Quote:
Originally Posted by Labroco
I’m suggesting that the “City” payed close to $8,000,000 to acquire the site, did without years of realty tax and incurred carrying costs for a number of years putting its real cost very close to $10,000,000.
If it was sold for $2,800,000 dollars someone ate the difference. That is what the subsidized cost to offer it to a developer for 2.8. vs them buying it from the original owner and ending up in the same spot. If there was no development agreement attached to the site it would be worth even more. This site would not be available today if the “City” did not subsidize this 2.8M opportunity.
That is why I refer to it as subsidized.
(I believe my purchase price number is accurate but may be corrected)
I was also told by CV there was no VTB and cash has changed hands. I have not searched title or reviewed the development agreement so will accept that comment at face value.
|
That’s not what subsided means.
The city bought a business and property with the goal of closing the business. Sold a vacant building at market value. You claimed it is a government subsidized development. No developer received a subsidy.
I hadn’t heard the sky city site had been sold. I heard last week it wasn’t. Must be a fairly new development. A shame if it is going to someone with no intent to build. Demonstrates the importance of city properties coming with development agreements.
I don’t begrudge anyone who owns a parking lot. It’s a cash cow. I just think we should do what other cities have and make it not so lucrative, to nudge development and dissuade demolition. If it drives up parking costs, that’s ok. Good things can come from that too.
Province is definitely the number one recipient of my scorn when it comes to parking lots.