Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer
They still have the right to charge the cost to the property tax account in priority to mortgages. If there was actually a hazard, they could fill the hole and be indemnified by the value of the land. The City could even sell the land and pay themselves first.
I don't think added more red tape and costs to projects will help get projects built in this City.
I am not aware of any hazard at this time. The hole appears to be fully shored.
|
For an average project, with an average developer, and average delays... I agree, more red tape is unnecessary. BUT Cities do need the ability to address extreme cases. A Demand Bond is a common & relatively inexpensive tool. Project proceeds roughly on planned timeline... the Demand Bond is an inexpensive insurance. Project goes off the rails & City needs to step in/taken action... Demand Bond is there. Insurer (SGI offers these, as do others) can choose to go after the bond-holder to recover the cost... they usually do.
Adding to the tax account of an entity that has either gone belly-up, is in trouble, or has a bunch of lawyers on speed-dial, isn't likely to yield revenue to cover the City's costs. Blood from a stone.
I think the bigger issue is the City's approach to development - we need policies to encourage developers to keep things moving/follow-through on commitments/etc (removing some red-tape may be one of the things needed). 99% don't need to be prodded.
For the minority that don't meet requirements (with reasonable exceptions), these same policies/bylaws need to give the City a hammer they can use.
Based on
the CBC's story yesterday - the City cannot refuse to issue a building permit extension, so long as Nat'l Building Code & City Regulations are being met. The
LP's story says permit holders have 6months to start, and 2years to finish the permitted work.
Something doesn't make sense here - they have 2 years to finish, but if they don't - according to the CBC - the City
must issue unlimited extensions... but not meeting the 2year requirement
should contravene a City requirement... so the City should have the ability to deny a permit extension. Yet they don't. This is a problem.
A Demand Bond would also be helpful in the case of the building at Albert/11th. After 4-5yrs of aggregate instead of a sidewalk, the City had every right to step in, pave the areas, and tack it on the developer's taxes... but I bet they knew the developer was broke, so they'd essentially be eating the cost of paving. Demand Bond would have addressed this problem - failure to meet a project requirement, City calls the bond. In my experience, SGI pays their demand bonds within a couple days... and then goes aggressively after the other party (something I don't think the City has the stomach to do).
[rant warning]
Once again comes back to the City of Regina being behind the times/hesitant to move decisively - can't please everyone all the time, need to find solutions that are in best interests of the City.
Parking enforcement (until recently) and snow routes are examples of this hesitation/hesitation approach. Even though no one likes getting tickets/towed, all Canadian cities enforce parking bylaws. Most cities focus on key areas (downtown, near schools, hospitals, etc), but many also proactively enforce key parking bylaws across the city... residential, evenings, weekends, etc. This is just a fact of life & people get used to it. In Ottawa, max on-street parking anywhere in the City is 3hours (7am-7pm, 365 days of the year). Everyone knows this. You can expect a ticket for parking in front of your home for 4-5hours on a Saturday, or a holiday. Extreme? Sure - probably is... but people adapt & move on. In Regina - even with proactive (versus previous complaint-driven model) enforcement, cars in residential areas are unlikely to get a ticket even after days on the street. Not saying this is bad - really, in most residential neighbourhoods, who cares? - just saying that even when the City gets more assertive, they're still timid compared to other cities (
don't get me started about the fact we can park 2 FEET from the curb at any time of the year & not be in violation of a parking bylaw... c'mon, WTF?)
Winter snow routes are another example. Saskatoon has snow routes too (min. 8hrs notice is given). Ottawa has an automatic, city-wide on-street parking ban from 1am-7am any time more than 7cm of snow is forecast (includes forecasts like "5-10cm"). No notice issued, no signage is erected... cars are simply ticketed/towed out of the way. You learn pretty quickly not to park on-street when you need to spend an hour wandering your neighbourhood to find your car... AND have to pay a ticket.
I get that these examples are not related to development, but they do demonstrate that other cities have made decisions that they feel are in the best interests of the city as a whole... and didn't concern themselves with particular groups who will invariably not like a decision. Frankly, virtually every decision a government makes is going to displease some people - that's just reality. People will gripe for a while, then they'll get over it. Making decisions based on a satisficing model is just poor governance.
Prev
Linear Mode
