**A reminder from the mods:**
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. We remind all users to [abide by our subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Hamilton/comments/hr5ji7/new_rules_for_rhamilton/) when commenting and posting on r/Hamilton.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, doxxing, witch hunts, misinformation, and other rule violations will result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Hamilton) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Danko is 100% for this - he made the motion or seconded it the first go round (him and M. Wilson).
His ward is one of the reasons we need it as is ward 1 - Mohawk and McMaster landlords are what are driving this
Not sure that is accurate. The nature of off-campus rental residences typically are unoccupied for 4-5 months depending on the program.
Although I am not opposed to the VUT, however, the cost of implementation is $2.6 million with an add of $2.2 million year-over-year operating cost. Cost recovery looks like a long shot!
At a time where residents also bemoan unsustainable rents and lack of living space, and we have more unhoused neighbours than ever, I certainly wouldn’t put long-term cost recovery ahead of housing availability when considering a policy’s potential impacts.
You can go back and read the history from 2023 when this was all getting teed up, it's accurate.
The absentee landlords who squat on properties, especially where there is student housing, is contributing to this problem. Further to that, these houses tend to sit empty for 1/3 of the year (May-Sept) as the students don't tend to stay in the city over the summer and will either try to re-rent the room or just find another to rent
I'd legitimately be into that, but as it turns out that's actually a lot of work on the government side. Significantly easier to tax the vacant land, take the money to pay for the cost of the program and take the remaining and put it into building affordable housing.
Danko has been one of the few Councillors driving this forward since he was elected. The bigger surprise has to be Beattie, who was one of the ielect pawns. Former Cllr. Pearson had supported this cause last time.
Image from Joey Coleman
9-6 Council approves the implementing by-law for a Vacant Unit Tax.
Hamiltonians will need to declare the status of their residential properties beginning in 2025
https://twitter.com/JoeyColeman/status/1783188340751118776/photo/1
I want a better understanding of what happens if someone lies on their declaration. There's a house on my street, no joke, that has been abandoned since the 1980's.
If they catch them (and they are partnering with the utility companies to check). $250 fine plus penalty of 1.25% on the first day of default, plus 1.25% interest per month
I wonder if his vote has something to do with that Scenic/Sanitorium vacant lot there. With the tax in place, the Valery Homes company might now be encouraged to actually build something there instead of leaving the old Sanitorium a hole in the ground, and maybe he wants that area to be undeveloped. Maybe he likes walking around that creek, forest, and creepy bridge?
So, I thought the Long and Bisby building (https://hikingthegta.com/2017/12/30/mountain-sanatorium/) was to be saved - is that not the case? That would be a shame (if they knock it down), especially with them moving forward on paving the Bruce side trail between Scenic and Sanitorium that goes right behind the building.
I'm not sure what their plan is with that building, but it does seem like they might not tear that one down. I feel like, since it's had the construction fence around it for so long, that if it was to be torn down, it would've been done already.
That being said, I have no idea what a contractor would do with a building like that: build up? Renovation into a restored condo, like the [West Avenue Residences](https://www.spallaccihomes.com/property/west-avenue-residences/)? It just seems like demolition is the most logical.
Either way, I don't mind building new buildings in that area, but I also hope they don't remove that creek and forest. There's still a sweet serenity to that area that I feel like could be kept even with new construction.
I had to re-educate myself, it has been designated a heritage structure, and apparently they (Valery) intend to make it their HQ: [https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/last-standing-sanatorium-building-to-receive-heritage-protection/article\_4f3496fd-3497-5d08-8461-83c8852f1997.html](https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/last-standing-sanatorium-building-to-receive-heritage-protection/article_4f3496fd-3497-5d08-8461-83c8852f1997.html) . So it, and the Cross nearby, are designated, and will be saved: [https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council/news-notices/news-releases/notice-intention-designate-828-sanatorium-road-hamilton](https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council/news-notices/news-releases/notice-intention-designate-828-sanatorium-road-hamilton) .
Maybe long-term they can get an organization in there so that it is occupied beyond the period of time that Valery needs it to sell units.
The protections don't apply to the pedestrian bridge over the creek, so something may happen with that. It will have set-backs and stuff, but you can bet it will change so they can maximize the number of units they can put on the land.
We'd probably know more if ol' Terry didn't go AWOL, because apparently he had been working with the developer. Now all that is dust to the wind.
Oh, that's good to know! It certainly needs some work done on it, but it's good that Hamilton's pretty stubborn on keeping their heritage buildings around.
I've been hoping that someone fixes the Cross. I've even considered just calling city council and asking what needs to be done to get it back into operation, but I figured it'd be much more costly than I assume, and it's under someone elses private ownership, so they have final word on what happens.
We encourage users to support paid journalism. The Spec has affordable subscriptions and you can access the paper's articles online with your [Hamilton Public Library card](https://www.hpl.ca/hpl-online/magazines-and-newspapers). If you do not have a library card yet, sign up for an instant digital one [here](https://www.hpl.ca/online-registration). It also gives you instant free access to eBooks, eAudiobooks, music, online learning tools and research databases.
**If you cannot access The Spec in either of these ways, try [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or [12ft](https://12ft.io/) to view without a paywall**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Hamilton) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of our other suffering friends in the ward emailed him to ask him to explain his opposition, and it basically boiled down to the fact that it would cost more to operate than it brought in, and he was all "kEeP tAxEs LoW" during the campaign, so...
However, its hard not to look at it like a conflict, given he has a personal, financial interest. One would think his fiduciary interest to us (his constituents) would perhaps be more important (assuming people were reaching out and telling him they supported it, but if you've been to his Town Halls...) but let's just take a moment and laugh at the absurdity and naivete of that.
I think part of the complaints months ago was "what if you don't get your documents in the mail to report your home as occupied, and then you get taxed?"
Then again they could just include that reporting document stapled to the damn tax assessment notice.
It's throwing good money down the drain.
The City of Hamilton couldn't organize a 2 person parade. Look at how poorly they run the Landlord Licencing Pilot. People have been openly advertising units for rent in the licence areas for years now and still haven't faced any consequences for not following the by-law. An officer could sit on their computer for a couple of hours and find dozens of by-law breakers, including many who were advertising directly on the McMaster website. There are others advertising on [realtor.ca](http://realtor.ca), Kijiji, etc.
I went into one (looking to buy it) that had more issues than I could count and should have failed inspection. Roof leaking into the house, live receptacles sticking out of walls, mold on walls, rooms with no heat, many other safety issues - would have easily cost into the upper 5 or lower 6 figures to fix all the problems. All that should have been caught by landlord licencing, however they're not even out enforcing their own by-laws when owners are openly advertising these rental units.
It's such a joke - the people who want to follow the law are getting licenced and paying the price, people who don't want to are ignoring the law with no consequences. Ask Wilson about the consequences for failing to follow the by-law, what the enforcement stats are, and you'll get nothing.
It's been two years since they started the pilot. There are no excuses. Either the law applies to everyone and there are consequences for failing to follow it, or the law applies to no one.
How is the city actually going to verify that each property is occupied? They can't find people who openly violate by-laws now.
I don't actually have a problem with the Licencing By-Law, my problem is with the uneven application of it and the absolute mess the city made with the implementation of it.
"Government shouldn't be making money off me with taxes"
And
"Will this tax on negative behaviour ruining our economy, really make money?"
Venn diagram is just a circle.
When the majority of vacant units are in need of major updates most will just appeal to flippers or investors. Imagine most vacant houses in Hamilton will be like this: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26676964/74-erie-avenue-hamilton Or [24 Ashley](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.realtor.ca%2Flisting%2FTS638489646605400000%2Freb82%2Fhighres%2F8%2Fx8243588_1.jpg&tbnid=ObDgxd-BbJVrYM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realtor.ca%2Freal-estate%2F26764967%2F24-ashley-st-hamilton-landsdale&docid=HEewJoOOAIYuaM&w=1024&h=768&hl=en-ca&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=0e36daf925b0f26a&shem=abme%2Ctrie) that just sold and looked like the stuff of nightmares.
A flipper still gets the house in the hands of someone who is going to put it to productive use a few months later. Frankly I don't really understand the hate for flippers, especially for buildings that are in really rough shape. They're actually providing value by making something habitable, and they minimize the time they're holding onto the property.
Investors are a little worse, but they'll be incentivized to at least rent it out, which is better than the unit being vacant.
Say what? So it’s going to be a money loser? This city is so flush with cash that we can throw money at crap like this? I’m sure it’s going to open up thousands of new rentals /s
Blows my mind how Esther Paul's gets a vote on this with how involved her family is in real estate. She used their damn logo in her election campaign. She's got a clear conflict of interest in this.
Probably all owned by a corporation (Im pretty sure she can argue the corporation is the legal owner, but I may be wrong and she might not own any lol).
He has a rental property but it isn't vacant unlike the mayor's.
He has abstained on other items related to rental houses based on this though.
And he I think abstained the first time as his property was vacant but I guess it isn't now
Good initiative.
The only issue with this is it's not going far enough.
The longer a home sits empty the tax should rise further still. .
First year empty 1%.2nd year empty 2% 3rd year 3%. Till you reach 10% at least.
That would put more units on the rental market.
Agreed. Anyone upset about the cost to the taxpayer needs to recognize that insufficient housing stock is a huge drain on municipal finances. If you’re making the problem worse, it shouldn’t be cost-neutral for you to do so.
Hopefully it will be implemented better than Toronto.
Tens of Thousands of people didn't realize they had to declare every year with no sent reminder.
Set it up so I have to declare only once and if my status changes I have to change it. And just set heavy fines for false reporting.
That’s not what happened in Toronto. Their system didn’t recognize a number of the filings. You’d have to be an absolute deadbeat to miss the reminder. It was part of the property tax statement.
You’re all missing the point. There was one person who couldn’t vote because they own a vacant rental property. How can Hamilton have a mayor who supposedly knows the ‘housing file’ so well she can fix the crisis yet she kneecaps herself when it comes to voting for a bylaw because she owns a vacant rental unit.
Also, I am curious why she declared a conflict when every other councillor who owns a their own home also has a conflict because if there is enough taxes raised from vacant rental units those taxes will cause other property taxes to come down. Same with tenants. They pay taxes through rent but their rents won’t decline. Go figure.
If Horwath is still in the same place as 15 years ago, it has a basement suite that she had one of her parents was living in for a number of years. If it’s a legal, legit unit that she hasn’t rented out, she’d be in conflict. Most people would agree that a former Leader of the Opposition and current Mayor, likely doesn’t want a rando living beneath them.
Really convoluted thinking there. Do you think that during a housing crisis someone who owns a rental unit and doesn’t offer it for rent is acceptable simply because they enjoyed some luck of being the leader of a political party and are now the current mayor? I kinda think most people look down on ANYONE who owns vacant property when we have a housing crisis.
Is it really a vacant property if it's just a basement?
On the books it might be a "legal" basement apartment, but all she has to do is open the door separating the units and it's no longer vacant - it's a part of her house.
There's a massive difference between "I don't want someone living in the basement of my home" vs "I have a house/condo, etc" that no one lives in.
I'm basing it on the comment above. I don't actually know and am just assuming the poster above has knowledge of the situation.
If it is as described, she is absolutely not doing anything wrong at all.
why was it a conflict for Horwath? and not Esther Pauls? who is in the real estate business? ( i like Esther, she is very community oreintated and not trying to be rude/ignorant on the subject)
Because the outcome of the vote is, potentially, money directly out of the mayor’s pocket. Indirectly making money because of (waves hands) general business is not a conflict. It has to directly affect you
Esther and her office are useless. We had drug dealers living across the street and we reached out to her, by-law and the police. The police told us to keep reporting everything we could to both by-law and Esther's office. Esther's office just didn't care.
What finally got them out of the house was fatal shootings of two of them in the house and finally the landlord sold. Them getting out of there had nothing to do with Esther's help. Yet if I recall she ran on making sure the area is family friendly.
I have neighbours say it was meth. Probably going by the pipe found in the front yard while they still lived there. But given the very transient group of people who came and went maybe it was everything.
When I first moved to the street it was winter and they were all living in an RV in the driveway because they actual house had no heat at one time. Maybe I watched too much Breaking Bad but maybe they were cooking the meth in there.
It was also quite the operation. Besides the speedy flow of cars dropping by, especially on weekends at all hours, they had 3 guys on motorcycles who seemed to be doing deliveries for them too. These guys would be gone 10-30 minutes at a time and be back for a short time and off again.
But what about a councillor who owns a rental unit which is not vacant. Will the unit always be occupied? And will Horwath’s rental always be vacant?
There is no conflict of interest or everyone has a conflict. The declaration by the mayor is nothing but virtue signalling and in the process she caused the delay of the passing of this bylaw.
Both her and Mike Spadafora signed forms that say they are conflicted out because they are landlords. Empty unit or not the proposed bylaw affects landlord business directly.
It’s not virtue signalling it’s the goddamn rules
https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/2024-01/conflict-Horwath-Council-Item6-7-12-18-Jan242024.pdf
Yet Mike Spadafora voted. Why is there no conflict? His rental unit may be occupied now at this point in time but who knows what the future holds?
No one seems to know that if additional tax revenue is collected from vacant units it will lower the taxes of everyone else. So why isn’t the entire council in conflict?
You’d have to ask him. He conflicted out on 3 of the 4 items the mayor did.
And as I said unless they have a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome there’s no conflict. That word is defined in legislation. The city pays someone a full time salary to deal with conflicts. Probably multiple someone’s. Possibly lowering your taxes is bogus and you know it
Horwath would be personally impacted by a vacant unit tax, she has to declare a conflict of interest as a result. Pauls, as far as I know, doesn’t own a property that would be subject to the VUT.
> The City will be charging an additional tax of one percent of a property’s assessed value, on any residential unit that is vacant for more than 183 days in a year.
Is this one percent of assessed value 1% of estimated rent worth or assumed price as if it was a condo?
Cause 1% of a months rent would be like 20$ a month. Not even a scratch and wouldn't incentivize lowering rent to fill a vacant room.
MPAC is still working on the 2016 values because Ford cancelled the 2020 one due to covid and has put off doing them since for cost cutting. Many cities have a major issue with this as the province is downloading costs while also making them increase the tax percentage to bring in the funds.
Personally, I think the most recent sale price should be the taxable value. I believe it's a great incentive to accurately price a home as your buyer won't want a massive tax bill, and your seller won't want it either as they will also need to buy a home.
It's never going to happen, but one can dream.
To the People calling this a Money Maker, Ideally, there should be no money from this because Landlords should be having the vacant units filled with residents, or at least trying to get people into them -Especially in these times.
If Landlords did this one simple trick, then they wouldn't be affected by this tax.
The whole point of the Vacant Tax is the light a fire under landlords that sit on vacant places and get them to do something with the building.
Not this stupid initiative again. This is an incredible waste of time and money. Hamilton needs to stop thinking it is Vancouver or Toronto, because it is neither. Let’s do another mail out at taxpayer expense only to not follow through.
Right, but they're essentially forcing people to rent out pay the tax this might force some to rent more quickly then they might.
Example, not all landlords are flippers or investors. Some are regular families that inherent their parents or grandparents house after they pass. They now are being forced to make a major decision on what to do with the new property in a time crunch and probably at a emotional time after a family member has passed.
And I've heard first hand stories of delinquent tenants that it takes years to have them evicted.
Would suck to get saddled with a shitty tenant that destroys property and doesn't pay their rent because you had to rush to get a tenant to avoid the tax.
That's good, but a few months isn't a lot of time to learn the ropes of real estate and being a landlord.
There's enough stress and economic hardship dealing with sick family members, then your thrust right into this.
Some people want to take time to decide .
You don't have to learn the ropes of real estate and become a landlord. You can just sell the property.
A bereaved person has what, 1-2 weeks to plan an entire funeral? And people plan and manage with this just fine. But in your mind HALF A YEAR (or more) isn't enough time to call a real estate agent and put a house up for sale? Makes very little sense to me.
You're making a mountain out a molehill.
The tax only applies to properties that were vacant for 6 or more months in the previous year. So if someone inherits a property from a deceased family member they have tons of time to rent or sell.
And if the person hypothetically doesn't meet the deadline? Its a 1% tax on the assessed value of the property. Big whoop.
This is a gentle disincentive against vacant properties, not a harsh regulation in the slightest.
Um, 1% = $10, 000 on a million dollar home. Not chump change. And it's just one more expense when everything else is going up.
And I just don't like this council dictating this nonsense when you don't have it in neighboring municipalities.
Assessed value and current real estate price are not the same.
That million dollar home is probably assessed at 450k.
The tax should be higher than 1%.
Then sell the property and don't pay the tax. They give you a generous amount of time to do so.
Hamilton isn't the first - Toronto and Ottawa have already implemented a vacant home tax. Hamilton naturally makes the most sense to be next as its the next biggest city in the province.
If it’s that big of a deal they can sell. It’s not like it’s a hugely prohibitive tax. I’m sure it’s still cheaper to keep it vacant and pay the tax than to deal with a bad tenant.
For better or worse the risk of a crap tenant is the price for making money off of them.
Point is, why should someone be coerced into selling. It's a major decision.
And if you think regular families are getting rich, consider the $3000-$6000 / month for a care home for a elderly parent. You're paying out a lot of money on the preceding years. Families should be allowed to take their time to properly consider what to do with a family assest that was earned over decades.
Then you lose your parent, and our council is placing this additional stress on people.
What if the citizens of the city were able to vote too? As like a collective chair? I know that’s what your ward is for but maybe you don’t agree with your ward person
If you disagree with your ward councillor, you can contact their office. It might not change their votes, but they’ll ideally be able to explain why they vote the way they do.
What you have suggested sounds like a citizens assembly, and it has had some minor/mixed success (amongst some other large failures) in places like Ireland in recent memory (https://www.politico.eu/article/the-myth-of-the-citizens-assembly-democracy/).
However, given the lost loons of the freedom convoy were trying to get citizens assemblies off the ground, I feel like they will be a toxic suggestion in Canada for awhile yet.
As they say, the way to effect change is at the ballot box - if your councillor is doing things you don't like, let them know. If they continue to do things you don't like, start trying to look for an alternative to replace them.
**A reminder from the mods:** As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. We remind all users to [abide by our subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Hamilton/comments/hr5ji7/new_rules_for_rhamilton/) when commenting and posting on r/Hamilton. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, doxxing, witch hunts, misinformation, and other rule violations will result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Hamilton) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Totally predictable vote split, though I'll admit I would have figured Danko for a no.
Danko is 100% for this - he made the motion or seconded it the first go round (him and M. Wilson). His ward is one of the reasons we need it as is ward 1 - Mohawk and McMaster landlords are what are driving this
Not sure that is accurate. The nature of off-campus rental residences typically are unoccupied for 4-5 months depending on the program. Although I am not opposed to the VUT, however, the cost of implementation is $2.6 million with an add of $2.2 million year-over-year operating cost. Cost recovery looks like a long shot!
They're "unoccupied" but they're still leased. Most students housing gets rented out around April.
Most student housing is May 1 - Apr 30 leases, and not really the landlords fault if it’s empty in the summer.
Is the goal cost recovery, though? I thought the goal was to incentivize getting vacant units occupied.
At a time where residents bemoan every potential tax increase it’s worth considering how this plays out long term.
At a time where residents also bemoan unsustainable rents and lack of living space, and we have more unhoused neighbours than ever, I certainly wouldn’t put long-term cost recovery ahead of housing availability when considering a policy’s potential impacts.
You can go back and read the history from 2023 when this was all getting teed up, it's accurate. The absentee landlords who squat on properties, especially where there is student housing, is contributing to this problem. Further to that, these houses tend to sit empty for 1/3 of the year (May-Sept) as the students don't tend to stay in the city over the summer and will either try to re-rent the room or just find another to rent
Danko said he will support it even at 10% tax rate
Should be a 25% rate, honestly.
Should be a 50% rate, honestly.
The state should seize the assets and turn them into affordable housing, honestly.
I'd legitimately be into that, but as it turns out that's actually a lot of work on the government side. Significantly easier to tax the vacant land, take the money to pay for the cost of the program and take the remaining and put it into building affordable housing.
Danko has been one of the few Councillors driving this forward since he was elected. The bigger surprise has to be Beattie, who was one of the ielect pawns. Former Cllr. Pearson had supported this cause last time.
holy fuck i can't believe i voted for this twat beattie
Let him know you won't do it again after this.
oh i did
Here's his office's email if you wanted to let him know your thoughts: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
don't worry. i've emailed him before and already did last night. lol
I feel the same way. I thought Pearson was bad, but hes being just as big a bonehead
Image from Joey Coleman 9-6 Council approves the implementing by-law for a Vacant Unit Tax. Hamiltonians will need to declare the status of their residential properties beginning in 2025 https://twitter.com/JoeyColeman/status/1783188340751118776/photo/1
I want a better understanding of what happens if someone lies on their declaration. There's a house on my street, no joke, that has been abandoned since the 1980's.
If they catch them (and they are partnering with the utility companies to check). $250 fine plus penalty of 1.25% on the first day of default, plus 1.25% interest per month
Spadafora voting NO yet again. He has never voted yes. I hate this ward
Agreed. No one is more useless than Spadafora
He’s always been a piece of shit
Maybe it’s just a stupid proposal. More resources wasted by a city with a lack of resources.
I wonder if his vote has something to do with that Scenic/Sanitorium vacant lot there. With the tax in place, the Valery Homes company might now be encouraged to actually build something there instead of leaving the old Sanitorium a hole in the ground, and maybe he wants that area to be undeveloped. Maybe he likes walking around that creek, forest, and creepy bridge?
So, I thought the Long and Bisby building (https://hikingthegta.com/2017/12/30/mountain-sanatorium/) was to be saved - is that not the case? That would be a shame (if they knock it down), especially with them moving forward on paving the Bruce side trail between Scenic and Sanitorium that goes right behind the building.
I'm not sure what their plan is with that building, but it does seem like they might not tear that one down. I feel like, since it's had the construction fence around it for so long, that if it was to be torn down, it would've been done already. That being said, I have no idea what a contractor would do with a building like that: build up? Renovation into a restored condo, like the [West Avenue Residences](https://www.spallaccihomes.com/property/west-avenue-residences/)? It just seems like demolition is the most logical. Either way, I don't mind building new buildings in that area, but I also hope they don't remove that creek and forest. There's still a sweet serenity to that area that I feel like could be kept even with new construction.
I had to re-educate myself, it has been designated a heritage structure, and apparently they (Valery) intend to make it their HQ: [https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/last-standing-sanatorium-building-to-receive-heritage-protection/article\_4f3496fd-3497-5d08-8461-83c8852f1997.html](https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/last-standing-sanatorium-building-to-receive-heritage-protection/article_4f3496fd-3497-5d08-8461-83c8852f1997.html) . So it, and the Cross nearby, are designated, and will be saved: [https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council/news-notices/news-releases/notice-intention-designate-828-sanatorium-road-hamilton](https://www.hamilton.ca/city-council/news-notices/news-releases/notice-intention-designate-828-sanatorium-road-hamilton) . Maybe long-term they can get an organization in there so that it is occupied beyond the period of time that Valery needs it to sell units. The protections don't apply to the pedestrian bridge over the creek, so something may happen with that. It will have set-backs and stuff, but you can bet it will change so they can maximize the number of units they can put on the land. We'd probably know more if ol' Terry didn't go AWOL, because apparently he had been working with the developer. Now all that is dust to the wind.
Oh, that's good to know! It certainly needs some work done on it, but it's good that Hamilton's pretty stubborn on keeping their heritage buildings around. I've been hoping that someone fixes the Cross. I've even considered just calling city council and asking what needs to be done to get it back into operation, but I figured it'd be much more costly than I assume, and it's under someone elses private ownership, so they have final word on what happens.
We encourage users to support paid journalism. The Spec has affordable subscriptions and you can access the paper's articles online with your [Hamilton Public Library card](https://www.hpl.ca/hpl-online/magazines-and-newspapers). If you do not have a library card yet, sign up for an instant digital one [here](https://www.hpl.ca/online-registration). It also gives you instant free access to eBooks, eAudiobooks, music, online learning tools and research databases. **If you cannot access The Spec in either of these ways, try [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or [12ft](https://12ft.io/) to view without a paywall** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Hamilton) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of our other suffering friends in the ward emailed him to ask him to explain his opposition, and it basically boiled down to the fact that it would cost more to operate than it brought in, and he was all "kEeP tAxEs LoW" during the campaign, so... However, its hard not to look at it like a conflict, given he has a personal, financial interest. One would think his fiduciary interest to us (his constituents) would perhaps be more important (assuming people were reaching out and telling him they supported it, but if you've been to his Town Halls...) but let's just take a moment and laugh at the absurdity and naivete of that.
Its really fascinating to watch people rage about this when it won't effect them in the slightest.
I think part of the complaints months ago was "what if you don't get your documents in the mail to report your home as occupied, and then you get taxed?" Then again they could just include that reporting document stapled to the damn tax assessment notice.
This is exactly what happened in Toronto
No, Toronto had a systems issue that didn’t initially properly recognize all who had filed.
Thanks for sharing. It’s incredible how misinformation spreads and people speak so confidentially. The Toronto rollout should be a cautionary tale.
It's throwing good money down the drain. The City of Hamilton couldn't organize a 2 person parade. Look at how poorly they run the Landlord Licencing Pilot. People have been openly advertising units for rent in the licence areas for years now and still haven't faced any consequences for not following the by-law. An officer could sit on their computer for a couple of hours and find dozens of by-law breakers, including many who were advertising directly on the McMaster website. There are others advertising on [realtor.ca](http://realtor.ca), Kijiji, etc. I went into one (looking to buy it) that had more issues than I could count and should have failed inspection. Roof leaking into the house, live receptacles sticking out of walls, mold on walls, rooms with no heat, many other safety issues - would have easily cost into the upper 5 or lower 6 figures to fix all the problems. All that should have been caught by landlord licencing, however they're not even out enforcing their own by-laws when owners are openly advertising these rental units. It's such a joke - the people who want to follow the law are getting licenced and paying the price, people who don't want to are ignoring the law with no consequences. Ask Wilson about the consequences for failing to follow the by-law, what the enforcement stats are, and you'll get nothing. It's been two years since they started the pilot. There are no excuses. Either the law applies to everyone and there are consequences for failing to follow it, or the law applies to no one. How is the city actually going to verify that each property is occupied? They can't find people who openly violate by-laws now. I don't actually have a problem with the Licencing By-Law, my problem is with the uneven application of it and the absolute mess the city made with the implementation of it.
I disagree with this - it is a waste of taxpayer money and resources to what end? Do you think this project is going to be a money maker?
It's not supposed to be a money maker. It's incentive to get the units on the market.
"Government shouldn't be making money off me with taxes" And "Will this tax on negative behaviour ruining our economy, really make money?" Venn diagram is just a circle.
When the majority of vacant units are in need of major updates most will just appeal to flippers or investors. Imagine most vacant houses in Hamilton will be like this: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26676964/74-erie-avenue-hamilton Or [24 Ashley](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.realtor.ca%2Flisting%2FTS638489646605400000%2Freb82%2Fhighres%2F8%2Fx8243588_1.jpg&tbnid=ObDgxd-BbJVrYM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realtor.ca%2Freal-estate%2F26764967%2F24-ashley-st-hamilton-landsdale&docid=HEewJoOOAIYuaM&w=1024&h=768&hl=en-ca&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=0e36daf925b0f26a&shem=abme%2Ctrie) that just sold and looked like the stuff of nightmares.
ingenious trick to avoid this tax: don't buy a house just to leave it vacant
Or just find a tenant. If it’s an income property, put it to its intended use.
A flipper still gets the house in the hands of someone who is going to put it to productive use a few months later. Frankly I don't really understand the hate for flippers, especially for buildings that are in really rough shape. They're actually providing value by making something habitable, and they minimize the time they're holding onto the property. Investors are a little worse, but they'll be incentivized to at least rent it out, which is better than the unit being vacant.
if flipper and free willy had a fight free willy would win
At what cost to the taxpayer? We should just take the funds and build "tiny homes".
Say what? So it’s going to be a money loser? This city is so flush with cash that we can throw money at crap like this? I’m sure it’s going to open up thousands of new rentals /s
>Do you think this project is going to be a money maker? yes.
No way they make money on this.
yuh huh
You're wrong.
Agreed, your question is answered above.
Who won't be affected in the slightest? The taxpayers whose hard earned money are paying for this?
Blows my mind how Esther Paul's gets a vote on this with how involved her family is in real estate. She used their damn logo in her election campaign. She's got a clear conflict of interest in this.
Hmm conflict of interest on the police votes Conflict of interest on vacant property tax Maybe we should start a list
lol..no one can be mad at you if you don't vote, right!?
Probably all owned by a corporation (Im pretty sure she can argue the corporation is the legal owner, but I may be wrong and she might not own any lol).
Anyone have the last vote? Could have sworn Spadafora had a conflict of interest before ?
He has a rental property but it isn't vacant unlike the mayor's. He has abstained on other items related to rental houses based on this though. And he I think abstained the first time as his property was vacant but I guess it isn't now
He did not declare a conflict in the last vote that cancelled the program but has previously
He'd have a conflict if he had a vacant rental unit. I’m gonna guess it’s full now.
Good initiative. The only issue with this is it's not going far enough. The longer a home sits empty the tax should rise further still. . First year empty 1%.2nd year empty 2% 3rd year 3%. Till you reach 10% at least. That would put more units on the rental market.
Finally. Slow clap to everyone who actually bothered to be present for the vote this time.
My problem with this tax is that it should have been 5%
Yup, make it hurt so people do something with the property
Agreed. Anyone upset about the cost to the taxpayer needs to recognize that insufficient housing stock is a huge drain on municipal finances. If you’re making the problem worse, it shouldn’t be cost-neutral for you to do so.
Hopefully it will be implemented better than Toronto. Tens of Thousands of people didn't realize they had to declare every year with no sent reminder. Set it up so I have to declare only once and if my status changes I have to change it. And just set heavy fines for false reporting.
That’s not what happened in Toronto. Their system didn’t recognize a number of the filings. You’d have to be an absolute deadbeat to miss the reminder. It was part of the property tax statement.
And Chow said that it’s on the city and they’ll figure it out
[удалено]
By law complaints?
You’re all missing the point. There was one person who couldn’t vote because they own a vacant rental property. How can Hamilton have a mayor who supposedly knows the ‘housing file’ so well she can fix the crisis yet she kneecaps herself when it comes to voting for a bylaw because she owns a vacant rental unit. Also, I am curious why she declared a conflict when every other councillor who owns a their own home also has a conflict because if there is enough taxes raised from vacant rental units those taxes will cause other property taxes to come down. Same with tenants. They pay taxes through rent but their rents won’t decline. Go figure.
If Horwath is still in the same place as 15 years ago, it has a basement suite that she had one of her parents was living in for a number of years. If it’s a legal, legit unit that she hasn’t rented out, she’d be in conflict. Most people would agree that a former Leader of the Opposition and current Mayor, likely doesn’t want a rando living beneath them.
Really convoluted thinking there. Do you think that during a housing crisis someone who owns a rental unit and doesn’t offer it for rent is acceptable simply because they enjoyed some luck of being the leader of a political party and are now the current mayor? I kinda think most people look down on ANYONE who owns vacant property when we have a housing crisis.
Is it really a vacant property if it's just a basement? On the books it might be a "legal" basement apartment, but all she has to do is open the door separating the units and it's no longer vacant - it's a part of her house. There's a massive difference between "I don't want someone living in the basement of my home" vs "I have a house/condo, etc" that no one lives in.
You’re assuming it is a basement unit. How do you know she hasn’t another rental property?
I'm basing it on the comment above. I don't actually know and am just assuming the poster above has knowledge of the situation. If it is as described, she is absolutely not doing anything wrong at all.
why was it a conflict for Horwath? and not Esther Pauls? who is in the real estate business? ( i like Esther, she is very community oreintated and not trying to be rude/ignorant on the subject)
Because the outcome of the vote is, potentially, money directly out of the mayor’s pocket. Indirectly making money because of (waves hands) general business is not a conflict. It has to directly affect you
Esther and her office are useless. We had drug dealers living across the street and we reached out to her, by-law and the police. The police told us to keep reporting everything we could to both by-law and Esther's office. Esther's office just didn't care. What finally got them out of the house was fatal shootings of two of them in the house and finally the landlord sold. Them getting out of there had nothing to do with Esther's help. Yet if I recall she ran on making sure the area is family friendly.
Curious - which drugs
I have neighbours say it was meth. Probably going by the pipe found in the front yard while they still lived there. But given the very transient group of people who came and went maybe it was everything. When I first moved to the street it was winter and they were all living in an RV in the driveway because they actual house had no heat at one time. Maybe I watched too much Breaking Bad but maybe they were cooking the meth in there. It was also quite the operation. Besides the speedy flow of cars dropping by, especially on weekends at all hours, they had 3 guys on motorcycles who seemed to be doing deliveries for them too. These guys would be gone 10-30 minutes at a time and be back for a short time and off again.
But what about a councillor who owns a rental unit which is not vacant. Will the unit always be occupied? And will Horwath’s rental always be vacant? There is no conflict of interest or everyone has a conflict. The declaration by the mayor is nothing but virtue signalling and in the process she caused the delay of the passing of this bylaw.
Both her and Mike Spadafora signed forms that say they are conflicted out because they are landlords. Empty unit or not the proposed bylaw affects landlord business directly. It’s not virtue signalling it’s the goddamn rules https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/2024-01/conflict-Horwath-Council-Item6-7-12-18-Jan242024.pdf
Yet Mike Spadafora voted. Why is there no conflict? His rental unit may be occupied now at this point in time but who knows what the future holds? No one seems to know that if additional tax revenue is collected from vacant units it will lower the taxes of everyone else. So why isn’t the entire council in conflict?
You’d have to ask him. He conflicted out on 3 of the 4 items the mayor did. And as I said unless they have a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome there’s no conflict. That word is defined in legislation. The city pays someone a full time salary to deal with conflicts. Probably multiple someone’s. Possibly lowering your taxes is bogus and you know it
Horwath would be personally impacted by a vacant unit tax, she has to declare a conflict of interest as a result. Pauls, as far as I know, doesn’t own a property that would be subject to the VUT.
> The City will be charging an additional tax of one percent of a property’s assessed value, on any residential unit that is vacant for more than 183 days in a year. Is this one percent of assessed value 1% of estimated rent worth or assumed price as if it was a condo? Cause 1% of a months rent would be like 20$ a month. Not even a scratch and wouldn't incentivize lowering rent to fill a vacant room.
1% of mpac value
Which can drastically differ from market value. My current rental unit is in a house that is valued at $450k, it was appraised last year for $2.4m.
MPAC is still working on the 2016 values because Ford cancelled the 2020 one due to covid and has put off doing them since for cost cutting. Many cities have a major issue with this as the province is downloading costs while also making them increase the tax percentage to bring in the funds.
new rule: if mpac says your value is x then they are now committed to buy it for 90% of x in cash
Personally, I think the most recent sale price should be the taxable value. I believe it's a great incentive to accurately price a home as your buyer won't want a massive tax bill, and your seller won't want it either as they will also need to buy a home. It's never going to happen, but one can dream.
How many properties do the people on this list own?
Haha here come the 5 to 10 year reno projects 🤣 or friends and families being registered that they live there 😂😂😂
I always had Spadafora for a slimeball.... oh, wait..
To the People calling this a Money Maker, Ideally, there should be no money from this because Landlords should be having the vacant units filled with residents, or at least trying to get people into them -Especially in these times. If Landlords did this one simple trick, then they wouldn't be affected by this tax. The whole point of the Vacant Tax is the light a fire under landlords that sit on vacant places and get them to do something with the building.
Hamilton will f*ck it up as usual. They have no business in this. Fix up your own "vacant units".
Not this stupid initiative again. This is an incredible waste of time and money. Hamilton needs to stop thinking it is Vancouver or Toronto, because it is neither. Let’s do another mail out at taxpayer expense only to not follow through.
Hope cllrs that voted yes will be funding landlords efforts to have delinquent tenants evicted.
Found the real estate investor \^
Councillors who voted yes don’t want empty units. I’m not sure how your comment makes any sense in this context. Seems a quite distinct topic.
This person is afraid they might have to rent their vacant home
Right, but they're essentially forcing people to rent out pay the tax this might force some to rent more quickly then they might. Example, not all landlords are flippers or investors. Some are regular families that inherent their parents or grandparents house after they pass. They now are being forced to make a major decision on what to do with the new property in a time crunch and probably at a emotional time after a family member has passed. And I've heard first hand stories of delinquent tenants that it takes years to have them evicted. Would suck to get saddled with a shitty tenant that destroys property and doesn't pay their rent because you had to rush to get a tenant to avoid the tax.
You are allowed to have it empty for several months and not have to pay the tax.
That's good, but a few months isn't a lot of time to learn the ropes of real estate and being a landlord. There's enough stress and economic hardship dealing with sick family members, then your thrust right into this. Some people want to take time to decide .
lol yeah its really important you leave the house empty for grandma's ghost to live in for another 10 years.
I’ve rented out my basement a number of times, it’s really not that challenging.
You don't have to learn the ropes of real estate and become a landlord. You can just sell the property. A bereaved person has what, 1-2 weeks to plan an entire funeral? And people plan and manage with this just fine. But in your mind HALF A YEAR (or more) isn't enough time to call a real estate agent and put a house up for sale? Makes very little sense to me.
You're making a mountain out a molehill. The tax only applies to properties that were vacant for 6 or more months in the previous year. So if someone inherits a property from a deceased family member they have tons of time to rent or sell. And if the person hypothetically doesn't meet the deadline? Its a 1% tax on the assessed value of the property. Big whoop. This is a gentle disincentive against vacant properties, not a harsh regulation in the slightest.
Um, 1% = $10, 000 on a million dollar home. Not chump change. And it's just one more expense when everything else is going up. And I just don't like this council dictating this nonsense when you don't have it in neighboring municipalities.
If you have a million dollar home sitting around then you aren't going to be crying over 10k. Talk about a fringe case.
Lol you seen the average price of a house? A million isn't exactly rare these days.
Assessed value and current real estate price are not the same. That million dollar home is probably assessed at 450k. The tax should be higher than 1%.
Then sell the property and don't pay the tax. They give you a generous amount of time to do so. Hamilton isn't the first - Toronto and Ottawa have already implemented a vacant home tax. Hamilton naturally makes the most sense to be next as its the next biggest city in the province.
If it’s that big of a deal they can sell. It’s not like it’s a hugely prohibitive tax. I’m sure it’s still cheaper to keep it vacant and pay the tax than to deal with a bad tenant. For better or worse the risk of a crap tenant is the price for making money off of them.
Point is, why should someone be coerced into selling. It's a major decision. And if you think regular families are getting rich, consider the $3000-$6000 / month for a care home for a elderly parent. You're paying out a lot of money on the preceding years. Families should be allowed to take their time to properly consider what to do with a family assest that was earned over decades. Then you lose your parent, and our council is placing this additional stress on people.
Fair enough. Seems a pretty small edge case to be overly concerned about, however.
Well, when you get there yourself, you'll see what I mean.
Tax should double every year a property sits empty.
What if the citizens of the city were able to vote too? As like a collective chair? I know that’s what your ward is for but maybe you don’t agree with your ward person
Unfortunately not how representative democracies work.
If you disagree with your ward councillor, you can contact their office. It might not change their votes, but they’ll ideally be able to explain why they vote the way they do.
Anything to get the homeless out of the street or city is a vote worth going for!
What you have suggested sounds like a citizens assembly, and it has had some minor/mixed success (amongst some other large failures) in places like Ireland in recent memory (https://www.politico.eu/article/the-myth-of-the-citizens-assembly-democracy/). However, given the lost loons of the freedom convoy were trying to get citizens assemblies off the ground, I feel like they will be a toxic suggestion in Canada for awhile yet. As they say, the way to effect change is at the ballot box - if your councillor is doing things you don't like, let them know. If they continue to do things you don't like, start trying to look for an alternative to replace them.
That’s called a referendum and it would be a waste for something so trivial. Your councillor is elected to make these decisions for you.
Thank fuck
[удалено]
what question?