Time for a more serious effort

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/04/2024 (765 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Fining property owners who refuse to maintain their unoccupied buildings is not having the desired effect.

The number of vacant and derelict buildings in the city has grown in recent years. They are not only a blight on neighbourhoods, they are often a danger and a hazard when people break into them and sometimes set them on fire.

The city has taken steps over the years to address the problem. Property owners are charged a vacant building fee when their properties are unoccupied and are fined when they allow them to fall into disrepair. They must pay a licence fee to board up their buildings and, more recently, are forced to cover firefighting costs in the event of a fire.

Despite those measures, the number of vacant and derelict buildings continue to grow, and an increasing number of them have been set ablaze.

There were 125 vacant building fires in Winnipeg last year until Nov. 15 (full year figures are not yet available). That’s a new record.

If fining property owners and charging them fees to allow their buildings to sit vacant is not working, confiscation is the only next logical step. The city has the legal authority to take title of derelict properties without compensating owners. It is a long and arduous legal process that can only be done under certain circumstances. But it is an option for the city to deal with the worst offenders. Trouble is, because of the time and effort involved, it is seldom used.

Under the Vacant and Derelict Building Bylaw, adopted by city council in 2002, the city has a legal mechanism to seize property as a last resort if building owners fail to comply with work orders. Property owners must be convicted under the bylaw before the city can commence proceedings to seize property. It is a multistage process that includes several avenues of appeal for property owners.

Because building owners are not compensated for the loss of their asset, their properties can be sold and developed at below-market prices, thus encouraging community development.

This is not a new idea. It was raised during the 2022 civic election by mayoral candidate Jenny Motkaluk and has been previously promoted in this space as an effective response to a growing and serious problem.

The only thing stopping the city from using this legal mechanism more often is a lack of political will. It’s rarely discussed as an option and even less frequently used.

Mayor Scott Gillingham and city council have the legislative tools to tackle this problem in a more forceful and effective way. They should start using this option more often, not only to seize properties from the worst offenders but also to send a message to all property owners that if they don’t bring their buildings into good repair, the city will eventually confiscate them.

Right now, vacant and derelict property owners know the city will often show them leniency. As a result, they’re not motivated to restore their buildings to livable conditions. If they knew there were more serious consequences to allowing their buildings to deteriorate, they would likely respond more favourably.

Building owners have a right to leave their properties vacant for a period of time, as long as they comply with the relevant bylaws. But when they continually flout those bylaws and impose unsafe conditions on surrounding communities, they should lose the right to own their buildings. It’s time for the city to get tough on property owners who show no regard for the welfare of others.