HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #921  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 3:34 AM
kool maudit's Avatar
kool maudit kool maudit is offline
five one foreigner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 11,438
This discussion has become pitiful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #922  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 4:39 AM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
Yes the buildings were empty and unsafe to occupy. But I have a right to leave my property empty. While dangerous to those inside there were no safety issues for those on the street. I’m shocked at the lack of disregard for private property rights here. Does democracy die so easily?
Expropriation is a valid and legal avenue for governments to acquire land for the public good. It happens everywhere around the world, even Western, liberal democracies.

The valuation of the properties on the other hand, reflect the extremely poor shape the buildings are in; see this city report:

https://council.vancouver.ca/2019110...ents/cfsc2.pdf

Page 13 for the Balmoral; page 20 for the Regent.

Basically, for the Balmoral, an independent assessment of the building's condition indicated that the building had negative value; the costs of renovation to completely fix all of the issues, renovate the building, and remove all of the hazardous waste would indicated a negative value of -$22,960,000. The land value less demolition and hazardous material removal costs also indicated a negative value of -$240,000.

For the Regent, the same assessment of the building, factoring in the costs of renovation to completely fix all of the issues, renovate the building, and remove all of the hazardous waste would indicated a negative value of -$17,840,000. The land value less demolition and hazardous material removal costs also indicated a negative value of -$100,000.

So, basically negative value; the buildings and the lot they sit on are effectively worthless; in fact they are giant money pits full of hazmat.

And yes, the buildings are a public safety hazard; both buildings are considered structurally unsound, and in the case of the Regent, from what I was told, the structural iron beams in the basement had completely rusted through and the building is being supported by jack stands; the building could literally topple over on the street. It's that bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #923  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 4:42 AM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
Expropriation is a valid and legal avenue for governments to acquire land for the public good. It happens everywhere around the world, even Western, liberal democracies.

The valuation of the properties on the other hand, reflect the extremely poor shape the buildings are in; see this city report:

https://council.vancouver.ca/2019110...ents/cfsc2.pdf

Page 13 for the Balmoral; page 20 for the Regent.

Basically, for the Balmoral, an independent assessment of the building's condition indicated that the building had negative value; the costs of renovation to completely fix all of the issues, renovate the building, and remove all of the hazardous waste would indicated a negative value of -$22,960,000. The land value less demolition and hazardous material removal costs also indicated a negative value of -$240,000.

For the Regent, the same assessment of the building, factoring in the costs of renovation to completely fix all of the issues, renovate the building, and remove all of the hazardous waste would indicated a negative value of -$17,840,000. The land value less demolition and hazardous material removal costs also indicated a negative value of -$100,000.

So, basically negative value; the buildings and the lot they sit on are effectively worthless; in fact they are giant money pits full of hazmat.

And yes, the buildings are a public safety hazard; both buildings are considered structurally unsound, and in the case of the Regent, from what I was told, the structural iron beams in the basement had completely rusted through and the building is being supported by jack stands; the building could literally topple over on the street. It's that bad.
The city had offered millions for the buildings a few months before so are you saying they suddenly changed? Or is the government cheating?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #924  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 5:10 AM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
The city had offered millions for the buildings a few months before so are you saying they suddenly changed? Or is the government cheating?
That was last year, before the city called in some appraisers to assess the buildings, as the city was still trying to entice them to sell.

The report on the building's conditions is dated October 28, 2019, with another report back in Febuary 25, 2019. That report put the negative valuation on paper as being official but practically everyone knew that due to the conditions at the two buildings, the zoning of the area, the buildings and the land they sat on are effectively worthless.

Remember, the two buildings are condemned due to safety concerns. Coupled with the cost of ongoing security to monitor the two buildings, it'll cost more to knock the buildings down and remove all of the hazmat than what the buildings are worth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #925  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 2:44 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
That was last year, before the city called in some appraisers to assess the buildings, as the city was still trying to entice them to sell.

The report on the building's conditions is dated October 28, 2019, with another report back in Febuary 25, 2019. That report put the negative valuation on paper as being official but practically everyone knew that due to the conditions at the two buildings, the zoning of the area, the buildings and the land they sat on are effectively worthless.

Remember, the two buildings are condemned due to safety concerns. Coupled with the cost of ongoing security to monitor the two buildings, it'll cost more to knock the buildings down and remove all of the hazmat than what the buildings are worth.
So if crime is high in the neighborhood and your house is near collapse and empty can the government take away your property for a $1?

Seriously the city that provides policing services is complaining that they need to provide police to keep taxpayers safe?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #926  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 4:09 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 10,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
So if crime is high in the neighborhood and your house is near collapse and empty can the government take away your property for a $1?

Seriously the city that provides policing services is complaining that they need to provide police to keep taxpayers safe?
Stop it with your false equivalencies. A democratically elected city council acted in the best interests of the citizens of Vancouver. The vote was unanimous. Please feel free to form your own party and run on your naive libertarian ideas.

You've been presented with detailed evidence on the history of these slumlords and how they have abused their tenants, employees, and the city at large.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #927  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 5:57 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
The city had offered millions for the buildings a few months before so are you saying they suddenly changed? Or is the government cheating?
The offers were turned down.

We do live in an earthquake zone. Given the high of the building and where they are located, if they are in as bad a condition as reported they are a hazard to anyone near them or property next door.

An alternative, would have been the city going in to correct the problem and make the building safe and then sending the bill to the owners with a lien against the property.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #928  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 8:33 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
The city had offered millions for the buildings a few months before so are you saying they suddenly changed? Or is the government cheating?
Do you even read the articles?

The Sahotas refused to sell for millions.

Therefore the city had to step in and expropriate as the buildings had become a public hazard. Surely you're not suggesting the city should have just continued using your tax money to repair the buildings for the Sahotas, when the Sahotas never repaid those debts?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #929  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 8:53 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Do you even read the articles?

The Sahotas refused to sell for millions.

Therefore the city had to step in and expropriate as the buildings had become a public hazard. Surely you're not suggesting the city should have just continued using your tax money to repair the buildings for the Sahotas, when the Sahotas never repaid those debts?
Any reasonable person would say a situation where someone refuses your first offer and you take it anyway without compensation is wrong. Support of the majority does not mean you are above the rule of law. Had they never made the offer or given compensation equivalent to their offer it would be “fairer” but now it just seems like an abuse of power.

The majority in Canada would say take all the houses from foreigners and give them to Canadians. But is that something we should do? No because we have laws and long term breaking the laws and principles of our society will ruin us. What the city did may be legal (I suspect in court they will lose and be forced to pay more) but other then legality it raises the issue of the principles of our society and I would say they’ve broken them.

And btw the person who pointed out the earthquake risk made a good point if someone has been warned about the risk I would say fine them and if they continue then take it away and give them what it’s worth. To my knowledge though this building is not riskier to people on the street than some others downtown only to those inside and currently it’s empty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #930  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 9:22 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
Any reasonable person would say a situation where someone refuses your first offer and you take it anyway without compensation is wrong. Support of the majority does not mean you are above the rule of law. Had they never made the offer or given compensation equivalent to their offer it would be “fairer” but now it just seems like an abuse of power.

The majority in Canada would say take all the houses from foreigners and give them to Canadians.
The DTES in Vancouver is beyond the pale. It's full of large numbers of people with mental health and addiction problems. Most of them are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. They are not getting the services they need and they are preyed on by some of the business and property owners in the area. They are dying of overdoses by the hundreds every year now in Vancouver. This problem has been going on for decades and has been getting worse, not better.

It's not a situation where the city can sit back and adopt a laissez-faire attitude and real estate markets and foreign owners are not significant factors here except to the extent that they interfere with the imperative to build thousands of units of housing suitable for people with severe mental health and addiction problems.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #931  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 3:11 AM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post

And btw the person who pointed out the earthquake risk made a good point if someone has been warned about the risk I would say fine them and if they continue then take it away and give them what it’s worth. To my knowledge though this building is not riskier to people on the street than some others downtown only to those inside and currently it’s empty.
The buildings were a safety hazard to the general public even without a natural disaster; the buildings are structurally unsound and could suddenly collapse. As I noted, one of the buildings is only being held up by jack stands because the structural beams in the basement had rusted away and collapsed. The other isn't any better.

And the Sahotas had amassed literally THOUSANDS of bylaw infractions that they refused to respond to.

We're not talking about a property owner that let things get run down and was unpopular with their tenants. We're talking about owners who ran the buildings as a persistent health hazard for years and refused to spend the money they were earning to do anything about it.

Now the city has two rotting buildings that could come down any moment with an owner that doesn't give a crap about them and it's entirely reasonable that they'd expropriate the buildings for an amount that reflects the work that will be needed to deal with the buildings in their current state.

The city is already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to pay for security and to temporarily shore up the buildings until they can either be demoed or repaired, and will probably have to spend millions to either demolish or repair the buildings so they aren't public health hazards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #932  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 3:20 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho View Post
The buildings were a safety hazard to the general public even without a natural disaster; the buildings are structurally unsound and could suddenly collapse. As I noted, one of the buildings is only being held up by jack stands because the structural beams in the basement had rusted away and collapsed. The other isn't any better.

And the Sahotas had amassed literally THOUSANDS of bylaw infractions that they refused to respond to.

We're not talking about a property owner that let things get run down and was unpopular with their tenants. We're talking about owners who ran the buildings as a persistent health hazard for years and refused to spend the money they were earning to do anything about it.

Now the city has two rotting buildings that could come down any moment with an owner that doesn't give a crap about them and it's entirely reasonable that they'd expropriate the buildings for an amount that reflects the work that will be needed to deal with the buildings in their current state.

The city is already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to pay for security and to temporarily shore up the buildings until they can either be demoed or repaired, and will probably have to spend millions to either demolish or repair the buildings so they aren't public health hazards.
They probably have some other property the city can also go after.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #933  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 9:56 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,356
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50485521

This seems like a powder keg that could blow and start off WW3.
Quote:
Israel and Syria exchange fire, Syrian aerial defense batteries destroyed, Israeli military says

Israel says it has hit dozens of targets in Syria belonging to the government and allied Iranian forces.

The Israeli military says the "wide-scale strikes" responded to rockets fired by an Iranian unit into Israel.

Syria says two civilians died and that Syrian air defences shot down most of the missiles over Damascus. Other reports say the death toll was higher.

Local reports said loud explosions were heard in the capital. Pictures on social media showed a number of fires.

Israel has carried out hundreds of strikes in Syria since the civil war broke out in 2011.

It has been trying to thwart what it calls Iran's "military entrenchment" there and block shipments of Iranian weapons to Lebanon's Hezbollah movement.

But the latest operation was one of the broadest attacks to date, says the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher in Jerusalem.

A senior Israeli security official said the Israelis had decided on a powerful retaliatory strike to signal they were "changing the rules" - that even a small attack from Syria would trigger an extensive response, our correspondent reports.
I know Iran is suffering from political turmoil at home which usually means they need a war/cause to unite them. Support for Israel is also low among Western nations (except America) while hate for Israel is high among Middle Eastern nations. It seems like the situation continues to escalate and is approaching an all out war. Honestly our problems just look so small in perspective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #934  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 10:15 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50485521

This seems like a powder keg that could blow and start off WW3.


I know Iran is suffering from political turmoil at home which usually means they need a war/cause to unite them. Support for Israel is also low among Western nations (except America) while hate for Israel is high among Middle Eastern nations. It seems like the situation continues to escalate and is approaching an all out war. Honestly our problems just look so small in perspective.
It was very sad to see Canada stab Israel in the back yesterday at the U.N.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #935  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 10:27 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 17,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
It was very sad to see Canada stab Israel in the back yesterday at the U.N.
I'm surprised that this Government maintained the Harper policy shift as long as it did.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #936  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 11:01 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
I'm surprised that this Government maintained the Harper policy shift as long as it did.
Is it possible that Freeland agreed with Harper's policy?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #937  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 11:31 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 17,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Is it possible that Freeland agreed with Harper's policy?
Could be, although she was still Minister when Canada voted yesterday. Or, as the article suggests, we could be reacting negatively to shifts in U.S. policy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #938  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 11:34 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
It was very sad to see Canada stab Israel in the back yesterday at the U.N.
More like glad not see Canada follow Trump's slavish buttkissing of Nutyahoo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #939  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 12:13 AM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
More like glad not see Canada follow Trump's slavish buttkissing of Nutyahoo.
Israel is a member of NATO that has always been supportive of Canada. In addition they are a trading partner and house a lot of advanced research/manufacturing that does and will benefit us.

Meanwhile our relationship with the Middle East is poor at best.

I know who had my vote. If the Middle East wins we gain nothing but lose an ally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #940  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 12:49 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
It was very sad to see Canada stab Israel in the back yesterday at the U.N.
This is probably the one and only time I will ever agree with you on anything.
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.