Friday, January 11, 2008

Four More Years ?!?

That’s how long we’re putting the Community Improvement Plans for Sandwich, Downtown, Glengarry-Marentette, Ford City and Little River on hold. There have literally been hundreds of thousands of hours--those of our salaried administrative staff and the volunteer hours of prominent community leaders and residents--that have been invested into these documents.

Community Improvement Plans are a provincial governments requirement prior to a municipality requesting any incentive that would require a contribution from them. I’ve argued many times that Windsor is one of the largest cities in North America that has not offered targeted incentives to revitalized core neighbourhoods. London is our nearest Canadian example, and Detroit being our nearest geographical one. They’ve worked for both of those cities, as London has seen 5 new high rise apartments built in their core, and Detroit saw a population increase of over a thousand people in their core while the rest of the city had its population decrease by over 50 thousand.

Here is a brochure of incentives London has been offering for a decade. I don’t mind being a bit behind London when it comes to economic development, but waiting over 10 years is ridiculous. Tax Incentive Financing is the best example of an incentive that the experts say does not cost the taxpayers one red cent. Rate increases are phased in over 10 years on new investment, while the municipality still collects the taxes on the existing property as it was prior to the new investment. The city only gives up any revenue it wouldn't have received without the incentive. If we would have started this 10 years ago, the phase in would be done by now on any new developments that we would have seen. Not only that, but the province would be kicking in their portion of this tax incentive so technically we’d be getting provincial funding that I believe would be far greater than the costs of completing the community Improvement plan in itself.

Here is a great powerpoint presentation from New Mexico that explains the concept and benefits of TIF’s.

The effectiveness of this type of incentive has only been debated in Windsor. The debate has ended in 48 U.S. states and every other Canadian city in favour of this economic development tool. Think of it this way, had we simply completed one before we moved on to another, we would now have had the incentives in place for 3 years and would be able to judge them on their effectiveness, for a fraction of the costs invested.

This is not a give away. Windsorites claim they want “tax cuts now” and the best way to get them is to stop suburban sprawl. Core development saves moneys on infrastructure, less fire stations, road widenings and a host of other costs associated with sprawl.

We simply can’t afford to wait 4 more years to finish the Community Improvement Plans to help restart core development.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

When was the community improvement plan for sandwich put on hold?

I thought the consultants were engaged in step two of the process.

Anonymous said...

I thought I'd pass along this letter to the editor from today's newspaper. I think the author wrote it in support of Scale Down's obvious mission to praise the good in our city and fight for what's right...

Reopen Capitol and bring life back to downtown

It is time for the citizens of Windsor to fight for our city. We have to stop living in doom and gloom. Cars and factories are not our only identity. It is time to open our eyes and see all that Windsor has to offer. The Capitol Theatre should not simply become a memory. It should remain open and active. A group of talented young people recently brought life back to the Capitol with their production of Les Miserables. This magnificent building can bring our community together and bring life to downtown Windsor. The Capitol Theatre is a celebration of our culture. It needs to survive to encourage our community to celebrate who we are and to dream about what is to come.

REBECCA PARE
Windsor

Mark Boscariol said...

I might be wrong Chris but I thought all CIP's were put on hold.

If sandwich is not on hold its the only one but there sure hasn't been an application that I know of for development incentives.

Even though every CIP is different everyone I've seen (at least 10 different cities) has recommended Tax Incentive financing, waiving of development charges etc.. for builidng new and converting never to be used again office space to residential

In addition to putting an RFP on hold, How many people know that they can get grants in City center west for fixing up storefronts and housing? Pretty bad PR job

Mark Boscariol said...

There is no justification for a CIP to take longer than 8 months.

The only thng extra thats holding up beyond this is a recommendation to do a housing market study that might cost about $100,000. I think its debateable whether thats necessary, let the developers determine the market, they know it best.

Anonymous said...

Mark, when I went over the CIP for downtown (urban village) I looked for incentives for individual houses and it was so "legalese" I couldn't figure out what they were offering. I did figure out how developers would get their incentives but for the individual household it was impossible.

As for the RFP, we are still waiting. I was told by the city they are waiting on the UofW to make their decision but this flies in the face of the CIP that the city has developed for downtown.

The urban village is a key part of that CIP and no where does it say the UofW must build here only that they want mixed-use. Great, I think it is a wonderful idea but why is the city abandoning the urban village portion of it all?

This is exactly where the city is failing its residents in a number of ways.
1) no taxes collected on these lands that sit vacant. Thus having to raise taxes due to a smaller tax base.

2) the ignoring of our neighbourhoods especially those in the center fo the city.

3) the continued stalling only keeps the unemployment figures high. Considering housing starts are where they were in 1984 houw many construction jobs are being lost due to inaction?

4) with no employment people will move out of the city thus bringing us back to #1.

I know I will not wait another 4 years until the city decides to do something. It would then be another few years before a developer would actually break ground. I can't afford to wait that long unless my taxes go down as they should considering the price of houses have dropped 15%. But we know MPAC won't reduce our assessments will they?

I guess I should look at moving to another city that acutally does what they say. I know a few that really do care about the residents and back their statements up with ACTION!

Slowly I am losing my patience with Windsor. I am sure a few councillors will be glad when I am gone but (not tooting my own horn)the city will suffer when those of us who continue to try and change things only pack up and leave. But at least Windsor will have the rah! Rah! Rah! Champions still to sing the praises of the lethargic.

I offer any councillor the chance to debate in private or public what exactly has been so darn good and where we should be going. The fact remains we don't have another 4 years. We only have TODAY to get going!

Anonymous said...

?The developers know the market the best"? Isn't that a major part of the problem with urban sprawl and the monotonous dreck we've been supplied - the developers just build what's easiest and a proven money-maker - raised ranch housing in the middle of farm fields?

The housing portion of any CIP must include non-negotiable parameters as far as Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR), density and tenure goes. Just like James was talking about his "city friend" and how the developers were able to weasle their way out of any progressive policies that were in place, the same should go for the CIP's.

Mark Boscariol said...

Dave, I do not disagree with you. I'm worried that if we force the politicians to act before they're ready, we'll end up with an affordable housing project

I want to see the cut flooded for the estimated 12million it would take.

Urbane Cyclist. I didn't mean it that way, trust me, I'm not happy about the products developers have been giving us.

I only meant that they could determine the upper price range for the urban village such as whether the highest end units are sellable at $250,000 or at $350,000
The projecty itself should have units available at many different price ranges

I just really don't want to wait for a $100,000 market study that is the main cause of the CIP's being on hold.

Anonymous said...

What wrong with affordable housing?

Mark Boscariol said...

Actually I wrote on another blog and should have also elaborated here that there are numerous examples of urban villages that have an affordable housing component

It would be wrong for both the users and non users of affordable housing to make the entire urban village affordable housing.

I was instructed by experts that if you want to see a successful urban village with an affordable housing component, you have to build the lowest priced units last after the others have sold. Otherwise the units in the other price points won't get built.

If we build the entire village out of affordable housing we'll have a project that stigmatizes its residents. Thats not good for anyone.

Anonymous said...

Given Fast Eddie's penchant for fighting with the senior levels of government, I don't think it's realistic to expect McGuinty and friends to throw our money into community improvement plans. Windsor is receiving BIF funds. There's that sense of entitlement shining through.

Anonymous said...

MR. Scherer, no one is asking McGuinty for money for these projects. These are CIP's already on the bookds. What is needed to someone to see them through.

Anonymous, there already is an abundance of affordable housing surrounding the downtown. The issue is slum and absentee landlords and the decrepit shape some of the houses are in. Tha tis why we need clear incentives for people to refurbish these homes.

Mark, I know that Habitat for Humanity is waiting in the wings for this and I agree with you that Eddie will do anything at this point to show that he is at least "doing something".

I forgot about the rail cut and the proposed flooding of it (how fantastic would that be?!). But I was under the impression that the rail cut is owned by a private entity from London.

I have always believed that you reach for the stars so that way when a project is complete you may not have reached the stars but you come out far better than you would have if you just put in half measures.

Mark, I understand Mr. Horwitz would like to have a downtown task force with input from business, gov't and residents. That is a great idea!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't all of this land traded off for the east end arena? Isn't that why this CIP was nicked? Didn't the Harbour Commissioner or Core of Engineers or someone put a damper on the cut? Who's got a good memory? (and the cut was so many proposals ago)

Adriano Ciotoli said...

from what ive always understood, and i could be wrong, is that the land given away for the arena land is the plot immediately west of the art gallery on riverside.

can anyone confirm this?

Anonymous said...

The land WEST of the new bus terminal is where the arena was supposed to go. All of the adjacent lands were to be used for parking. The interim casino was west of the art gallery and the surrounding land, what was left of it, was bulldozed because the land owners could make a quick buck with surface lots. It has stayed the same since.

Interesting to note that the land next to the gallery was given to Eddie's pal (Fariah or something to that effect) for the land swap but the city. If Fariah is ever going to build on that lot (I'm not holding my breath regardless of what he has done for downtown London as this is Windsor afterall) the city will have to pay to the tune of approx. $250,000 to remove the old brewery foundation that still exits under the ground. What did we get in the trade just some crappy land behind a shuttered factory. Now tell me, who got shafted in that trade off?

Mark Boscariol said...

Ï also thought flooding the cut might be past. To give the man the credit he deserves, This was always championed by Fulvio Valentinis more than anyone else.

It was brought up in a brief conversation with the Mayor (by him). To the best of my recollection he threw out a cost of $12 million. The mayor seemed to be a big proponent of flooding the cut. Kudo`s

I`d like to see a cost of widening it an additional 50-60 ft and allowing boats to park perpendicular instead of parallel to the cut. This could make a mini marina.

As to the Farhi land, almost every day I hear a new conspiracy theory about his relationship with the mayor. Or some nonsense about the mayor`s connections with land adjacent. Thats completely absurd

YOu can fault Eddie for many things, but the guys not stupid. He knows his opponents are scrutinizing everything he does to an absurd degree. If anyone could show an improper relationship it would be on the front of every discussion forum, blog etc...

The city traded one acre of the 6.5 they own. I would have opposed this had I had the chance because it is the most valuable acre and the land was too small to begin with to entice a large development. I don`t want to see this parcel divided up anymore before the RFP.

I`m assuming Farhi will develop a highrise as soon as an anchor is found for the property.

As far as I`m concerned its not the best strategy for development for this property but at least it is a strategy. For the last 20 years we`ve had an unworkable and unrealistic strategy