Someone bought a century home in Saint John and is allowing it to rot. The buyer apparently lives in Toronto and doesn’t care that the building is falling apart.
This is shitty. Someone has the money for “an investment”, which means other people don’t get somewhere to live.
Won’t happen, but I like the following hypothetical law: If someone owns a non-primary residence in any municipality large enough to call itself a “town” or “city”, it cannot be left vacant more than six months in twelve unless construction or repair work is being done on the property at least 20 hours/week by a licensed contractor. If the owner fails to find a tenant, the municipality is permitted to assign the property a tenant at what the municipality considers an acceptable rent without the owner having any say (although the owner still receives the rent). If the building isn’t habitable without repairs, the municipality can arrange those and then bill the owner.
Use it or lose (control of) it, in other words. And it would prop up the local construction industry a bit.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Won’t happen, but I like the following hypothetical law: If someone owns a non-primary residence in any municipality large enough to call itself a “town” or “city”, it cannot be left vacant more than six months in twelve unless construction or repair work is being done on the property at least 20 hours/week by a licensed contractor. If the owner fails to find a tenant, the municipality is permitted to assign the property a tenant at what the municipality considers an acceptable rent without the owner having any say (although the owner still receives the rent). If the building isn’t habitable without repairs, the municipality can arrange those and then bill the owner.
Use it or lose (control of) it, in other words. And it would prop up the local construction industry a bit.