Construction fencing around vacant lots an eyesore
I’d like to nominate Edmonton’s new official weed: construction fencing.
Rusty, ugly, flimsy. Once it entwines its tendrils around a muddy patch of vacant land, it doesn’t let go. Swampy patches of weeds inside breed mosquitoes. Outside, sharp support beams jut out onto the sidewalk, a spiteful tripping hazard.
The former Arlington Apartment site is perhaps the worst example — construction fencing has held that prime downtown site in its grip since the fire of 2005.
But these are everywhere. I have four within two blocks of my house in northwest Edmonton. Ask around and people are quick to volunteer their most-hated: the former ATB building on 129 Avenue in Calder, the weedy patch at 114 Street and Jasper Avenue, derelict buildings along Fort Road, the small patches of residential ugliness like on 121 Street north of 102 Avenue.
There’s even one beside the Strathcona entrance sign at 99 Street and 83 Avenue. I guess nothing says welcome like graffiti and a bombed out foundation.
Back in 2015, city staff counted 1,340 vacant lots in Edmonton’s built up neighbourhoods. That’s 180 hectares of mostly weed-infested blight, enough land to house thousands and thousands of people if cleaned up.
At what point do you do something? There’s no silver bullet. But it’s a common problem and Edmonton could likely learn from others.
In St. Albert, residents were upset after a builder bought numerous properties in a developing neighbourhood and ran into personal issues. He stopped building but refused to sell, leaving the properties weedy and vacant for years.
So council created a new taxation for any residential property without a valid development permit seven years after subdivision. The tax rate is 25-per-cent higher than for developed property. The city’s legal team warned them against going higher still, so as not to make the tax punitive, says Mayor Cathy Heron.
But it seems to have helped a bit. There were 28 vacant lots in 2016, the first year after the new tax. For the 2018 tax year, that dropped to 18.
The tax seems fair. Alberta forces municipalities to tax land according to its market value so vacant land pays the least. The higher tax rate evens things up to ensure the property owner is still contributing to the roads, sewer lines, lights and other services the city must maintain around it.
Cities can create a separate tax class for vacant non-residential land, too. Although neither of those would help with derelict buildings and the persistent ugliness of these sites.
Heron says St. Albert is reviewing its community standards bylaw this fall, looking at if it should require sites to be graded flat and grassed after several years. She doesn’t think their current rules allow long-term construction fencing.
Here in Edmonton, not all developers leave a mess. The park at Jasper Avenue and 102 Street is actually vacant land awaiting redevelopment by Melcor. They pay roughly $30,000 in property taxes for it every year, plus maintenance and insurance, letting residents use the space just to be good citizens.
Alldritt also stands out, at least for two properties. They own land at Stony Plain Road and 142 Street, and on 124 Street, both now grassed and surrounded with such a picture-perfect white fence it should have a pony.
But there’s no reward for stepping up, and it seems there’s little punishment for sluggards.
What about a carrot-and-stick approach? Increase taxes on vacant land and strengthen enforcement of the community standards bylaw, cleaning up a property and adding the cost to the property’s tax bill if necessary. Then add the carrot, forgive the additional tax each year if the owner of the vacant land demonstrates community benefit. Melcor’s park is a great example. But this could be a community garden with temporary raised beds, a bee hive with an educational aspect, a tot lot and sand box, a mini-dog park, anything that creates a friendly spot for the community to gather. Make certain the rules are flexible enough to allow a temporary use without red tape.
If there was a small push, an openness to talk, I’ll bet neighbours would happily partner and help with maintenance. At one point, Mccauley had nine community gardens and dog parks this way.
But the city has to set the context. It has to say the status quo is not OK, that it’s not fair to inflict this blight on a neighbour. Otherwise, I only see this getting worse.