SooToday received the following letter to the editor from reader Tim Dodds in response to our story City councillor educates us on the second law of thermodynamics.
I would like some clarification on the mandate of the Affordable Housing Task Force.
Are we creating affordable housing or are we beautifying the city?
When the city tears down a derelict building, is the property then owned by the city? Or does the city already own the derelict building and property before it is torn down?
How did the original owner of the property forfeit ownership of the property? Did they not pay their taxes and then let the building become rundown?
Did the city legal department pursue payment of taxes for the building and property from the original owner? Why is the owner of the property not liable for the cost of demolition?
In the model presented to us in this resolution, the city wants someone to develop the property rescued through demolition with "duplexes, triplexes or multi-residential buildings".
Will the city then recoup the cost of demolition through sale of the property?
How can we create affordable housing if a developer builds a new building and then wants fair market value in rent for a brand new building?
Don't get me wrong. I don't like the looks of derelict buildings in our city any more than anyone else.
But I do think the waters are muddied by linking affordable housing with the demolition of derelict buildings and the second law of thermodynamics.