties like the Empire hotel have complicated legal issues but the other properties are just abandoned by owners who really don’t seem to give a hoot about the town.