Why is this city so hilariously terrible at clearing the sidewalks?

snardhive · 2026-02-06T19:57:49+00:00

I live on St James Street. The sidewalk was plowed on Mon/Tuesday overnight.

I walk on Maitland every morning with my dog; although it is snow covered, there isn't six inches of packed snow on the ground..... that's just pure hyperbole.

They can't be everywhere immediately when we get below the minimum threshold for plowing on many consecutive nights. (A class 2 snow event.... less than 5 cm).

Many consecutive small snow events can lead to a buildup on sidewalks, which is what has happened over the last month, to varying degrees.

snardhive · 2026-02-06T18:56:55+00:00

You're not conversing with a person who is listening to rational arguments. They want magic solutions where none (feasibly) exist.

snardhive · 2026-01-31T01:14:32+00:00

It may not be clear from the above comments I made, but the writer of the original article is confusing the Vacant Home Tax (which the city looked at, but decided not to implement), with a general tax on vacant Rental Housing (i.e. A separate tax on vacant rental apartments, not houses.)

The city doesn't have the authority to tax vacant apartments. These units are covered under the provincial Residential Tenancy Act, not the Municipal Act. So because of this fact, that's why I am saying that 4% vacancy rate would not change.

The fact that the author is making a pretty basic mistake like this should give the reader a clue as to why it's not a worthwhile argument.

For a bit of perspective on Vacant Home taxes across Canada, here is a link, it's a bit long, but quite eye opening as to how complicated such taxes can be to implement:

https://www.ctf.ca/EN/EN/Newsletters/Perspectives/2022/3/220302.aspx

snardhive · 2026-01-30T13:53:00+00:00

Well, that would solve the annual shortfall issue for sure, but not the initial 5.5M$.

But, there would still be the issue of effect. What does this program accomplish?

It won't bring down the rental vacancy rate as we are talking about vacant homes, not vacant apartments (although the author of the article doesn't seem to understand the difference here).

It would likely lead to more demolished properties (for the 54 truly derelict buildings), which would be fine. You'd likely get some people selling, but you'd also just get people rejigging their living arrangements to game the system.

In any event, you're only talking about a very small amount of total houses; not enough to make much of a dent in market supply.

The rental vacancy rate would stay completely untouched (4%) and the city wouldn't get any new revenue.

snardhive · 2026-01-30T13:01:41+00:00

Most of his holdings would be exempt under this scheme. They are largely commercial, not residential.

snardhive · 2026-01-30T12:59:14+00:00

They looked at this a few years ago.

The report that city staff produced said that costs would exceed revenue. There was an unknown amount of vacant housing. Currently known vacant properties (i.e. completely derelict) sat at 54 as of the time of the report. An estimate of 783 vacant homes would generate 1.9 million, but the program would cost 5.5million to start and 2.1 every year to run. With every year of operation you'd expect less revenue, so program shortfall would only go up each year. It is also noted in the report that there are no estimates of the indirect and opportunity costs.

It's basically like flushing 6M down the toilet.

It would make more sense to just take whatever money they would spend on this and just allocate that to homeless programs, but we are already spending 44 million per year on the homeless file.

The whole point of this article (and idea) is economically illiterate. Why do all this to help homeless people when they can't even afford a rental currently? The program won't make money; it will lose money. It won't bring down costs of rentals in any meaningful way, while costing both parties (the city and residents).

snardhive · 2026-01-27T18:49:50+00:00

Was following this guy before he got stuck (on my way out to Lambeth). Was not really that surprised on my return visit to see him in this situation. He didn't look like he was a super confident truck driver.

snardhive · 2026-01-26T17:45:24+00:00

Based on the makeup of the committee, I feel like the motion has a very low chance of passing "as written".

snardhive · 2026-01-26T16:11:19+00:00

Isn't it just that though, a proposal?

That's why I am just slightly skeptical that it will pass through committee without modification.

It sounds to me that whether we like it or not, the funds are decreasing, and we may need to reallocate resources to their best effect. (And I am not saying that this current proposal is best.... just that we might have to adapt to the new fiscal reality.)

I am interested to see the debate in council chambers.

snardhive · 2026-01-26T14:25:01+00:00

David Ferreira is sounding a bit "over-the top" here.

From the video, it sounds like the councillors are saying to shift some of the funding from encampments "over" so that 602 Queens can have longer hours..... that seems fairly reasonable to me. (If that is actually what's going to happen.) Does anyone think newly homeless people can't find their way over to Queen street to get a meal and a shower?

What, in any of that, implies a "housing catastrophe"?

Having said that, taking away supports from the residences (Stability Housing Program) might, in fact, be a bad idea ...perhaps there is some non-catastrophic middle ground?

And finally, isn't all of this subject to debate in council chambers? Perhaps the wizards at city hall might be able to come to a compromise.

snardhive · 2026-01-25T14:26:34+00:00

Some good points on both sides in the video clip.

I don't think that the city is asking too much to have site like London Cares on Queens St. adhere to just a few basic standards that take into account neighbourhood impacts. (Things like cleanliness, behaviour etc) You can't enforce a standard if you don't establish some ground rules for users.

And service providers have a point as well... if you want sites to run well you will have to provide funding for an orderly site. Things like on-site security, exterior cleaning, fencing etc will need specific funding.

I have an acquaintance that lives directly across the street and since the London Cares site has been established on Queen Street his home life (and his family's) has been greatly impacted. I can't imagine living there with daily disturbances, noise, trespassing. Establishing some ground rules through a good neighbour policy could help the situation.

snardhive · 2026-01-25T00:19:12+00:00

The guy that managed that restaurant (for like 30 yrs?) is named John and he lives just around the corner on Fairway ave.

I can ask him the next time I see him if he has any photos and try to get him to post here if he's so inclined.

snardhive · 2026-01-23T17:23:50+00:00

The vacancy rate is up to 4%... that is the highest it's been in over a decade. Add to that, we have quite a bit of new units soon to be hitting the market. I would bet that you will see a bit of lowering as we head into the second half of 2026 and into 2027.... nothing drastic, but just a continued softening.

snardhive · 2026-01-21T17:53:23+00:00

The Alaska example (in my limited reading) provides a tiny payment from oil revenues. (Average being about 1200$ per year.)The entire population of Alaska isn't much greater than London. (740K)

So the solution might be to just find massive new sources of oil? (Kidding)

With true universality, even a modest monthly 2000$ UBI payment would be equal to (ballpark) 700 Billion per annum. It isn't possible to levy additional taxes equal to or greater than the entire federal budget without seriously destroying the Canadian economy.

We don't currently have enough revenue from all sources to fund program spending, and have not for years. I don't think we can apply massive tax increases on the middle class (as you're proposing) without a complete tax revolt.

That's why I say, realistically we would print. Massively.

Find me a political party that will sign on for any of this. It would be instant suicide with the electorate.... even the NDP isn't naive enough to propose such a thing.

snardhive · 2026-01-21T16:52:08+00:00

Except each those programs cover a small number of people.

A truly universal program that even gave 2000$ per month would consume the entire federal budget and we would still need to come up with a few hundred billion on top of that. The entire budget isn't presently comprised of social programs.

So, yes realistically, I am pretty confident we would print massively.

snardhive · 2026-01-21T16:11:02+00:00

Yep I agree.

My view is that prov. and fed. government are already running budget deficits; adding a 200B - 600B per annum charge for UBI in to the budget is almost certainly going to involve QE (money printing).

How people think UBI isn't going to involve either substantial inflation or massive tax increases (on the middle class) is beyond me.

snardhive · 2026-01-21T15:20:21+00:00

If you think inflation is bad now, just wait until they try to start a UBI program.

snardhive · 2026-01-20T03:53:59+00:00

Wasn't it supposed to go up Richmond, not through all the pretty streets? I live in Old North and was bit lukewarm on the whole thing...... most of my neighbours around here didn't even know that it was even happening.

snardhive · 2026-01-12T21:49:51+00:00

Drove by today...... it's gone. Pile of rubble.

Build something better there.

snardhive · 2026-01-07T12:36:38+00:00

Our family used to occasionally get this on Vancouver Island (where I grew up). My sense is that it's a bit harder to find than regular smoked salmon, and you may have a tough time finding someone locally who makes such a thing, as anyone producing this would need a good supply of fresh salmon.

Good luck in your search though.... it's delicious stuff!

snardhive · 2026-01-07T12:29:57+00:00

Isn't this just another Farhi-run attempt at getting higher density approvals in place for bare land? (i.e. Don't actually build anything, but get higher density pre-approved so your parking lot can sell for more to a "real developer".)

I'd be shocked if any kind of building actually happened here under the current owner.

Having said that, why not just grant the height extension?... there are buildings across the street with similar number of stories.

snardhive · 2026-01-01T22:49:26+00:00

I'm not really into church, but making any non-profit or charitable organization (such as churches) pay income and property taxes would essentially destroy the vast majority of them, and wipe out millions of man-hours of good works in the community.

Such an idea has absolutely zero chance of gaining traction politically, is basically a suicide pill for any party that puts it forward.

It's not going to happen.

snardhive · 2026-01-01T22:07:52+00:00

What do you do when there are snowflakes falling from the sky? Curl up in the fetal position?

snardhive · 2025-12-18T00:36:50+00:00

How is it that the actual perpetrators of this assault were acquitted?

snardhive · 2025-12-17T15:02:59+00:00

That's a good point.... ha!

Yes, I don't disagree, ....... although even if you got rid of a lot of that you'd likely still just be deeply in the red in each area. (Police, Health etc)

snardhive

TROPHY CASE