Royal Connaught Hotel | ? | 36 fl, 33 fl, 24 fl & 13 fl | U/C - Page 51

holymoly · #**1001** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 11:00 AM**

Council OKs controversial Connaught project

Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator

(Sep 17, 2009)

Council signed off on a controversial proposal to turn the Royal Connaught into mixed-income housing late last night after the hotel's owners paid off $500,000 in back taxes earlier in the day.

Tony Battaglia, spokesperson for the Grand Connaught Development Group Inc., said the consortium was "embarrassed" to have its tax arrears reported by The Spectator. The group is seeking $18 million from the public purse to convert the downtown landmark into mixed-income housing.

Battaglia said the group recognized that their outstanding tax tab could put council in a "precarious position" when deciding if the city should support the affordable housing proposal.

"We wanted to just remove that obstacle."

Council voted 11-4 to send the proposal to the province. Councillor Bob Bratina tried to defer the decision earlier in the meeting. The downtown politician said there were numerous questions that still need to be answered, but did not reveal his concerns in public. He asked council to go behind closed doors to discuss legal issues.

Bratina said he wanted to abstain from the vote and walked out of the meeting before the decision was formally recorded shortly before midnight.

City lawyer Peter Barkwell advised council against singling out the Connaught project.

The Connaught project was one of six projects staff wanted to recommend for government funding.

City lawyer Peter Barkwell said council should either approve all or none of the proposals.

"There would be liability concerns if you begin to separate them."

Council initially endorsed Bratina's request for a delay in a 10-6 vote, but then decided to continue the debate in a special meeting last night after staff raised concerns about timelines. The city's prioritized list of project must be submitted to the province by Sept. 30.

Joe-Anne Priel, head of community services, cautioned council that the province is reviewing affordable housing projects as they are submitted. Delaying the city's submission could mean missing out on money, she said. Priel said there wasn't time to reissue a new request for proposals (RFP).

Councillor Sam Merulla said he's shocked that some of his colleagues are trying to interfere in the city's RFP process."This was a bureaucratic decision with no political interference until now."

The Connaught proposal received the highest marks in the city's screening process. Staff recommended it be submitted to the province as the city's top priority for affordable housing.

If approved by the province, the Connaught project would receive $12.9 million from a government housing program and $5.6 million in tax and fee breaks from the city. The consortium is also in talks with the city about further incentives.

The local consortium wants to redevelop the vacant hotel to build 100 affordable housing units, another 106 market-rate units and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

The affordable units, targeted toward seniors, the disabled and working poor, will offer rents 20 per cent below market value.

The Connaught group includes Battaglia, hotelier Oscar Kichi, builder Ted Valeri and American businessman Mehran Koranki. They have hired builder Rudi Spallacci as consultant and are in talks with LIUNA about financing.

City records show the consortium was nearly three years behind on its taxes, owning $332,169 on the hotel and another $178,111 on three surrounding parking lots.

HOW THEY VOTED:

In favour of the project: Eisenberger, Collins, Duvall, Jackson, McCarthy, McHattie, Merulla, Morelli, Pearson, Powers, Whitehead

Opposed: Clark, Ferguson, Pasuta, Mitchell

Absent: Bratina

urban_planner · #**1002** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 12:07 PM**

Pathetic just pathetic. I bed if someone proposed a halfway house for this building city council would have passes it.

City council in hamilton is a Joke. a total joke.

coalminecanary · #**1003** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 12:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymoly

Joe-Anne Priel, head of community services, cautioned council that the province is reviewing affordable housing projects as they are submitted. Delaying the city's submission could mean missing out on money, she said. Priel said there wasn't time to reissue a new request for proposals (RFP).

Then they should have questioned the idea of converting the connaught to housing MUCH SOONER instead of waiting til the bitter end to reveal it.

Hamilton Civic League anyone?

drpgq · #**1004** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 12:13 PM**

Truly sad.I didn't have a lot of respect for city staff before this, and even less now.

omro · #**1005** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 12:58 PM**

Who do we lobby at the provincial level to have this madness denied?

SteelTown · #**1006** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 1:38 PM**

I think this whole thing is being blown way over proportion. There's a huge difference from subsidized housing and affordable housing. CityHousing Hamilton builds housing with finance from government. CityHousing is responsible for operations and property standards. Usually rent goes from $200 to $400. It’s a money-losing venture that requires government support, City Hall, each year to function.

Now with this it's affordable housing that is 80% of the rental market. Right now the average rent for 1 bedroom is around $850, so the rent will be about $650. The City is not responsible for operations and property standards.

11thIndian · #**1007** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:20 PM**

Wow. Another city council approval of "Whatever comes along"- what a surprise.

I hate this.

There's no question that affordable housing needs to be part of a city's overall plan, the big problem from my perspective is that Hamilton has no overall plan in any way, shape, or form. IF this city were really interested in pushing downtown revitalization [which it's not], then you don't put affordable housing smack dab in the middle of where you'd ultimately want high-end condominiums, shopping, restaurants and bars. King Street between James and John should be a vision for what this city wants to be, and I suppose in a way it is- take what you can get, don't ask for better, and it'll do.

I wish just once city council would try to make a decision that looks more than 5 minutes down the road. How many downtown projects have been scuttled because the city didn't have the vision to take a short term hit for longer term benefits? MEC, and the Mac/School Board deal should have been fought for harder. When you're trying to bring people back to the downtown core, you're going to have to bend over backwards to bring those first ones in. Maybe loose some money, but ultimately once the ball is rolling property values will rise and you can cherry pick your deals once everyone wants in. But it's not going to magically happen.

Encouraging low-income development in the downtown core isn't going to bring anything but the taxes from the building it self, but it will make downtown infinitely less appealing to developers looking to bring upscale businesses to the area. The though process behind this sets back downtown renewal for decades!

This is shameful and stupid in the extreme.

coalminecanary · #**1008** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I think this whole thing is being blown way over proportion. There's a huge difference from subsidized housing and affordable housing.

This isn't about affordable housing. It's about butchering not just any hotel, but the hotel in downtown hamilton.

SteelTown · #**1009** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:35 PM**

So generally most are opposed to turning the vacant building into residential units?

By the way this is not low-income development. Each unit will cost around $200,000 to construct.

coalminecanary · #**1010** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:55 PM**

Yes, the problem is turning it into residential. More residents downtown is a fantastic idea, but this is absolutely the wrong building for it.

Another major problem is the funding amount - they are going after 18 million to build 100 affordable units. That's 180,000 per unit. Clearly there are more efficient ways for that public money to be spent - ways that will benefit more people who need the housing help...

highwater · #**1011** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

So generally most are opposed to turning the vacant building into residential units?

What coalmine said. This is about the loss of a landmark downtown hotel that would be a much bigger economic generator as a hotel than as a residence, affordable or otherwise. Think Chateau Royale.

drpgq · #**1012** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Now with this it's affordable housing that is 80% of the rental market. Right now the average rent for 1 bedroom is around $850, so the rent will be about $650. The City is not responsible for operations and property standards.

Are you sure that $850 figure is for one bedroom apartments? I thought it was for two. In my building near St. Joe's I pay around $950 for a very large two bedroom. I'm pretty sure a one bedroom goes for $650. I think there's a few vacancies.

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Hamilton has plenty of cheap market rate apartments. This is about transferring public money to a cabal of connected developers who don't have the skills to make money in another manner, nothing less.

drpgq · #**1013** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11thIndian

Encouraging low-income development in the downtown core isn't going to bring anything but the taxes from the building it self, but it will make downtown infinitely less appealing to developers looking to bring upscale businesses to the area.

But they're giving tax breaks on the building aren't they so the building won't even end up contributing much to the tax base. Plus since it is subsidized or whatever housing, I'm sure the assessment after a couple of years will be surprisingly small. Win win all around.

11thIndian · #**1014** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:05 PM**

I'm not opposed to people living there, though it does boggle my mind that a city the size of Hamilton cannot support one 5-Star heritage hotel.

My opposition is that if we really want to drive a resurgence in downtown shopping, living, and working; then we should be focusing on having people live there that will support and encourage that kind of development [or at the very least not drive them away]. Low income earners don't have the extra income to support that development.

Perhaps to quantify myself, I should outline what I'd like to see in the John-James stretch of King St.. Before moving back to Hamilton I worked at the corner of Spadina and Adelade in Toronto for 10 years. Over that decade I saw the amazing transformation of Queen Street from John to Spadina- from sketchy and unattractive storefronts to a vibrant street mall that drove people to seek out the area. Attractive heritage buildings were restored by big name chains, while mediocre buildings were demoed and replaced by attractive new construction [no hint of stucco anywhere!]. My wife and I LOVED doing Christmas shopping along this stretch. But as nice as this area is, the Gore Park area could be SO MUCH better. A real destination for people who want more than the mall. If there are any major retailers left in Jackson Square, it time to move them out onto the street.

Low income housing doesn't motivate the type of development we should all want from the heart of downtown, development that will make downtown a destination for people who live downtown and right now have to head to Limeridge or Burlington mall to shop, and maybe even draw people from the suburbs who want to spend time in the "it" place to be.

drpgq · #**1015** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

So generally most are opposed to turning the vacant building into residential units?

By the way this is not low-income development. Each unit will cost around $200,000 to construct.

I'm not sure I appreciate your attempts to frame the debate. I for one am not keen at all on subsidized housing in the inner core.

How is this not a low-income development? I thought low-income refers to the income of the residents, not the inflated cost to build the unit.

SteelTown · #**1016** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:09 PM**

Each unit will cost around $200,000 and I bet each unit will be spacious. Mark said it had 400 room units. There'll be about 200 rental units so picture a hotel unit and doubling it.

The owners can charge whatever for rent, hey even $1000 per unit. Just better have 100 units worth $800 a month.

SteelTown · #**1017** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

How is this not a low-income development? I thought low-income refers to the income of the residents, not the inflated cost to build the unit.

This is not low-income development because the owner is paying somewhere around $200,000 per unit, almost the same for condo units in Hamilton. With the assistance from the goverment the owners will have 100 units with 80% of market rental rate.

flar · #**1018** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:18 PM**

A few pages back I posted the vacancy rate and avg 2BR rent according to CMHC. As of April 2009 Hamilton's vacancy rate was 3.6% and average 2br rent was $860/mo.

FairHamilton · #**1019** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

By the way this is not low-income development. Each unit will cost around $200,000 to construct.

But the people inhabiting them will be low-income. That's who I understand affordable housing is targeted towards.

Attracting seniors and the disabled who are on limited/fixed income will not benefit downtown in the least.

Can we change the name of this thread to City Place II?

markbarbera · #**1020** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

How is this not a low-income development? I thought low-income refers to the income of the residents, not the inflated cost to build the unit.

It isn't a low income development, it is a mixed use development. Half the units are reduced rate affordable housing rentals (80% of market rate) and the other half are market rate rentals. Was is everyone obsessing so much about the affordable housing portion of the redevelopment and ignoring the other aspects of this development. Classic half-empty/half-full perspective.