The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[nwalbert]

Originally Posted by kwajo

I've been aware of this project for a while, and it looks like a great home and it's fantastic to have some young architects given some freedom to be creative in this often backward city, but I have to say it: a piece of land that large and that close to the urban core should have way more than 2-4 people living on it. I'll forgive it because the steep nature of the topography, and the fact it could be a catalyst for the neighbourhood (which is already on the up-swing IMO), but we need some higher density in-fill projects, I'm tired of single homes and townhouses appearing in areas that have the infrastructure and services in place to support much greater populations.

I would tend to agree that this particular neighborhood are on the upswing. There has been a fair bit of money moving into the area lately.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by nwalbert

I would tend to agree that this particular neighborhood are on the upswing. There has been a fair bit of money moving into the area lately.

In Mt. Pleasant? There's always been money there.

Also, if the city continues to tear down vacant buildings, I don't understand where they're going to be receiving tax revenue from. Vacant buildings have to pay a double-occupancy tax, and empty lots don't pay nearly as much. Subsidized housing doesn't pay any property tax to the city whatsoever.

So, uh, no revenue?

[dhottawa729]

Originally Posted by GregHickman

In Mt. Pleasant? There's always been money there.

Also, if the city continues to tear down vacant buildings, I don't understand where they're going to be receiving tax revenue from. Vacant buildings have to pay a double-occupancy tax, and empty lots don't pay nearly as much. Subsidized housing doesn't pay any property tax to the city whatsoever.

So, uh, no revenue?

I agree with the short-term lack of tax revenue thing, but tearing down derelict buildings not only makes the City look less poor and run down, it opens up prime real estate that is shovel-ready for brand new development. Out with the old and in with the new will improve the overall appearance of the City streets, generate even higher tax revenue and promote gentrification - and I don't mean that in the sense of driving out the poor and replacing them with yuppies because many of these lots are abandoned anyway. It would encourage more higher-income earners to move in and share the City's core resulting in much more social diversification which makes for a great urban area.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by dhottawa729

I agree with the short-term lack of tax revenue thing, but tearing down derelict buildings not only makes the City look less poor and run down, it opens up prime real estate that is shovel-ready for brand new development. Out with the old and in with the new will improve the overall appearance of the City streets, generate even higher tax revenue and promote gentrification - and I don't mean that in the sense of driving out the poor and replacing them with yuppies because many of these lots are abandoned anyway. It would encourage more higher-income earners to move in and share the City's core resulting in much more social diversification which makes for a great urban area.

Have you been in the North End recently? It would absolutely blow my mind if someone wanted to develop land here. No one with any sort of money is wanting to develop land in a high-poverty/crime area such as this, and they won't want to for some time. Mixed-income doesn't work, and never will.

Anywhere else a place like Bridge Street would be prime real-estate, but not in Saint John

Although I will admit that it's one of the few places where destroying surroundings probably increases property assessments, albeit minimally.

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by GregHickman

In Mt. Pleasant? There's always been money there.

Also, if the city continues to tear down vacant buildings, I don't understand where they're going to be receiving tax revenue from. Vacant buildings have to pay a double-occupancy tax, and empty lots don't pay nearly as much. Subsidized housing doesn't pay any property tax to the city whatsoever.

So, uh, no revenue?

That's why the city needs to change it's taxation system and ups taxation on empty lots in urban areas. That puts the onus on the landowner to either build something or sell it to someone who will.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by kwajo

That's why the city needs to change it's taxation system and ups taxation on empty lots in urban areas. That puts the onus on the landowner to either build something or sell it to someone who will.

But there's no-one to buy the land, that's the thing. Saint John has some of the highest taxes for landowners in the country as it stands, and if anything the city should be lowering taxes to encourage growth.

Why do you think everyone keeps moving and developing outside of city limits?

[kwajo]

Originally Posted by GregHickman

But there's no-one to buy the land, that's the thing. Saint John has some of the highest taxes for landowners in the country as it stands, and if anything the city should be lowering taxes to encourage growth.

Why do you think everyone keeps moving and developing outside of city limits?

Well you wouldn't raise the taxes on empty lots without balancing it with incentives or reductions the other way, otherwise yes, it would be a difficult sell.

I don't think the taxes are really the reason people are moving out of the city, or certainly not the only reason, especially since for most people the reduction in property tax is offset entirely by increased transportation costs of living further away from the core.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by kwajo

I don't think the taxes are really the reason people are moving out of the city, or certainly not the only reason, especially since for most people the reduction in property tax is offset entirely by increased transportation costs of living further away from the core.

More or less, yeah. It's beyond me how people can commute in from Hampton/St. Martin's/Musquash or beyond each day with the price of gas as high as it is right now. It must be turning into quite a burden on some, if it hadn't been already.

I can see taxes being the major reason why people move out of the city, or why when moving to the area they live outside of the city rather than inside. The city's doing nothing to make itself welcoming to land/homeowners.

[sjuser23]

Here's an idea: Why not tax land and not the structures on it? Therefore a serviced lot gets taxed the same whether it is vacant or has a $400,000 dollar house on it? Wouldn't it encourage people to improve their lots instead of being fearful of increased taxes for renovating? If the taxes on a lot were $2000 a year let's say for arguments sake, how long would the owner let it sit empty instead of doing something to generate some income from that lot? It would end the double taxation issue as well.
Thoughts?

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by sjuser23

Here's an idea: Why not tax land and not the structures on it? Therefore a serviced lot gets taxed the same whether it is vacant or has a $400,000 dollar house on it? Wouldn't it encourage people to improve their lots instead of being fearful of increased taxes for renovating? If the taxes on a lot were $2000 a year let's say for arguments sake, how long would the owner let it sit empty instead of doing something to generate some income from that lot? It would end the double taxation issue as well.
Thoughts?

That makes very little sense IMO. Purchasing land for future development would be prohibitively expensive. Then you also run into the issue of someone paying the same taxes for a 1000 sq ft bungalow as the person next door in a 4000 sq ft McMansion.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by sjuser23

Here's an idea: Why not tax land and not the structures on it?

Most of the unused land in Saint John belongs to various Irving companies. Have fun asking them for money. Along with what Oliver stated.

Also, you can't delete posts on this forum? Haha

[nwalbert]

Originally Posted by GregHickman

Most of the unused land in Saint John belongs to various Irving companies. Have fun asking them for money.

Not in residential neighborhoods, but yes from a commercial/industrial point of view.

The city is doing the right thing by clearing out unsafe structures that are beyond repair. We will just need to be patient to see the vacant spots get filled back in. The city is in a period of gradual and steady population increases. There are still a couple of very large projects potentially on the horizon, we are in a very good position right now.

[thefishingnut]

Originally Posted by GregHickman

More or less, yeah. It's beyond me how people can commute in from Hampton/St. Martin's/Musquash or beyond each day with the price of gas as high as it is right now. It must be turning into quite a burden on some, if it hadn't been already.

I can see taxes being the major reason why people move out of the city, or why when moving to the area they live outside of the city rather than inside. The city's doing nothing to make itself welcoming to land/homeowners.

IMO property taxes have very little to do with why people live in the suburbs. Transportation costs easily eat that up. If finances are an issue, it's more because of house purchase prices that push people out as far as a Hampton.

I'm among the commuters (from Quispam), and I'm there because it's kid friendly, quieter, cleaner, and in the summer, far warmer. Finances weren't really a consideration. Reality around a small city, is that many people want to live close to a city, but not in the city. Be able to take advantage of what a city has to offer only when wanted, and take advantage of living in a quiet suburb the rest of the time. I've lived in a couple of houses in Saint John core because my circumstances dictated that it was the right choice at the time, and it was fine at the time. But I moved to the area from Toronto years ago because the size of the city and the recreational opportunities nearby made it a good choice. I got tired of weekend commutes to cottage country in Ontario, and now I'm in a waterfront house for less money than I'd spend for a duplex in Toronto. And that's important to me, because I boat, fish, we often sit around a fire on the beach at sunset, it's a lifestyle thing.

Again IMO, there are city people, and non-city people. People chose to live where they'll be happy, for some that's where there is immediate access to downtown benefits like entertainment, for others it's for immediate access to outside city recreation. Neither way is right or wrong for all people, we're just different and like different things. The strategy needs to be a city environment which is acceptable to people who wish to live in the city core. By that, I mean modern or upgraded housing, safe streets, and entertainment options. And for those outside the city, good transportation links. You can't force the people who don't want to live in the Saint John city core but have chosen to live in the valley to move to the city. And tax rates have very little to do with it.

[thefishingnut]

Originally Posted by sjuser23

Here's an idea: Why not tax land and not the structures on it? Therefore a serviced lot gets taxed the same whether it is vacant or has a $400,000 dollar house on it? Wouldn't it encourage people to improve their lots instead of being fearful of increased taxes for renovating? If the taxes on a lot were $2000 a year let's say for arguments sake, how long would the owner let it sit empty instead of doing something to generate some income from that lot? It would end the double taxation issue as well.
Thoughts?

The only motivation people have now to level derelict buildings is to reduce the property tax on speculation property. It would encourage people to not pay taxes on empty land or land with derelict buidlings, they'd just walk away and let the city deal with any mess, and zero tax income.

[nwalbert]

Originally Posted by thefishingnut

IMO property taxes have very little to do with why people live in the suburbs. Transportation costs easily eat that up. If finances are an issue, it's more because of house purchase prices that push people out as far as a Hampton.

I'm among the commuters (from Quispam), and I'm there because it's kid friendly, quieter, cleaner, and in the summer, far warmer. Finances weren't really a consideration. Reality around a small city, is that many people want to live close to a city, but not in the city. Be able to take advantage of what a city has to offer only when wanted, and take advantage of living in a quiet suburb the rest of the time. I've lived in a couple of houses in Saint John core because my circumstances dictated that it was the right choice at the time, and it was fine at the time. But I moved to the area from Toronto years ago because the size of the city and the recreational opportunities nearby made it a good choice. I got tired of weekend commutes to cottage country in Ontario, and now I'm in a waterfront house for less money than I'd spend for a duplex in Toronto. And that's important to me, because I boat, fish, we often sit around a fire on the beach at sunset, it's a lifestyle thing.

Again IMO, there are city people, and non-city people. People chose to live where they'll be happy, for some that's where there is immediate access to downtown benefits like entertainment, for others it's for immediate access to outside city recreation. Neither way is right or wrong for all people, we're just different and like different things. The strategy needs to be a city environment which is acceptable to people who wish to live in the city core. By that, I mean modern or upgraded housing, safe streets, and entertainment options. And for those outside the city, good transportation links. You can't force the people who don't want to live in the Saint John city core but have chosen to live in the valley to move to the city. And tax rates have very little to do with it.

I believe for most people it is in fact a financial decision to live outside the city, as you can get much more house in Quispamsis than you can within city limits.

The amenities you list are great, but I also have all of those things directly on the water within city limits in Millidgeville. I could move to Quispamsis and save a bundle on taxes and home values, but I don't want to be bothered with commuting.

[thefishingnut]

Originally Posted by nwalbert

I believe for most people it is in fact a financial decision to live outside the city, as you can get much more house in Quispamsis than you can within city limits.

The amenities you list are great, but I also have all of those things directly on the water within city limits in Millidgeville. I could move to Quispamsis and save a bundle on taxes and home values, but I don't want to be bothered with commuting.

Unfortunately there is a limited number of those opportunities in Millidgeville, hence the spread through Grand Bay one way and Darlings Island the other. If there was room in Millidgeville for another 1,000 waterfront homes (not on 100 foot cliffs, which are hardly waterfront from my viewpoint if you can't use the waterfront) and another 10,000 homes in general then there would be far fewer people out of the current city limits.

[nwalbert]

Originally Posted by thefishingnut

Unfortunately there is a limited number of those opportunities in Millidgeville, hence the spread through Grand Bay one way and Darlings Island the other. If there was room in Millidgeville for another 1,000 waterfront homes (not on 100 foot cliffs, which are hardly waterfront from my viewpoint if you can't use the waterfront) and another 10,000 homes in general then there would be far fewer people out of the current city limits.

There are waterfront lots currently available in Millidgeville and other spots in the city, but yes they are more expensive than in Quispamsis. The same holds true for larger lots and private lots. If you want the same thing in the city it is more expensive which is the point I was making. Most people live in the Valley as they can afford more home or a step above what they would have in the city.

[sjuser23]

Originally Posted by OliverD

That makes very little sense IMO. Purchasing land for future development would be prohibitively expensive. Then you also run into the issue of someone paying the same taxes for a 1000 sq ft bungalow as the person next door in a 4000 sq ft McMansion.

But why should someone in a 4000 sq foot mansion pay more taxes than a 1000 sq foot bungalow if they each have the same size lot and have the same services - street, lights, fire, police sidewalks, etc..?

I agree, it would get rid of the speculators, those who buy the land and hold onto it, nothing wrong with that in my opinion, leave it to those who will develop and develop right now since they'll pay the same taxes, empty or developed. I'm only talking about land that has services, a large tract of undivided land may only have one set of services running to it but can be divided into 200 lots. Once the lots are divided and serviced, they should be taxed as such.

You don't think our current system is punitive on those who want to improve their land or rewarding to those who don't develop an empty lot? Let's them sit there with it empty and only pay $200 or something for taxes whereas if the land was taxed and not the structure it would encourage "use" of the land?

[sjuser23]

Originally Posted by thefishingnut

The only motivation people have now to level derelict buildings is to reduce the property tax on speculation property. It would encourage people to not pay taxes on empty land or land with derelict buidlings, they'd just walk away and let the city deal with any mess, and zero tax income.

I'm not sure about this one. You mean someone would rather pay $10-$15,000 to level a building to reduce their tax burden from $3000 a year to $200 a year rather than just walk away initially without tearing it down? They likely haven't paid property taxes ina few years if its vacant. Most of these buildings being torn down are at the city's expense now and they try to recover the cost from the owner. Rare is it that the owner tears down anything unless insurance is paying for it from a fire. These people are walking away from it entirely, its the city tearing them down, not the owner. Most of these properties either do or will belong to the city or province from failure to pay property taxes or the cost of the demolition.

[thefishingnut]

Originally Posted by sjuser23

I'm not sure about this one. You mean someone would rather pay $10-$15,000 to level a building to reduce their tax burden from $3000 a year to $200 a year rather than just walk away initially without tearing it down? They likely haven't paid property taxes ina few years if its vacant. Most of these buildings being torn down are at the city's expense now and they try to recover the cost from the owner. Rare is it that the owner tears down anything unless insurance is paying for it from a fire. These people are walking away from it entirely, its the city tearing them down, not the owner. Most of these properties either do or will belong to the city or province from failure to pay property taxes or the cost of the demolition.

I was responding to someone who indicated the property tax should stay (in your example) at $3k even if the lot is empty, which would completely remove any reason for someone to clear a derelict building. But to your point, I've got to think there are developers who would rip something down to reduce the tax load on an unrentable building if they knew they were going to redevelop the property in the future (i.e.were going to have the demolition cost sooner or later anyway).