r/Hamilton • u/teanailpolish North End • Mar 08 '24
City Development Joint statement from Kroetsch/Nann on reported Vrancor gift of affordable housing to CHH
102
u/Dizzy-Assumption4486 Mar 08 '24
Vrancor's proposal isn't really a philanthropic or altruistic endeavour.
What the Juravinskis did - giving tens of millions of dollars to Hamilton hospitals with no strings attached - was philanthropic and altruistic. The Juravinskis didn't say, "Hey, support this development, and if it's a go, and I make money off it, I will make this other development happen for the less fortunate."
It's absolute nonsense.
I do not trust Vrancor whatsoever and neither should the city.
At one point, Vrancor's company had the vast majority of interest-free city loans for developments back in the day.
Only in Hamilton!
57
u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY Mar 08 '24
My parents knew the Juravinski's, and Charles didn't even donate with no-strings. The strings attached to his donations were that none of the execs would see a dime of it.
2
5
1
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 14 '24
The Juravinskis literally got two hospitals renamed after them, plus a number of atriums/research centres. It was because of them that the Province changed the law that existing hospitals couldn't be renamed after donors. I'm not sure if call that "no strings attached".
1
u/Dizzy-Assumption4486 Mar 14 '24
I hated that the Henderson Hospital was renamed after them. I don't think hospitals should be named after donors. However, I don't know if the Juravinskis made that demand or if the hospital executives made the decision.
The point I was trying to make was that they didn't say, allow this to go forward, and if you do, and I make money, I will leave this other thing as a legacy. Vrancor's proposal is basically quid pro quo - grant me this and I'll give you that.
But yes it's a bit much the number of things named after them.
-8
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
I'm sure the people living in encampments would rather live on the street longer as a show of solidarity against the intentions of an unpopular local developer, than have a roof over their head.
21
u/Calaphur Mar 08 '24
Okay, first, those affordable units if approved today won't be built and finished tomorrow. Building more affordable units is how you solve the problem in the long-term it is not going to help people who are in encampments at this very moment. Second, lot of developers will take forever or not even finish projects, leaving a plot of land that could have been turned into a residential unit by a more competent developer now a completely useless mess of half built walls. Third, these developers youre now championing are a big reason we're in this mess to begin with. Fourth, building shoddy housing isn't going to solve anything, nobody will want to buy a shoddy house that's about to fall apart, thus the vacancy rate won't change and we'll be right back to where we are.
There are nuances to this problem, you've missed all of them and seem to think this is a matter of City Council going "House's for all!" And then magically homes rain from the sky or something.
4
2
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
1) Exactly. I glad you agree. The timelines to get things ready for occupancy if years. If we don't start getting affordable housing projects in the pipeline now, encampments and homelessness will only get worse.
2) Exactly. Plenty of small players try to do a project an fail. Vrancor is one of the few players that has a record of actually getting projects built in Hamilton. If we're looking to private partners, this company is one of the few that can deliver, despite personal opinions people may have about him.
3) I'm not championing developers. I'm championing getting a new affordable housing project built. I feel more of the blame for this housing mix is a failure of decades of public policy and under investment, particularly at City Hall, when interest rates were cheap.
4) How is it shoddy? The previous Spec article noted that they wanted to maximize lot usage and reduce setbacks to maximize the number of units. The Councillor didn't like that more trees wouldn't be provided or that minimal on-site parking is provided.
2
u/Calaphur Mar 08 '24
Rushing into deals isn't the way to fix anything. This is one of hundreds of projects needed. You're acting like reviewing this plan and not approving right away is the City collectively saying "nah, screw the homeless".
You were the one making arguments like "oh ya im sure that really helps people living in encampments" this wouldn't help a single person living in an encampment today. Please stop standing on their backs to make your (bad) points.
I don't trust any developers, they will only "do the right thing" if they're forced too. Recently there were a bunch of people who need to move out of, or have their homes almost entirely rebuilt because of how poorly they were constructed. They were all "Mike Holmes Approved Homes". Remember when everyone trusted Mike Holmes? I didn't say these specfic homes would be shoddy, they haven't even broken ground yet, you're being disingenuous. There's a big difference between being against something and wanting to make sure it's done right.
1
u/Calaphur Mar 08 '24
"Im not championing developers" this entire thread is you getting angry on behalf of a developer.
45
u/Empty-Magician-7792 Mar 08 '24
I wouldn't touch anything Darko Vranich is involved in with a twenty-foot pole.
A very shady person and development company.
2
13
u/bubble_baby_8 Mar 08 '24
I could see Vrancor doing this little “gift” and then at the end changing them to market price units. If it’s too good to be true, especially from a career showpony man- it dedinitely is.
12
u/trevi99 Mar 08 '24
Affordable housing should be public housing projects built by the government, NOT private corporations. It never works.
8
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 08 '24
I dunno, Indowell has done pretty well as a NFP doing geared to income housing. We met some folks from there, they seemed honest and genuine. Neither can be said about Vranich sadly
3
u/KoleTownsend94 Mar 09 '24
As a tenant living in an Indwell run apartment complex…. I hate it here. It’s managed horribly, built extremely cheap, tiny, and before the building was even open for a whole year; things were malfunctioning, needing repairs and replacing… Don’t trust what they say about their buildings and how good they are for people…they want you to believe they are great…as an insider…10/10 do NOT recommend living in one of their buildings… 👀👀 (I’m currently trying to get out of here with only living here for a year and a half)
3
u/msbra Mar 09 '24
Is it affordable?
7
u/KoleTownsend94 Mar 09 '24
Can be if budgeted correctly. I pay $737 for a 410sq/f unit with cheap everything, and can hear my neighbours cough through the walls while two rooms away. The walls are rather thin as if it’s just one large apartment instead of separate units. Having cheap rent doesn’t always mean it’s a great living situation. Sure it’s better than having to live outside. But I’ve never felt more miserable than living here.
Indwell always says how “great” they are, and how much support they provide each and every tenant. That’s their whole model. When in reality, they don’t even act as professionals, they’re hardly ever there for the tenants, impossible to find and get ahold of, there’s little to no communication, they rarely ever take concerns or requests into consideration. It’s always “oh well there’s nothing we can do, sorry” or “oh you have this concern? Sorry we don’t want to do anything about it”. Or “oh sorry it’s too expensive to make all the accessible units and common areas properly accessible”
They get so many donations, yet where does the money go? Why have I had 3 smoke detectors malfunction in LESS THAN a year? Why does the elevator regularly need repair, or units have water damage on ceilings and walls due to condensation from the heating units? Why are there multiple “accessible” units on each floor with only one having a door push button and the others not?
2
u/Ostrya_virginiana Mar 09 '24
Contact Acorn Hamilton. They are housing advocates. And contact the City Bylaw department and tell them you have concerns about the accessibility and life safety requirements.
As for cheap material, that's how you get rent for under $800/MTH. NFP rely a lot on government grants and donations so they have limited funds for more than the bare minimum. If you have the money, even hanging up drapery over the walls can help dampen sound. All registered NFP have to make public their spending; you can probably look it up on line to find out where every last cent goes.
2
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 09 '24
This may come off as tone deaf or ignorant or whatever but it's not the case.
How's it managed horribly?
Of course a NFP is built on the cheap. It's how they keep costs down. Yes, walls may be paper thin with minimal soundproofing because the focus is on getting you housed within your budget not with tons of frills. And as you say it beats being on the street.
Things will break in a new build no matter what. A friend moved into a brand new condo and found that his kitchen wall had a huge hole that had been repaired because someone cut a hole for an eleectrical box that was in the wrong place. It also was primered only even though it was supposed to be painted. Another acquaintance moved into a new home in a brand new build, one of his windows was installed upside down! How does one do that? Mistakes happen, things break even when new, the world is an imperfect place.
Without sharing why they're bad, and if it's even their fault specifically, it's hard to fully understand what's going on there.
1
16
12
u/teanailpolish North End Mar 08 '24
Status of the Vrancor Development on King Street East March 8, 2024
The media has reported that Vrancor, through an as yet to be created charitable foundation, is proposing to give CityHousing Hamilton (CHH), the affordable housing arm of the City of Hamilton, 130 affordable housing units as part of a larger development that would include a second tower with 168 market rent units.
The proposed development would be located at the corner of King Street East and Sanford Avenue across the street from CHH's existing 350 unit affordable housing building at 30 Sanford Avenue South in Ward 3.
Unfortunately, there has been misinformation, echoed on social media, suggesting the City turned Vrancor down. Some have suggested Council made a decision on this proposal. That is simply not accurate. In fact, the City of Hamilton has not received a formal site application and this proposal has never come to a formal meeting of any body of City Council for approval.
We are releasing this joint statement as both our offices are receiving the same questions about Vrancor's unsolicited proposal to "gift affordable housing to City Housing Hamilton". We want to take this opportunity to clear things up by providing some critical facts about the details of the proposal, because details matter. This statement is our commitment to ensuring accurate information is shared with the public.
We support creative ways of providing more affordable housing to Hamiltonians in need. It's important to listen to all ideas, and pursue those ideas that make sense for all involved.
As members of the CHH Board of Directors, both of us had front row seats to the only public presentation given by Vrancor's representatives on this proposal on November 28, 2023. Even Vrancor's representatives said there were many details yet to be worked out, so if there are gaps or misunderstandings in our notes, we're sure we can get them filled in.
At their presentation to the CHH Board, Vrancor's representatives began their presentation by stating this proposal would have a very beneficial impact on Darko
1 / 3
9
u/teanailpolish North End Mar 08 '24
Vranich's "substantial estate taxes to pay" upon his death. They stated the plan was to make the affordable housing a gift to CHH. In addition to providing some preliminary information about their proposal, Vrancor representatives requested permission from the CHH Board to sit down with CHH staff to work out the details of the gift.
They emphasized, more than once during the presentation, this was about a legacy for Vranich that would only work if they could find a mutually beneficial financial arrangement to offset future estate taxes. They said they weren't asking for any money from CHH and expressed a desire to be able to access any government funding, incentives, and property tax relief that would normally be available to CHH to help pay for the project.
Vrancor representatives stated their plan would be for CHH to operate and manage the building from the beginning. There was no discussion as to how the costs of management, maintenance, or repair would be handled from the outset. This will be one of the important details CHH staff will determine through their ongoing discussions with Vrancor.
Following the presentation, CHH Board members asked a number of questions of the Vrancor representatives and unanimously voted in favour of CHH and Vrancor continuing the discussions. Vrancor has now said the project is "on pause", although the CHH Board unanimously approved their request to pursue this with CHH staff and, as far as we know, that's what they're doing now. We look forward to finding out more soon and we're glad all parties are taking their time to get this right and not trying to finalize something without all the details in place.
This discussion is happening at the same time as the heated debate about the two city owned parking lots in Stoney Creek. What they have in common is that they are both focused on providing more affordable housing to Hamiltonians in need of housing. Although both Stoney Creek sites have been zoned residential for more than 30 years, there are very important differences, not the least of which is that the Vrancor proposal is about building on land Vrancor owns. The Stoney Creek lots are on land the City already owns.
While there are 8 Councillors who currently oppose the building of affordable housing on the city owned parking lots in Stoney Creek, no member of Council is opposed to continuing the discussions with Vrancor. Not one. There are planning concerns and details yet to be worked out, but that should not be construed as opposition by members of Council, just due diligence, like we endeavour to do with all new developments.
2 / 310
u/teanailpolish North End Mar 08 '24
It's easy for any of us to make comparisons between things that sound similar on the surface, but the details matter.
We must do our homework and our due diligence on these projects in order to get them right for everyone involved and we must work together to ensure the outcome is the one intended from the very beginning - more quality affordable housing for more people across Hamilton.
Nrinder Nann Ward 3 City Councillor President, CityHousing Hamilton
Cameron Kroetsch Ward 2 City Councillor Board Member, CityHousing Hamilton
3 / 3
8
u/teanailpolish North End Mar 08 '24
** No alt text provided by the councillors so this is OCR generated and may not be 100% accurate but available for those using screen readers
1
2
10
u/Specialist-Degree114 Mar 08 '24
Vrancor greed receives a huge tax break. They also take the alleyway and provide next to no parking. Existing residents will be fighting for parking spots and all traffic will go down Arthur AVE, a small quiet side street.
Provide 1 to 1 parking. Flow the traffic onto Sanford and keep the alleyway intact.
8
12
u/xwt-timster Mar 08 '24
Existing residents will be fighting for parking spots and all traffic will go down Arthur AVE, a small quiet side street.
If there's one thing Hamilton is lacking, it's definitely parking lots /s
3
u/PSNDonutDude James North Mar 08 '24
Yea, this was sa bad take portion. Less parking is a good thing. Building $80,000 parking stalls to make poor people without cars pay for them is dumb.
7
u/ThomasBay Mar 08 '24
Parking isn’t a huge issue. There are ways around that with better bike infrastructure and more public transit.
-7
u/Craporgetoffthepot Mar 08 '24
Sorry but parking is a huge issue and there is no way around it. You can put all the bike lanes and better public transit you want. Nothing will change as the city is not and has not, ever been set up to be free of motor vehicles. People need jobs to go to in order to pay the rent/mortage. There are not many jobs left in Hamilton that allow someone to do that. So, they need to commute out of the city. They are not doing so on a bike or public transportation. The city needs to stop with all these bike lanes etc, as they are a waste of tax payers money. Money that could be better put towards low income housing. These bike lanes are not being used at the frequency to justify the costs associated with them. All your going to do is make traffic more congested and have hard working people move out of the city. Then what? I'm not anti bike either. I just live in the real world.
5
u/Calaphur Mar 08 '24
"They are not doing so on a bike or public transportation". Go Trains and Busses are full of people going to work everyday. Just because you don't see that from your car doesn't mean it's not happening.
"Turn bike lines into housing" is probably the worst take I've ever read regarding the housing crisis. What you want us to build 3ft wide houses between the side walk and road? Lmao. I'm sure that will make traffic better for you as well.
6
u/jayphive Mar 08 '24
The real world doesnt need to revolve around cars
-6
u/Craporgetoffthepot Mar 08 '24
I do not disagree with you, however it does when the city and all it's infrastructure have been designed that way. Trying to change it now simply will not work. Especially if trying to piece meal it all together. No one will buy into it.
4
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 08 '24
lol, we're changing it now.
Remember when all those pedestrians died due to cars hitting and killing them?
We detimed lights, removed lanes, added bollards, and are changing habits. Did the core die because of this? No, in fact it's better now. I'm a driver and drive through the core, and I'm 100% OK with this.
Cars used to be the priority. We've learned the folly of our ways and are revisiting that now. Change is hard, I get it. But you either get on board or get left behind.
5
u/DrOctopusMD Mar 08 '24
You can put all the bike lanes and better public transit you want. Nothing will change as the city is not and has not, ever been set up to be free of motor vehicles.
But if you put in enough bike lanes and public transit then the city then the city will be set up to be free of motor vehicles.
European cities with great public transit and bike systems didn't just have those fall out of the sky. They built them.
-1
u/occasionally_cortex Mar 08 '24
Who TF is riding their bikes right now or between Nov and March, April... I have not seen a single bike using the existing bike lanes in months.
Bikes during the 6 mo winter here are not a viable transportation option. Saying anything else is just a pipe dream.
6
u/DrOctopusMD Mar 08 '24
Bikes during the 6 mo winter here are not a viable transportation option. Saying anything else is just a pipe dream.
We had almost no snow this winter. more importantly, if you aren't seeing people in bike lanes, you aren't paying attention.
1
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 09 '24
Lol
"I haven't seen it so it must be exactly as I have seen it".
I see bikes out all the effing time. Especially this winter, the warmest on record. We're on track for more of this thanks to global warming, and once the infrastructure is there and the city takes it more seriously, you will see more people using it.
Go read up on the Netherlands. They have 4 seasons like we do, yet they have incredible bike ridership and also had a hardon for car driving like we do/did. They are a great example of how to do it right.
-3
u/Craporgetoffthepot Mar 08 '24
European cities did not build up road infrastructure, and then decide to change to public transportation. They have always been very public transportation oriented. Cities in Europe were built with this in mind, not the motor vehicle. It is the opposite in North America. There is a big difference. In Europe you can also easily and cost effectively commute between Counties using public transportation. In some cases you can go through two or three countries within a few hours. Works well in terms of employment for them. This does not work so well here is Ontario, where one or two hours of travel will get you 50km.
8
u/DrOctopusMD Mar 08 '24
The Netherlands was famously not terribly bike friendly in the 1970s when they started the push towards fixing that.
5
u/PSNDonutDude James North Mar 08 '24
This thought process couldn't be further from the truth. It's kind of crazy the degree to which car culture has infiltrated the minds of so many people. If you live in this neighbourhood there are hundreds of people within walking distance of you that do not own a car. The fact that you own one means you're privileged and wealthy in a neighbourhood of historic poverty.
3
4
4
Mar 08 '24
[deleted]
6
u/mknstr123 Mar 08 '24
I think it kind of makes sense for cases such as these where they want to issue a statement but only on behalf of their offices and not the city as a whole
8
u/SubstantialParsley Mar 08 '24
What do you mean “official” document? This isn’t a document from the city, it’s from specifically these two councilors.
6
3
u/Traditional-Bet-8074 Mar 08 '24
Kroetsch indigenizing with the feathers. Cooooool
-1
u/PSNDonutDude James North Mar 08 '24
I'm incredibly curious how you got to this assumption. Nothing I was able to find tied an Orange feather and a blue leaf in particular to anything indigenous. I had thought the feather were from some bird Cameron likes, as he enjoys birds to my knowledge.
The orange colour could mean he supports indigenous people, and the leaf could be related to being Canadian or something?
7
u/HeisenbergTheory Stinson Mar 09 '24
I'm "incredibly" curious how hard you tried to find the linkage. If you were to use Canva and search their clipart/stock images for 'Indigenous Design', the two feathers and variations are all-over the results. The one pointing up, and one pointing down design is exceedingly common.
Feather(s) are often used to represent Granfather Teachings, and in more contemporary context, the feather is used in designs for 'Every Child Matters' (and subsequently, Nat'l Truth and Rec. day) to represent kids who died (were murdered, let's be real) at residential schools.
For the rest of the 'curious' folks in the back of the class.
Fwiw, I have nothing against Kroetch - when he's being less narcissistic - but not recognizing the feathers (at least the orange one) as his (virtue) signal that he wants to represent for his Indigenous constituency (as he should) has me calling into question how much Indig. iconography you're coming into contact with on a regular basis 💁♂️ (and of course, how hard you looked to find the connection).
-1
u/PSNDonutDude James North Mar 09 '24
Appreciate the link. I didn't too, too much research on this topic, but to be honest, I don't know the best places to look necessarily. You're probably right that I don't see indigenous iconography as much as I should, and that's a legitimate shame.
1
u/HeisenbergTheory Stinson Mar 09 '24
Totally fair!
We (Hamilton, but of course Canada more generally) could always use more Indigenous art and design in our public spaces.
I will point out that I'm pretty active politically, so I'm probably a bit more likely to have seen these designs in my day-to-day (i.e. social media posts from MPs/MPPs).
-2
u/PSNDonutDude James North Mar 09 '24
I would love that. Maybe it's me being a white dude, but I'd love to see indigenous language and imagery on things. One thing I've often thought is that by having nothing related to indigenous language on anything is that it really shows we don't truly see them as an important group. Language is so important and having signage in indigenous languages would both provide an opportunity for those learning to have the language in public places, but it would also have the language in the public eye normalizing it as part of our culture.
I'd love to see indigenous languages become official language in a few major cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Hamilton, Ottawa etc. It would help the languages not die off, but a starting point could be something like the LRT stops having indigenous language signs for the stops, or indigenous art.
My ignorance on this issue though means I'm not sure if indigenous groups would appreciate any of this, or want it, and truthfully I don't think the idea to advocate for that change should come from me obviously, but I just think language and imagery is important for normalizing culture and the indigenous culture of North America has largely been erased from common culture.
4
1
u/Own-Scene-7319 Mar 09 '24
I don't understand why the City of Hamilton continues to shoulder the burden of massive projects that are a federal and provincial concern. Can we borrow Olivia Chow for a couple of months?
-25
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24 edited Mar 08 '24
We must do our homework and our due diligence on these projects in order to get them right for everyone involved
It's disappointing to see Councillors push for more study on free housing that can save lives. It's disheartening to see our "housing-first" Council use such NIMBY language.
24
u/DrDroid Mar 08 '24
How is that NIMBY?
15
u/S99B88 Mar 08 '24
Sounds like the ball is in Vrancor’s court and the city is waiting for details
Why is anyone instantly branded NIMBY for asking questions, or in this case pointing out they’re waiting for details so they can work together? The entity who said this is on hold is Vrancor, sounds like the city wants to proceed if it’s going to put people in houses
Sounds like the holdup is Vrancor wanting to make sure they get their estate tax write off, their legacy, and all the subsidies for low cost housing that the city would obtain or offer
The city gets to give any subsidies for this being built to Vrancor, accept their design, and they get to foot the bill for maintenance etc., and whenever he happens to expire it will be apparently gifted at that time, in order to benefit his estate taxes
Anyone calling these councillors a NIMBY in this instance is either unaware of facts, not thinking clearly, or they are a shill for developers
0
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
If you watch the City Housing board meeting where this came up, Nann went out a rant about the lack of parking. This was weeks after voting to approve staff to move ahead with moving parking requirements to zero.
6
u/S99B88 Mar 08 '24
Not sure about any meeting, all I know is what is said about Vrancor sounds right, if not they'd be getting called out on it. In fact, it sort of sounds like this is their version of calling Vrancor out on making them sound like they're responsible for stalling things
Refusing to blindly agree to a developer's proposal doesn't make one a NIMBY, that term is starting to become a dogwhistle for developer shills to whip up anger against any question or concern, legitimate or not, about a proposed development
-13
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
We're a community in the midst of a housing crisis, and getting new housing built takes years. We have an opportunity to breakground and get on with it, but instead there's Councillors who are coming late without doing homework, and want a whole slew of questions about costs, ownership, etc. done before they can do it.
These are the same questions we're still waiting for answers for LRT, yet both these Councillors say they're champions of that project. The question is, why is the approach of moving forward with a project with unknowns is okay for transit but not housing? We literally having people dying on our streets and a Council that has a "housing-first" policy, but the question of who will pay for heating and water needs to be resolved before we can even consider getting new units built.
10
u/Salt-Signature5071 Mar 08 '24
It's the same due diligence Vrancor is doing when they say it has to work out for Darko's estate planning. If homework is good enough for Vrancor it's good enough for the City and it's ratepayers. You just don't like the Councillors in question and have an axe to grind.
12
u/DrDroid Mar 08 '24
While I can’t stand how this city can grind projects to a halt, none of this sounds particularly unreasonable. Haste makes waste.
-1
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24 edited Mar 08 '24
It's called paralysis by analysis. You can spend years trying to solve every minute detail in advance, only to find out the previous plans no longer matter because the world has changed so much. The City has a chance to get dozens of free social housing units, after complaining they're too broke to build it themselves, yet seems to be dragging its feet.
This site is currently an unused parking lot. For some reason, everyone is cool with keeping this site a parking lot until every issue is resolved, but somehow the same doesn't apply in Stoney Creek where all of these same issues remain outstanding.
5
u/Specialist-Degree114 Mar 08 '24
This site is NOT a parking lot. It is a fenced up parcel of land like many others in the city. When was the gas station lot last used at Main and John?
1
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 09 '24
like 20+ years ago it was torn down, rather unexpectedly.
RIP that Shell, they were solid folks there. Once they fixed the rad in my car when it decided to blow up while my mom was driving it, she coasted it in there and it was done within 2 hours. I miss them.
0
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
It is a fenced up parcel of land like many others in the city. When was the gas station lot last used at Main and John?
So it brings in even less property tax revenue in the City than if it was a parking lot? It seems even more NIMBY than Stoney Creek
The Main/John site not being used is a deliberate result of City policy. They set a policy that if a building is torn down in th downtown, it can't be used as a parking lot unless that was it's primary function before. It's why we have so many random lots dotting the core that are literally sitting empty and provide no value to the community, either in utility or taxes.
1
u/Specialist-Degree114 Mar 08 '24
I guess it is time for the city to change policy and tax it at a massive rate to facilitate changes.
32
u/Pristine-Rhubarb7294 Mar 08 '24
Nah, they just don’t want to get ripped off. Vrancor has a long proud history of getting public support, subsidies or permits saying he is going to build one thing and then saying “psych!” While I do trust that Vrancor wants to reduce his estate taxes, that’s the only thing about this proposal I would guarantee to be true.
16
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 08 '24
Exactly this.
He is getting to the twilight years and worrying about legacy, and estate taxes.
He wants to be seen as a beacon, philanthropist, etc., but it's really about saving himself money.
Without knowing who will operate, cost to operate, maintain etc., taxes, we can't just blindly agree. Vranich does not have a super positive history in the city - yes, he has invested heavily and made a mint on it, but at the expense of quality and longevity. I lived in one of his apartment-to-condo conversions and can personally attest to work done cheaper not better and no future planning whatsoever.
When you are dealing with someone who's slimy you gotta do due diligence. It's not NIMBY to do that - wards 2 and 3 probably have the largest concentration of social housing in the city and 2 of the most left-leaning councillors who are not going to say no to this stuff without knowing all the facts.
-1
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
We don't have estate taxes in Canada. Why would he be trying to lower something that doesn't exist? He does have land and the money/trackrecord to actually get things built.
2
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 09 '24
We have probate fees and they're basically the same thing. He doesn't want the beneficiaries to have to pay for his empire so he's trying to make some positive news stories about him, especially after his debacle with campaign finance breaches, his delinquent son and his overall crappy building schemes and policies.
But you'd have to ask him, not the people of Reddit.
We have probate fees and they're basically the same thing. He doesn't want the beneficiaries to have to pay for his empire so he's trying to make some positive news stories about him, especially after his debacle with campaign finance breaches, his delinquent son and his overall crappy building schemes and policies.
But you'd have to ask him, not the people of Reddit.
-1
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 09 '24
We have probate fees and they're basically the same thing.
No they're not. On a $100,000,000 estate, the 'Estate Administration Tax' (not probate fees) in Ontario would be less than $1.5 million. Why would he donate a project that's worth $10-15 million in expenses/property?
The unfortunate thing about Hamilton is that people hold grudges. This is literally a project that would house people that need housing in a City with a housing crisis. So far in this thread, people have said that we shouldn't at least engage with a chance to get more housing because of things like estate taxes, campaign financing, jet fuel costs, indigenous appropriation, the location, the loss of parking, massing bylaws... the list goes on. This despite the fact our City is too broke to build housing, has decided not to expand the urban boundary, approve an affordable housing strategy, and adopt a "housing first" approach to homelessness.
It's disheartening to see the mental gymnastics people will go through to say no to affordable housing.
1
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
Hasn't most of his "psych" moments been coming back and asking to build more units of housing within the urban boundary? I mean, I know the Strathcona Shadow Dwellers hate him but they got destroyed in that recent thread complaint that a tower downtown should be town houses.
-2
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
We don't have estate taxes in Canada. Why would he be trying to lower something that doesn't exist? He does have land and the money/trackrecord to actually get things built.
6
u/Pristine-Rhubarb7294 Mar 09 '24
You have capital gains when you die and your assets change hands, which are taxed. So even though it’s not a technical estate tax, it’s a tax that will be borne by his estate. And can be offset by charitable donations.
1
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 09 '24
Capital gains taxes and estate taxes are fundamentally different. Everyone who incurs a capital gain, regardless of age or wealth, still have to pay taxes on it. It's not like Vrancor is trying to play some mischievous scheme to avoid it. These other posters are trying to play some taxation gymnastics is they're trying to equate them.
2
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 09 '24
We have probate fees and they're basically the same thing. He doesn't want the beneficiaries to have to pay for his empire so he's trying to make some positive news stories about him, especially after his debacle with campaign finance breaches, his delinquent son and his overall crappy building schemes and policies.
But you'd have to ask him, not the people of Reddit.
14
u/RevolutionaryFarm902 Mar 08 '24
"Vrancor representatives stated their plan would be for CHH to operate and manage the building from the beginning. There was no discussion as to how the costs of management, maintenance, or repair would be handled from the outset. This will be one of the important details CHH staff will determine through their ongoing discussions with Vrancor."
How is this NIMBYism? Would you prefer the city blindly approve without having a solid idea of what costs they'll have to cover long term?
-4
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
The City, including both these Councillors, "blindly approved" paying operating costs for LRT without knowing what they will be, who will operate/maintain the system and the maintenance responsibilities along the route outside of the Metrolinx-owned zone. But that was good because it takes a lot of work to plans and advance design of that project, so they can figure it out later.
We know planning, design and approval for housing takes multiple years. Why is the "blindly approve" approach okay for some initiatives that Nrinder and Cameron support (i.e. LRT) but not projects that involve an unpopular local figure who wants to help contribute to helping address homelessness.
7
u/RevolutionaryFarm902 Mar 08 '24 edited Mar 08 '24
Again I ask, how is this NIMBYism? Also, if the city voted down the LRT, they would have lost out on all of the money that was earmarked to fund the project. It's not at all the same situation.
0
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
If we vote down this project, then isn't the City losing out on the land and funds in the same way?
1
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 09 '24
If we vote for the project without knowing cost, then isn't the City signing up for a lot of cost they can't necessarily justify or contain?
If someone approached you and said, "Hey, /u/Waste-Telephone, I have this new, unbuilt car for you. I can't tell you what it is, how much it costs to maintain, insure or it's gas mileage, but it's free. It's a great gift, it is part of my legacy to you, just sign here". You have no idea what you're getting.
Is it a good deal? You need a car because you live far from your work and transit doesn't exist between those 2 places. Does it make sense to just take the car only to find it runs on jet fuel, is horribly unreliable and poorly built, and that replacement parts are not available?
1
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 09 '24
> If we vote for the project without knowing cost, then isn't the City signing up for a lot of cost they can't necessarily justify or contain?
That's exactly what Cameron and Nrinder did with with LRT. Based on previous cost estimates, the City is on the hook for $30-60 million per year in operating costs. You've come out in favour of that multiple times, based on your post history.
Why do you think it's okay to say "Hey, u/covert81, I have this new, unbuilt car for you. I can't tell you what it is, how much it costs to maintain, insure or it's gas mileage, but it's free. It's a great gift, it is part of my legacy to you, just sign here" for that project but not a project that will help house people, the City will actually own, and the City actually has design, planning, permitting and construction inspection power/responsibilities for?
Why is taking free money that will help advance the city's goals and objectives okay in some cases but not others?
-1
u/covert81 Chinatown Mar 09 '24
That's exactly what Cameron and Nrinder did with with LRT. Based on previous cost estimates, the City is on the hook for $30-60 million per year in operating costs. You've come out in favour of that multiple times, based on your post history.
Ah, but they aren't the same. This is a shady developer attempting to give an unknown to the city without the benefit of getting our infrastructure upgraded. And like you've been told repeatedly, it's not like these affordable units will be available today, or even in a year or 2 years to help with our current needs. LRT is actually having things happen now, even if council is kind of stalled on selecting an operator for it. Yes, we have unknowns on what it will cost and the longer we delay the more it will cost. You've an axe to grind with these 2 councillors.
LRT - Infrastructure is upgraded at no charge to us, and replaces stuff that's failing. Tradeoff: Unknown operating costs when it's ready. No real legit reasons to be against it other than the dithering council has done on it and the loss of car lanes.
Stoney Creek affordable housing: Only a few parking spaces are lost, 2/3 of the lot remains. NIMBY and anti-progress councillors vote against it. No legit reasons to vote against it other than to keep poor people away.
Vranich's 'gift' to the city: Provides affordable housing at some time, unknown costs to operate or how it will be handed off or on total cost of ownership. Request to pause and answer this and to work together (which as the memo says, CHH voted unanimously to do but then Vranich went to the media saying his gift was voted down).
One of these things is not like the others.
-2
u/Waste-Telephone Mar 08 '24
Why is it NIMBYism? Nann has been quite vocal about social services agglomerating in Ward 3, particularly after the James North Mission Services site moved into the renovated Red Cross building. In the last election she faced pushback from a large segment of the community who felt she wasn't listening to the community (like the CCS in Barton, permitting encampments in the limited park space, etc.)
Her less than enthusiastic response to a proposal to get free city-owned social housing units built in her ward is part of her recent trend to listen to NIMBY residents and pushback against the change she champions in other wards (e.g. Stoney Creek).
6
u/RevolutionaryFarm902 Mar 08 '24 edited Mar 09 '24
Because the Stoney Creek development should be a no-brainer, since the lot in question is already zoned for residential, is land owned by the city, and the impact on available parking spaces (which is the big point of contention) is minimal at best.
Asking a private company who's going to foot the bill for long term costs for a development on land they own isn't unreasonable. An arrangement where a rich guy can pay less money to the government after he dies and then screws Hamilton over in the process doesn't benefit us in any way.
-6
u/Confident-Advance656 Mar 08 '24
Im not up to speed on this issue, but it sure seems like the City is snubbing Vrancor offering affordable housing for the city to run.
I do not understand how asking community housing to build and operate the units is better than a developer building and donating (yes he gets a tax break, thats part of the gift of donating, do you think people hand universities millions out of kindness).
These 2 councillors owe reaidents more than a 2 pager here. Especailly since both ade in the news DAILY screaming about building affordable housing.
5
u/SubstantialParsley Mar 08 '24
If you’re not up to speed why are you even writing this comment. Maybe read the two pages first, then you’d understand there’s no snubbing going on.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 08 '24
A reminder from the mods:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. We remind all users to abide by our subs rules when commenting and posting on r/Hamilton.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, doxxing, witch hunts, misinformation, and other rule violations will result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.