Well, Somerset House is a complex example, because this is a classic example of demolition by neglect. The reason it now costs $2 million is that the owner wanted to demolish it and allowed nature to advance that process. The city pushed back hard, to their credit, in trying to keep that building standing, or as much of it as they could. There's a bit of a standoff taking place there.
I think if you had an incentive program like this in place, you wouldn't have had the blighted corner for as many years as we've had it already. There wouldn't have been a $2-million restoration cost. The restoration cost would have been a little bit lower. That kind of tactic and that kind of approach would start disappearing. To that extent, I think it tells you why you avoid those kinds of things. It's not nice when you go down Bank Street and see what was an obviously beautiful building now fenced off. People stay away. It becomes a no-go corner. It becomes a blighted area, frankly. That's what's happened in the United States. With all these blighted areas that developed for other reasons in downtown areas—deindustrialization, changes in economic use, social changes—the American version of the program has been able to revitalize those areas. That's worthwhile, and to everybody's benefit.
Should there be a means test? I've heard this from some in the NDP. They're concerned about helping wealthy landowners who own a house. Should it be means tested? My view is that you shouldn't try to mix different objectives. There are very good reasons why you want to help out people with modest means. This program should not be a vehicle for doing that. There's no public policy justification, if you're seeking to help someone with modest means, for you to say, “Gee, if you have an old house, we're going to help you out, but if you have a 1962 subdivision home, sorry, you're going to have to suffer.” I just don't see that. You shouldn't mix those two objectives. If you want to help people who are facing economic challenges, develop programs that do that specifically. But if you want to preserve heritage, develop a program that specifically focuses on preserving heritage. I think if you start trying to mix the objectives, you achieve none of them, and you twist the program out of recognition. That's when you really start getting unintended results that are not worthwhile.