this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
11 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7218 readers
385 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Frustrated shop owners in Toronto's Yonge and Wellesley area say the city is refusing to pick up mounds of garbage that regularly accumulates in an adjacent laneway because it's private property β€” even though the laneway's last known owner died more than a century ago.

In an emailed statement to CBC Toronto, city staff said: "The City of Toronto is aware of the litter/debris in the laneway near 6 St. Joseph Street. A complaint about this was received in September and the City has been working through the ownership rights of the laneway as it has been identified as private property."

But Adam Wynne, chair of the Toronto and East York Community Preservation Panel, said he's already done the legwork and found there is no longer a legal owner, making the area behind St. Joseph Street an "orphaned laneway."

Wynne said Ontario Land Registry records show the lane last changed hands in 1882, when it was purchased by a William Jones for $9,000. Jones has been dead for at least a hundred years, Wynne said.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Found where homeless camps won't get removed from...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago

Suddenly city services jump to action, citing new information.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean if no one has claimed it or paid taxes on a property for over 100 years can the city not legally seize it?

[–] HellsBelle 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes they can ... but then it means they are obligated to take care of it, which costs money they don't want to spend.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago

Turn it into a bike lane!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Would the city not need to make sure that William Jones had to heirs to inherit the property before taking ownership, cleaning it, and then auctioning it off?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I expect that's pretty much what's going on: trying to determine whether William Jones has living descendants and, if so, which of them owns the property.

One wonders about the property tax recordsβ€”if no one's been paying up, maybe the city could seize it for a century of back taxes without doing the detailed search.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I would imagine they need to inform whatever potential owner that there is a century of back taxes and then give them the choice to refuse and give up the property or choose to pay it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't seem like the fairest option if the descendant was never notified the land could be theirs. I'm not sure what the fair option is but it seems wrong to throw 100 years of taxes at someone for a property they may not have known they could inherit. Why did the city never catch on they didn't get the taxes for 100 years? Why did they wait for public complaints to look into it and suddenly the taxes are important?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago

Yeah, maybe just a backlog of 7 years would be the most I would say is fair if not nothing.