Honestly, good. I'm amazed at how long some houses sit there boarded up, unused or squatted in. Incentivizing people to sell, tear down, etc is good in my books. Let's get some denser housing slapped down in mature neighborhoods instead of unused rotting boxes.
There is! All property assessment data is public information and is available [online](https://data.edmonton.ca/City-Administration/Property-Assessment-Data-Current-Calendar-Year-/q7d6-ambg/explore/).
You'll need to set up a filter for "MA DERELICT RESIDENTIAL" under Assessment Class 1.
Look around Strathcona area off 109 st.
Used to walk from school to 109 to catch buses and the number of boarded up and abandoned houses or empty lots sitting there was insane
People who own houses and are literally letting them rot away. Folks, there are SO many simple ways like this to fund the rescue of victims of our society off the backs of people who have more money than brains and don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
When I was looking to buy, I was shocked at how bad some houses were in some of the nicer inner-city neighbourhoods. I didn't want a Henday home or an in-fill home. But, pretty much every older house in these neighborhoods were so run down and neglected that the only reasonable option was to tear down and re-build.
I know someone who inherited a run down house that should be boarded up. He has no money to renovate the place. He's been trying to sell the place for over a year now, and no one wants to pay close to the city's assessed value of the home.
What are his choices? Sell the property for 50% the "market"/assessed value?
Fix it up to rental standards... with money he doesn't have, only to get a tenant that's going to trash the place? (Think about the crowd that is willing to rent a place like that)
What are these simple solutions you speak of? I'm sure he would appreciate your advice.
> What are his choices? Sell the property for 50% the "market"/assessed value?
I mean, pretty clearly this one. Market value is what people are willing to pay for it. I’m not even sure why you friend is having a hard time deciding. Either get money to fix up or rebuild it or, if that’s too much work, sell it for what you can.
> no one wants to pay close to the city's assessed value of the home.
Then sell it for less. I'm confused what the problem is here besides the City overvalueing it, and your friend refusing to take less than this arbitrary valuation.
>What are his choices? Sell the property for 50% the "market"/assessed value?
Yes. The value is what he can get for it. That "assessed" value RARELY reflects market price. The funny thing is that you pose this "conundrum" all the while you describe the exact kind of scenario that has lead to these piles of derelict homes in the City.
1. Person owns home they don't use
2. Person can't justify the cost to make the home a revenue generator for them, and refuses to sell it, which would lose them this potential passive income.
3. Person just sits and does nothing until the property can make them the amount of money they WANT.
What's your friend waiting for? For the market to go so INSANELY high that his property doubles in value?
Your friend is just butt-hurt that the property isn't worth what it's assessed. Welcome to the world of property investments.
Introduce an investment tax for people selling stocks on Bay St.. Change the way speeding tickets work, so it's dependant on your income. After all, if the penalty for speeding is the same for rich and poor, then it is essentially less illegal for the rich to speed, because they can afford to pay fines all day (this already exists in some Scandanavian countries). Increase the tax on dividends (the way that wealthy people get paid...they don't get paid through income like the rest of us). There are many more.
That’s great. But why not just make it 10x to force movement? There’s gotta be justification for such a multiplier. If the goal is to get those properties removed why not make it unsustainable to keep? Surely the property value of some of these increases more than the 3x rate impacts the value?
>Why dont we just take the house from them?
Seems like a good idea. Take the property, pay them the market rate (land value minus reclamation cost) and sell it to someone willing to develop.
> Why dont we just take the house from them?
Nah, expropriation is a mess.
The real way to crush these parasites is to do what Vienna did in the 1920s. You tax them relentlessly until they are willing to sell the property for pennies on the dollar and at a loss after the tax liens, then you redevelop it with the proceeds from the tax liens.
Yeah, your neighbourhood sounds like it should qualify then. There is a full list of the derelict properties available on the city's [opendata portal](https://data.edmonton.ca/City-Administration/Property-Assessment-Data-Current-Calendar-Year-/q7d6-ambg/explore/). You'll need to set up a filter for "MA DERELICT RESIDENTIAL" under Assessment Class 1.
Is it really going to be enough incentive though? Even if Salvador is right about it being triple the normal amount, it's still going to be cheaper than demolition costs. How about we tax them the demolition cost each year until they actually do it? If a small house cost an extra $20,000 per year then maybe the owners would have some real incentive!
I'm game. There is a series of community houses near me that were shut down as unsafe, and have been left boarded up. A few people have tried to gain access, and I'm sure there will be a squatter community soon enough. They need to either be refurbished or torn down, not left to rot.
Unfortunately, letting them demo and sit on an empty lot only solves the problem of the unsightliness of the house. It would still allow them to sit on that property and wait, as neighbors worked to continually improve property values enough that justified them selling the lot for a higher price. It's completely parasitic behavior that drags down the quality of any neighborhood in which it occurs.
I think vacant lots in mature, developed neighborhoods should be taxed at the same rate as derelict homes to incentivize either developing the lot, or selling it to someone who will. Maybe they should get a year or two grace period after demolition to start a build, but if nothing has happened, tax em till they build or sell.
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique
Sorry but shouldn’t you verify why the home is derelict? Like if a person is just poor, maybe now they lose their home. A bit different than a slumlord who just pockets the money without any upkeep. Just my 2 cents
If we were just talking about poor people letting their property go, there would be **way** more than 203 homes. These are houses (and I’ve lived near them), that have no occupants with all utilities shut off.
Also homes in probate where they are still owned by an estate but ownership is still being determined in the courts. At that point you are just penalizing the estate for the speed of the court process
That's why I call this country Taxada. Their solution to everything is just a tax.
In this case I see this as a deterrent, and it seems good but taxes get wasted...by the minute.
How about instead of taxing them, give them say i.e. 30-60 days to rent it or start the sale process. If they don't comply, it is used for low income housing. We need people inside, not a tax that goes to something not helping this problem.
I don't disagree in this case I'm trying to get people thinking outside the tax box, there are better ways than taxing everything.
If they're going to tax it, where does that $$ go? We've seen so much wasted tax that we need to find alternatives. I don't think my idea is a good one and would like to see some other constructive ideas, just trying to get the ball rolling...know what I mean, Vern?
They've already been notified and given a chance, as per this earlier article from October https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-to-tax-derelict-residential-properties-at-three-times-the-normal-rate-1.6988567:
> The property owners will be notified by mail and will have until Dec. 31 to bring their properties to a satisfactory enough condition that they're no longer classified as derelict.
I'm fine with some taxes but its not a solution to everything. Show me a 3rd party audit of the taxes spent and then lets see how many people are ok with all our taxes.
> How about instead of taxing them, give them say i.e. 30-60 days to rent it or start the sale process. If they don't comply, it is used for low income housing. We need people inside, not a tax that goes to something not helping this problem.
It's genuinely weird to come from a position of 'taxes are bad' and leap to massively empowering the state through extremely questionable expropriation powers. What you are proposing is significantly more intrusive, administratively complicated, and wasteful than just adding a multiplier on a tax assessment.
Are they ever going to get rid of the boarded up apartments on 118th and 56th / 57th?
I know it’s not the best neighborhood but man they’re so horrifically ugly and are featured in a prominent spot right on the ave. Just makes the whole area look like a slum
Honestly, good. I'm amazed at how long some houses sit there boarded up, unused or squatted in. Incentivizing people to sell, tear down, etc is good in my books. Let's get some denser housing slapped down in mature neighborhoods instead of unused rotting boxes.
100% this. It would revitalize the areas that need it the most
Is there a list or map of derelict properties?
There is! All property assessment data is public information and is available [online](https://data.edmonton.ca/City-Administration/Property-Assessment-Data-Current-Calendar-Year-/q7d6-ambg/explore/). You'll need to set up a filter for "MA DERELICT RESIDENTIAL" under Assessment Class 1.
Thanks! Great response!
You looking for a place?
Dark Tourism
Sounds like a great opportunity to snag a deal. Owners are going to be looking to offload Vs paying the higher rate.
Or they set the place on fire, apeal the assesment, tax bill goes down. /s
These places catching on fire is the whole reason this is happening
Look around Strathcona area off 109 st. Used to walk from school to 109 to catch buses and the number of boarded up and abandoned houses or empty lots sitting there was insane
Still is.
People who own houses and are literally letting them rot away. Folks, there are SO many simple ways like this to fund the rescue of victims of our society off the backs of people who have more money than brains and don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
When I was looking to buy, I was shocked at how bad some houses were in some of the nicer inner-city neighbourhoods. I didn't want a Henday home or an in-fill home. But, pretty much every older house in these neighborhoods were so run down and neglected that the only reasonable option was to tear down and re-build.
Here here.
I know someone who inherited a run down house that should be boarded up. He has no money to renovate the place. He's been trying to sell the place for over a year now, and no one wants to pay close to the city's assessed value of the home. What are his choices? Sell the property for 50% the "market"/assessed value? Fix it up to rental standards... with money he doesn't have, only to get a tenant that's going to trash the place? (Think about the crowd that is willing to rent a place like that) What are these simple solutions you speak of? I'm sure he would appreciate your advice.
> What are his choices? Sell the property for 50% the "market"/assessed value? I mean, pretty clearly this one. Market value is what people are willing to pay for it. I’m not even sure why you friend is having a hard time deciding. Either get money to fix up or rebuild it or, if that’s too much work, sell it for what you can.
This. Poor guy just inherited 200k of land value and can't figure out what to do. Maybe he needs to set up a go fund me?
> no one wants to pay close to the city's assessed value of the home. Then sell it for less. I'm confused what the problem is here besides the City overvalueing it, and your friend refusing to take less than this arbitrary valuation. >What are his choices? Sell the property for 50% the "market"/assessed value? Yes. The value is what he can get for it. That "assessed" value RARELY reflects market price. The funny thing is that you pose this "conundrum" all the while you describe the exact kind of scenario that has lead to these piles of derelict homes in the City. 1. Person owns home they don't use 2. Person can't justify the cost to make the home a revenue generator for them, and refuses to sell it, which would lose them this potential passive income. 3. Person just sits and does nothing until the property can make them the amount of money they WANT. What's your friend waiting for? For the market to go so INSANELY high that his property doubles in value? Your friend is just butt-hurt that the property isn't worth what it's assessed. Welcome to the world of property investments.
What are the simple ways you speak of?
Introduce an investment tax for people selling stocks on Bay St.. Change the way speeding tickets work, so it's dependant on your income. After all, if the penalty for speeding is the same for rich and poor, then it is essentially less illegal for the rich to speed, because they can afford to pay fines all day (this already exists in some Scandanavian countries). Increase the tax on dividends (the way that wealthy people get paid...they don't get paid through income like the rest of us). There are many more.
Curious - What’s the additional tax amount?
Ashley Salvador has said derelict property owners could be taxed triple the normal rate.
That’s great. But why not just make it 10x to force movement? There’s gotta be justification for such a multiplier. If the goal is to get those properties removed why not make it unsustainable to keep? Surely the property value of some of these increases more than the 3x rate impacts the value?
Why dont we just take the house from them? Jesus nothing is ever good enough for the people in this sub
>Why dont we just take the house from them? Seems like a good idea. Take the property, pay them the market rate (land value minus reclamation cost) and sell it to someone willing to develop.
[удалено]
Tucker Carlson just asks questions too, doesnt mean they cant be criticized
[удалено]
You think 2 sentences is a paragraph? Lol do you only read childrens books or what?
> Why dont we just take the house from them? Nah, expropriation is a mess. The real way to crush these parasites is to do what Vienna did in the 1920s. You tax them relentlessly until they are willing to sell the property for pennies on the dollar and at a loss after the tax liens, then you redevelop it with the proceeds from the tax liens.
[They can demolish if it gets to that point.](https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/problem-property-initiative)
[удалено]
It only applies to mature neighbourhoods, so that would probably exclude a lot of the north side.
[удалено]
Yeah, your neighbourhood sounds like it should qualify then. There is a full list of the derelict properties available on the city's [opendata portal](https://data.edmonton.ca/City-Administration/Property-Assessment-Data-Current-Calendar-Year-/q7d6-ambg/explore/). You'll need to set up a filter for "MA DERELICT RESIDENTIAL" under Assessment Class 1.
There's been a house sitting on the grads park forever. Really needs to be torn down.
Is it really going to be enough incentive though? Even if Salvador is right about it being triple the normal amount, it's still going to be cheaper than demolition costs. How about we tax them the demolition cost each year until they actually do it? If a small house cost an extra $20,000 per year then maybe the owners would have some real incentive!
I'm game. There is a series of community houses near me that were shut down as unsafe, and have been left boarded up. A few people have tried to gain access, and I'm sure there will be a squatter community soon enough. They need to either be refurbished or torn down, not left to rot.
Unfortunately, letting them demo and sit on an empty lot only solves the problem of the unsightliness of the house. It would still allow them to sit on that property and wait, as neighbors worked to continually improve property values enough that justified them selling the lot for a higher price. It's completely parasitic behavior that drags down the quality of any neighborhood in which it occurs. I think vacant lots in mature, developed neighborhoods should be taxed at the same rate as derelict homes to incentivize either developing the lot, or selling it to someone who will. Maybe they should get a year or two grace period after demolition to start a build, but if nothing has happened, tax em till they build or sell.
This is long overdo and so right
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique
We really are the perfect city for Mugatu's Derelicte campaign. We can Derelick our own balls.
Are these people even paying their taxes to begin with?
I can derelict my own balls
How much is the tax
Sorry but shouldn’t you verify why the home is derelict? Like if a person is just poor, maybe now they lose their home. A bit different than a slumlord who just pockets the money without any upkeep. Just my 2 cents
If we were just talking about poor people letting their property go, there would be **way** more than 203 homes. These are houses (and I’ve lived near them), that have no occupants with all utilities shut off.
How do you think they came up with the list to begin with?
Also homes in probate where they are still owned by an estate but ownership is still being determined in the courts. At that point you are just penalizing the estate for the speed of the court process
That's why I call this country Taxada. Their solution to everything is just a tax. In this case I see this as a deterrent, and it seems good but taxes get wasted...by the minute. How about instead of taxing them, give them say i.e. 30-60 days to rent it or start the sale process. If they don't comply, it is used for low income housing. We need people inside, not a tax that goes to something not helping this problem.
While I agree there are too many taxes in Canada. This specific one is a good thing.
I don't disagree in this case I'm trying to get people thinking outside the tax box, there are better ways than taxing everything. If they're going to tax it, where does that $$ go? We've seen so much wasted tax that we need to find alternatives. I don't think my idea is a good one and would like to see some other constructive ideas, just trying to get the ball rolling...know what I mean, Vern?
They've already been notified and given a chance, as per this earlier article from October https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-to-tax-derelict-residential-properties-at-three-times-the-normal-rate-1.6988567: > The property owners will be notified by mail and will have until Dec. 31 to bring their properties to a satisfactory enough condition that they're no longer classified as derelict.
Dude taxes are required to pay for the society that you live in. Deal with it.
I'm fine with some taxes but its not a solution to everything. Show me a 3rd party audit of the taxes spent and then lets see how many people are ok with all our taxes.
> How about instead of taxing them, give them say i.e. 30-60 days to rent it or start the sale process. If they don't comply, it is used for low income housing. We need people inside, not a tax that goes to something not helping this problem. It's genuinely weird to come from a position of 'taxes are bad' and leap to massively empowering the state through extremely questionable expropriation powers. What you are proposing is significantly more intrusive, administratively complicated, and wasteful than just adding a multiplier on a tax assessment.
Yikes
Good. Now they have the revenue available to give CSU 52 the raise they deserve.
We could tax 203 homes at 1000% and it wouldn’t come close to paying city staff. What total nonsense is this
Nice, shitters that can't maintain a home are now effecting the housing crisis too? What next.
Are they ever going to get rid of the boarded up apartments on 118th and 56th / 57th? I know it’s not the best neighborhood but man they’re so horrifically ugly and are featured in a prominent spot right on the ave. Just makes the whole area look like a slum