@vivsaunders.bsky.social
I'm going to have to agree with Cooper. Budget books in Dec & Jan are the same. Having to go through Appendices to figure out the 4.25% is similar to 2 budgets before them. Also think he might have been referring to the $54M capital project (dog pound?) in budget marked Confidential in his ward???
February 2, 2026 at 6:23 PM
I'm going to have to agree with Cooper. Budget books in Dec & Jan are the same. Having to go through Appendices to figure out the 4.25% is similar to 2 budgets before them. Also think he might have been referring to the $54M capital project (dog pound?) in budget marked Confidential in his ward???
Oh shit. Not what I needed to read. My son is being stationed there in June. 💔
January 31, 2026 at 4:54 PM
Oh shit. Not what I needed to read. My son is being stationed there in June. 💔
Well done Madam Mayor!
January 27, 2026 at 9:04 PM
Well done Madam Mayor!
Re 2. That would be an interesting use of powers. Not sure how Adding a new fee would get more houses built?
January 22, 2026 at 11:29 PM
Re 2. That would be an interesting use of powers. Not sure how Adding a new fee would get more houses built?
To illustrate see map. The urban boundary areas are bordered in blue. The areas in pink and yellow are all the lands that do NOT have a Secondary Plan. Comments at Planning were very misleading to the public. We already have a UBE fee & have had one for several years so not sure why some voted Yes
January 21, 2026 at 7:38 PM
To illustrate see map. The urban boundary areas are bordered in blue. The areas in pink and yellow are all the lands that do NOT have a Secondary Plan. Comments at Planning were very misleading to the public. We already have a UBE fee & have had one for several years so not sure why some voted Yes
Good vote. Developer Initiated Secondary Plans would save the taxpayers upwards of $1M if the city ever got around to doing a city-initiated one. Staff review at ~ $40k presently shouldn't go to $80K - $260K when we want infill within our urban boundary.
January 21, 2026 at 7:22 PM
Good vote. Developer Initiated Secondary Plans would save the taxpayers upwards of $1M if the city ever got around to doing a city-initiated one. Staff review at ~ $40k presently shouldn't go to $80K - $260K when we want infill within our urban boundary.
Having pizza? 😂
January 19, 2026 at 9:00 PM
Having pizza? 😂
Wonder if any of those missing are at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association's conference that started yesterday?
January 19, 2026 at 8:44 PM
Wonder if any of those missing are at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association's conference that started yesterday?
Nvm. I should have finished reading first 😄
January 17, 2026 at 3:04 AM
Nvm. I should have finished reading first 😄
Para 31 thoughts? Kind of reads that Tourism provided a $200,000 “sponsorship” for this specific event & it wasn’t an overall Coliseum sponsorship. See what i mean? +bought 400 tickets at a discounted price of $25 because they already paid $200k to sponsor a Friends & Family event.
January 17, 2026 at 2:59 AM
Para 31 thoughts? Kind of reads that Tourism provided a $200,000 “sponsorship” for this specific event & it wasn’t an overall Coliseum sponsorship. See what i mean? +bought 400 tickets at a discounted price of $25 because they already paid $200k to sponsor a Friends & Family event.
Hmm, 🤔 I think they may have just approved using grant funds to clear individual condo owners arrears ?! in order to pay out remaining balance of grants to developers for existing properties 🥴. Hope I’m misreading these amendments
January 15, 2026 at 1:20 PM
Hmm, 🤔 I think they may have just approved using grant funds to clear individual condo owners arrears ?! in order to pay out remaining balance of grants to developers for existing properties 🥴. Hope I’m misreading these amendments
Appears to me, that it could also be argued that a review might even determine the best fit under our zoning definitions is Dwelling Unit, Mixed Use. Be interesting to see if your review of court filings reveal what exact zoning group is presenting.
January 5, 2026 at 3:39 PM
Appears to me, that it could also be argued that a review might even determine the best fit under our zoning definitions is Dwelling Unit, Mixed Use. Be interesting to see if your review of court filings reveal what exact zoning group is presenting.
Looking forward to reading your reporting on the Hamilton one. It's a bit confusing on what type of facility the Hub would fall under in our Zoning imo. Seems to be a mix between Social Services facility, RCF, Medical Clinic & possibly Corrections Residence for certain individuals.
January 5, 2026 at 3:19 PM
Looking forward to reading your reporting on the Hamilton one. It's a bit confusing on what type of facility the Hub would fall under in our Zoning imo. Seems to be a mix between Social Services facility, RCF, Medical Clinic & possibly Corrections Residence for certain individuals.
Fwiw, I've been advised that an updated in camera report went to Council on April 9, 2025. Guess they saw the value of over $55 million 'going to the dogs' and keeping the details confidential 🤤
December 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM
Fwiw, I've been advised that an updated in camera report went to Council on April 9, 2025. Guess they saw the value of over $55 million 'going to the dogs' and keeping the details confidential 🤤
Holy crap! That project id number is for the new Hamilton-Burlington SPCA ! Cc @joeycoleman.ca
December 15, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Holy crap! That project id number is for the new Hamilton-Burlington SPCA ! Cc @joeycoleman.ca
Thanks for pointing that Ward 8 one out. It was in 2025 budget for a total project cost of $12.875 million (debt). With 1.5m spent in 2025, it’s now over $55,000,000 ! Surely we should be told something since it also appears to be debt financed @joeycoleman.ca ?
December 14, 2025 at 3:59 PM
Thanks for pointing that Ward 8 one out. It was in 2025 budget for a total project cost of $12.875 million (debt). With 1.5m spent in 2025, it’s now over $55,000,000 ! Surely we should be told something since it also appears to be debt financed @joeycoleman.ca ?
Curious what the results were. Do you know?
November 11, 2025 at 11:20 PM
Curious what the results were. Do you know?
You're welcome. A lot of people don't realize this VUT only applies when the building/prop has 6 residential units or less under one ownership. It also appears to exclude certain classes of Retail businesses with a few apartments above. Councillors know this. Majority chose to ignore reality
October 30, 2025 at 7:04 PM
You're welcome. A lot of people don't realize this VUT only applies when the building/prop has 6 residential units or less under one ownership. It also appears to exclude certain classes of Retail businesses with a few apartments above. Councillors know this. Majority chose to ignore reality
Ah, now I see. Even if the intent is to house someone; and multiple people are housed for years. Prop A - disgruntled neighbour or ex that has all the records, can call a HotLine & subject you to VUT. Prop B - no risk of VUT. Which would the majority of purchasers pick?
October 30, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Ah, now I see. Even if the intent is to house someone; and multiple people are housed for years. Prop A - disgruntled neighbour or ex that has all the records, can call a HotLine & subject you to VUT. Prop B - no risk of VUT. Which would the majority of purchasers pick?
I'm trying to unravel our by-law & the legislation. It appears that apartments that fall within the Multi-Rez or new Multi-Rez are not captured (don't have to pay). However, condos (ind owned units)that are rented out via a mgmnt corp, are subject to VUT but in '26 new ones have a grace period.
October 30, 2025 at 6:51 PM
I'm trying to unravel our by-law & the legislation. It appears that apartments that fall within the Multi-Rez or new Multi-Rez are not captured (don't have to pay). However, condos (ind owned units)that are rented out via a mgmnt corp, are subject to VUT but in '26 new ones have a grace period.
Huh? Condos are housing. Some are rented on the primary market and some on the secondary market. We have thousands of condo apartments, townhomes etc so I'm not understanding what you're saying
October 30, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Huh? Condos are housing. Some are rented on the primary market and some on the secondary market. We have thousands of condo apartments, townhomes etc so I'm not understanding what you're saying
I've noticed that there has been some improvement here, in that vacant lands in my area that have been rezoned to Multi-Res are now in the Multi-Res vacant land sub-class. The AVs are low though imo, but I don't know much about what goes into that type of assessment at MPAC.
October 30, 2025 at 6:39 PM
I've noticed that there has been some improvement here, in that vacant lands in my area that have been rezoned to Multi-Res are now in the Multi-Res vacant land sub-class. The AVs are low though imo, but I don't know much about what goes into that type of assessment at MPAC.
Evidence, no. Just sharing what people who looked to buy factored in when deciding not to buy. Condo buyers are taking their time in today's market, doing their homework, and being choosy. Same applies to buyers for all types of housing
October 30, 2025 at 6:34 PM
Evidence, no. Just sharing what people who looked to buy factored in when deciding not to buy. Condo buyers are taking their time in today's market, doing their homework, and being choosy. Same applies to buyers for all types of housing
This project hit all the boxes & was 60% sold but basically dried up overnight. We also have over 6,000 rentals in arrears. All of that, in combo with other factors, affects the market
October 29, 2025 at 9:47 PM
This project hit all the boxes & was 60% sold but basically dried up overnight. We also have over 6,000 rentals in arrears. All of that, in combo with other factors, affects the market