Nice one Guelph. Minimum 47 more cars on ill prepared roads in our neck of the woods. Approved variances, by cognitively vacant city staff, reduce setbacks by not less than 25% up to 50%...but, hey, 47 new property tax rolls...which will amount to zero impact on current or future taxpayers. Foresight is a thing of the past.
If you would like homes to not sit vacant then start holding squatters and delinquent non paying tenants to account! When all levels of government use fear as their motivation for everything why do you think the risk of renting to a potential professional tenant or having to deal with thousands of dollars in property damage would be any different? No one actually wants to take a loss, a good amount of people are simply hedging their bets. We certainly didn't have these issues when this wasn't a common headline in the news! Also how dare you tell people what to do with there homes when there is little to no recourse for when things go wrong!!
This is immensely positive news for current and future renters in Guelph. This bylaw will help keep people in their homes by preventing bad-faith renovictions which are loopholes around rent control. Kudos to all who advocated, including the Legal Clinic of Guelph and Wellington County, Guelph & Wellington Poverty Elimination, Get Involved! Guelph, and The Ward Residents Association.
An additional tax to an already vacant home will not hurt the owner. Likely cheaper than having a tenant now a days. Tenants don’t pay rent but continue to live in spaces using energy and causing headaches. Vacancy cheaper even with a tax.
I agree with Susan. the county, provincial, federal governments should all work together to make this happen Let's see them work together to the problem they have committed to solving.
NM exemptions should not be permitted in public schools. It is not fair to the rest of the population that they are allowed to put the rest of us at risk. Something needs to be done about this.
Does EVERYTHING have to be "affordable" housing? Suggest what rent would be "affordable" and based on what factors? Your following example of $1,695 is not outrageous, but you'd have to actually work to afford it.
Why reinvent the wheel. Other cities have done the research & passed laws for it. Is it not simple to cut/paste to have this done early in 2026 if not before?
If $12 million would deliver 64 apartments, that works out to $187,500 per unit. You're not going to be able to build anything cheaper. The City could partner with a group like Habitat for Humanity or Indwell in Hamilton to do the renovations. The Federal Government is making money available for housing. The City needs to jump on this opportunity.
No, the city shouldn’t purchase this property. We don’t need them to get involved with another heritage project. Just look at what they did with The Old Drill Hall. They spent millions to stabilize it and it has sat empty for 8 or 9 years costing us $125,000 annually to maintain.
I have been very vocal on this issue. That is a savings of between a quarter to half a million dollars.Hopefully Council reverses it's opinion and agrees that a public washroom in Saint George's Square is not the most ideal location.SOLUTION - Geulph Central GO. Thousands pass through there daily, as well as bar crowd during the evenings.
If "Renoviction bylaws, which have been adopted by several nearby cities" (suggesting all research is complete and legal problems have been avoided), why would staff require $311,000 to develop a Guelph bylaw? Seems to me the work required to create a bylaw would be:1) a few internet searches (15 minutes) to get copies of those adopted bylaws, 2) use them to write (cut and paste) a Guelph bylaw (2 hours max), 3) get approval internally (2 hours), 4) present to council (1 hour). >> 5 hours 15 minutes = 1 day = $500.00 approximately.Council is still NOT trying to reduce budgets.
Wasn't this the same building that had affordable units but new owners evicted the residents with new plans in mind? Now we see this same building back on the market through power of sale. If possible would be a good idea to revert back to affordable housing,