HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > SSP: Local Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2012, 7:36 PM
CaptainKirk CaptainKirk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,060
^^^ Don't the fees also pay for property taxes? if so, would Hamilton's be that much higher?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2012, 8:23 PM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
Like where?
There's a 1200sf 3 bedroom unit available in the building at Caroline and Hunter for 240k. Much closer to downtown in a decent neighbourhood. That's just one that I saw in the real estate news. There are others in the downtown area going for similar prices with many much cheaper. Especially in the Durand area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2012, 3:40 AM
Duckyboy Duckyboy is offline
Recent Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainKirk View Post
^^^ Don't the fees also pay for property taxes? if so, would Hamilton's be that much higher?
Common fees do not cover property taxes; that is the owners responsibility.

Think of it like your mortgage... separate from your fees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2012, 4:05 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 945
Thanks for that analysis. I live in a big 2 bedroom apartment near St. Joe's that's just under $1000 a month now. Part of that is the ridiculous property taxes for residential buildings. From my perspective I can't see the property owner paying $400 a month for the equivalent to that condo (pretty much everything on the list except the bicycle program is included). Obviously new versus old building, but $400 just seemed crazy to me, especially since I know someone who bought in there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckyboy View Post
I work in Condo mgnt and that seems like a lot for a brand new building unless there are load of extra amenities. Here's what they have listed on their site as included in the common fees:

• Snow removal for sidewalks and entrances to building and parking areas
• Private garbage removal
• Building fire alarm system complete with 24 hr monitoring
• Fully maintained common areas and rooftop terrace
• Elevator access to all floors
• SHARED BICYCLE PROGRAM FOR SUITE OWNER

These items, as well as the following common items that are included as covered by fees.
  • insurance
  • management fees
  • audits
  • common repairs
  • reserve fund allocation (should be VERY small for the next little while... depends what the fund study has to say, once performed.)
  • common utilities

This not an exhaustive list; it's just an average.

But like I said, $400 for a brand new building seems high, but for some reason, Hamilton area common fees seem higher than others in Burlington, Oakville and even some in Dundas (IMO).

I have a few new buildings that I do the accounting for, and their fees range from $150-200 (30-40 units each; 2-3yrs old each).

I dunno... just seems high...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2012, 4:58 PM
Duckyboy Duckyboy is offline
Recent Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpgq View Post
Thanks for that analysis. I live in a big 2 bedroom apartment near St. Joe's that's just under $1000 a month now. Part of that is the ridiculous property taxes for residential buildings. From my perspective I can't see the property owner paying $400 a month for the equivalent to that condo (pretty much everything on the list except the bicycle program is included). Obviously new versus old building, but $400 just seemed crazy to me, especially since I know someone who bought in there.
I've not heard of property taxes being included into the common fees... none of the buildings that I deal with are set up that way.

Yes, Hamilton's taxes are completely out of proportion to what they should be, but those aren't usually included in the fees.

A major reason for (what should be) relatively small common fees for new buildings is the obvious one: maintenance & repairs. This accounts for the reserve fund allocation as well (for major/unexpected repairs).

I agree that this seems high... but hey: if people who can afford it and want to live there, then all power to them! God knows this town could use some people who have jobs and/or money!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2012, 6:59 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is online now
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa-Gatineau
Posts: 10,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
There's a 1200sf 3 bedroom unit available in the building at Caroline and Hunter for 240k. Much closer to downtown in a decent neighbourhood. That's just one that I saw in the real estate news. There are others in the downtown area going for similar prices with many much cheaper. Especially in the Durand area.
Many people would consider the Kirkendall area much more desirable than anywhere near downtown, including Durand, which is full of crappy apartments.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
None
Coming someday: new stuff from Rochester, NY; Hamilton; Toronto; Goderich, ON; Wheatley, ON; and Cobourg, ON.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2012, 3:18 PM
Nords Nords is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 35
I don't want to defend the $400 condo fees as that does seem high but a couple of points:

- That $400, if it is for one of the $325,000 units, reflects that higher condo price. There were decent 1 bedroom units in there in the 750 sq. ft. range for $100K less. So I would assume condo fees are also reflective of square footage and whether you have a parking spot. For a 700 square foot unit it is probably only $300 condo fees. The bachelor units in the building don't have parking spaces so they are likely less too.
- I think this building only has like 36 units so it is smaller, may you could argue more "exclusive" which has some arbitrary value. At the very least, having fewer units means less people to share in the condo fees which means more money per unit.
- One of my relatives bought in this building but she first looked at resale condos throughout downtown, durand, etc. and even though there are lots of cheaper units to be found, many in the $200K range or even less, often they are dated (both internal and external) and condo fees are much much higher then even $400. Look on MLS for what condo fees for example in the Pigott building are. Crazy huge. It's like an extra mortgage payment.
- I think in the past too many condos had too low condo fees and that's caused big problems when there are major fixes needed to boilers, roofs, parking garages, etc. So starting the fees at a higher level may seem expensive now but it is better then an emergency levee of $10,000 or more (didn't the core lofts recently have this?).
- Yes, Kirkendall south is technically more desirable then durand (speaking only of selling prices). Sure Durand has more million dollar mansions, but once you get north of say Markland, you are in a real mix of 60s and 70s high rises, care facilities and a real mixed bag of property maintenance. Kirkendall south does not have this as much. Most single homes now on MLS south of Aberdeen at least are now pushing $500,000 easy and even homes on Homewood, Stanley, etc. are mostly $400,000 plus. Being close to Locke, Dundurn commercial, highway access, Innovation Park, McMaster, etc. is a big plus for young professionals maybe even more then downtown proximity is for Durand.

Just a few thoughts. Sorry for rambling!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2012, 5:49 PM
Duckyboy Duckyboy is offline
Recent Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords View Post
I don't want to defend the $400 condo fees as that does seem high but a couple of points:

- That $400, if it is for one of the $325,000 units, reflects that higher condo price. There were decent 1 bedroom units in there in the 750 sq. ft. range for $100K less. So I would assume condo fees are also reflective of square footage and whether you have a parking spot. For a 700 square foot unit it is probably only $300 condo fees. The bachelor units in the building don't have parking spaces so they are likely less too. They can reflect the size, it's true. And the parking fees are generally rather low; buildings that I account for have monthly parking fees of $10-$15 each... not too much.
- I think this building only has like 36 units so it is smaller, may you could argue more "exclusive" which has some arbitrary value. At the very least, having fewer units means less people to share in the condo fees which means more money per unit. That is very true; # of units does make an impact, but mostly for older buildings where raising large capital is hard (often through assessments).
- One of my relatives bought in this building but she first looked at resale condos throughout downtown, durand, etc. and even though there are lots of cheaper units to be found, many in the $200K range or even less, often they are dated (both internal and external) and condo fees are much much higher then even $400. Look on MLS for what condo fees for example in the Pigott building are. Crazy huge. It's like an extra mortgage payment.
- I think in the past too many condos had too low condo fees and that's caused big problems when there are major fixes needed to boilers, roofs, parking garages, etc. So starting the fees at a higher level may seem expensive now but it is better then an emergency levee of $10,000 or more (didn't the core lofts recently have this?). This might be the best reasoning for the "high" fees; preemptive measures. I totally agree with this possibility.
- Yes, Kirkendall south is technically more desirable then durand (speaking only of selling prices). Sure Durand has more million dollar mansions, but once you get north of say Markland, you are in a real mix of 60s and 70s high rises, care facilities and a real mixed bag of property maintenance. Kirkendall south does not have this as much. Most single homes now on MLS south of Aberdeen at least are now pushing $500,000 easy and even homes on Homewood, Stanley, etc. are mostly $400,000 plus. Being close to Locke, Dundurn commercial, highway access, Innovation Park, McMaster, etc. is a big plus for young professionals maybe even more then downtown proximity is for Durand. Yes... I'd way, way, way rather live in Kirkendall South than Durand... I'm, actually looking that area right now. Once I find out the possible care facility distribution, that is...

Just a few thoughts. Sorry for rambling!
I'd like to add a few things to your post... see above in red.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2012, 12:44 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 2,997
I'm not sure whether this has been answered already, but property taxes are included [i.e. hidden] in the rent you pay for an apartment. Apparently the tax rate for apartment dwellers is higher than for home owners but I've got no facts to back that up, it's just something I've always been told. In terms of a condo, I can only assume taxes are paid separately from the fees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2012, 3:42 AM
durandy durandy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 394
you are correct sir. Another way the single family home wields its hidden power over the world. Live in a single family home and you are being subsidized by apartment dwellers and commercial properties both when they build and maintain your home's services.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2012, 3:14 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 945
The city now sends around a letter to each apartment stating the average property taxes for a unit in their building. For mine the average was around $2500, which is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2012, 6:10 PM
Duckyboy Duckyboy is offline
Recent Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce View Post
I'm not sure whether this has been answered already, but property taxes are included [i.e. hidden] in the rent you pay for an apartment. Apparently the tax rate for apartment dwellers is higher than for home owners but I've got no facts to back that up, it's just something I've always been told. In terms of a condo, I can only assume taxes are paid separately from the fees.
Not really, as the rent you pay can technically go towards anything the owner wants. Stating that it is specifically restricted for taxes makes no sense; no governing body can enforce what an owner spends his rental income on. Let me re-iterate: renters do not pay any property tax. You don't receive and MPAC assessment in your name, neither do you receive a CoH tax assessment in your name, therefore you don't pay property taxes. The owner received those statements, therefore he pays the taxes. He might choose to use your rent to pay for it... he might not.

Now, as far as it being higher, it is in buildings with 6 or more (I think) units in them. This is to cover the vast increase in services that a multi-family property uses, such as: Police/fire/ambulance/school/and various other government services.

They are all (as they should be) sort of based on a PER PERSON basis, not a PER HOUSEHOLD basis. A structure having 10 families will generally use far more resources (listed above) than a single family home will; hence the higher tax rates.

They can't just x10 the same rate as a single family home, as that would be insane, so they just increase the rate a little to help offset the large extra cost.

I hope some of this makes sense; and I apologize if I came off as an ass. I'm just trying to clear things up a little.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 4:45 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 945
I'm sorry but this post is just dissembling.

We've had this argument about property taxes and apartments before on the Hamilton Skyscraper Forum before.

Sure as a tenant you don't pay property taxes directly. However by that logic you as a consumer don't pay the HST either then. The retailer could chose not to remit the HST portion of the purchase if they felt like it, with negative consequents if they didn't, just like if a landlord decided not to pay his/her property taxes. Property taxes for apartments exist and their rates have economic effects no matter how they are collected.

With regards to your arguments of why the rates are higher for apartments, that's not the reason they're higher. The reason they are higher is that homeowners vote and apartment owners don't, so the city in the past cranked up the apartment rate to keep single unit housing rates low. Also the rate isn't a little higher for apartment buildings, it is a lot higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckyboy View Post
Not really, as the rent you pay can technically go towards anything the owner wants. Stating that it is specifically restricted for taxes makes no sense; no governing body can enforce what an owner spends his rental income on. Let me re-iterate: renters do not pay any property tax. You don't receive and MPAC assessment in your name, neither do you receive a CoH tax assessment in your name, therefore you don't pay property taxes. The owner received those statements, therefore he pays the taxes. He might choose to use your rent to pay for it... he might not.

Now, as far as it being higher, it is in buildings with 6 or more (I think) units in them. This is to cover the vast increase in services that a multi-family property uses, such as: Police/fire/ambulance/school/and various other government services.

They are all (as they should be) sort of based on a PER PERSON basis, not a PER HOUSEHOLD basis. A structure having 10 families will generally use far more resources (listed above) than a single family home will; hence the higher tax rates.

They can't just x10 the same rate as a single family home, as that would be insane, so they just increase the rate a little to help offset the large extra cost.

I hope some of this makes sense; and I apologize if I came off as an ass. I'm just trying to clear things up a little.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 6:14 PM
Duckyboy Duckyboy is offline
Recent Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpgq View Post
I'm sorry but this post is just dissembling.

We've had this argument about property taxes and apartments before on the Hamilton Skyscraper Forum before.

Sure as a tenant you don't pay property taxes directly. However by that logic you as a consumer don't pay the HST either then. The retailer could chose not to remit the HST portion of the purchase if they felt like it, with negative consequents if they didn't, just like if a landlord decided not to pay his/her property taxes. Property taxes for apartments exist and their rates have economic effects no matter how they are collected.

With regards to your arguments of why the rates are higher for apartments, that's not the reason they're higher. The reason they are higher is that homeowners vote and apartment owners don't, so the city in the past cranked up the apartment rate to keep single unit housing rates low. Also the rate isn't a little higher for apartment buildings, it is a lot higher.
I'm not trying to hide anything here, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by calling this post "dissembling". Nor do I understand why you would apologize for it, if you in actuality think it to be true. That is just a bizarre thing to type.

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but I'm not about to search all past topics to see if it has or not. Sorry for bringing it up.

I might have read the initial post in a different way, but I saw it as someone stating that they directly pay property taxes, and I wanted to help clear it up. Which the they are not directly charged property taxes.

And the statement that apartment owners don't vote is strange; why would they not vote? And so by not voting, the city just decides to increase their rates? But they don't bother using the fact that buildings, buy their nature, use more city-funded resources, like the ones I listed? That doesn't make any sense... I could be wrong, but it seems illogical. I thought this was common knowledge, but then again, I could be wrong.

Perhaps my use of the words "increase the rate a little" was out of line; I should have said 2.5 times as high. I'll make sure to word things much more precisely from now on when posting here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 9:14 PM
durandy durandy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 394
just looked a bit into this issue. Duckyboy you're right, it's 6 plus units. That would make it pretty much entirely apartment complexes. But I don't think you're right on the rationale - a higher ratio wouldn't necessarily correspond to greater use of services - if an apartment with 100 units is worth 20 million next to a house worth 200K, the house would use far higher services due to location efficiency, yet the value per unit would be the same, and the apartments would end up paying a rate 2.7 times the house rate. That's totally nuts not only from an equity perspective but from efficiency, given that the cost of servicing one apartment vs a hundred homes is outrageously smaller.

It sounds like what happens with apartments however is that if the ratio were lowered or equalised to the same as residential, then the value of the apartment would increase, which would increase the MPAC assessement and the taxes. It's difficult to contrast a house value and an apartment value, so having a '2.7' multiple doesn't mean the apartment is paying 2.7 the taxes.

This is just what I'm getting from a half hour of reading, I may be way off base.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 12:28 AM
Duckyboy Duckyboy is offline
Recent Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by durandy View Post
just looked a bit into this issue. Duckyboy you're right, it's 6 plus units. That would make it pretty much entirely apartment complexes. But I don't think you're right on the rationale - a higher ratio wouldn't necessarily correspond to greater use of services - if an apartment with 100 units is worth 20 million next to a house worth 200K, the house would use far higher services due to location efficiency, yet the value per unit would be the same, and the apartments would end up paying a rate 2.7 times the house rate. That's totally nuts not only from an equity perspective but from efficiency, given that the cost of servicing one apartment vs a hundred homes is outrageously smaller.

It sounds like what happens with apartments however is that if the ratio were lowered or equalised to the same as residential, then the value of the apartment would increase, which would increase the MPAC assessement and the taxes. It's difficult to contrast a house value and an apartment value, so having a '2.7' multiple doesn't mean the apartment is paying 2.7 the taxes.

This is just what I'm getting from a half hour of reading, I may be way off base.
I must have been wrong about the rates then... I thought it made sense (to me). I've been know to be stupid before
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2012, 8:31 PM
Dwils01's Avatar
Dwils01 Dwils01 is offline
Urban Fanactic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Posts: 2,343
427 Aberdeen.




Photo's by me from Sunday March 18, 2012.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 12:25 PM
mattgrande's Avatar
mattgrande mattgrande is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwils01 View Post
427 Aberdeen.


I feel so sorry for the people in the building in the back there. They're going from a view all the way down Dundurn to the side of a building two feet away.
__________________
Livin' At The Corner Of Dude And Catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 2:27 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 16,878
The crane is coming down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 6:00 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,548
How did the parking play out? Is this still just one level of parking at grade?
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > SSP: Local Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.