SE False Creek Leaseholders Start to Feel Squeeze

[whatnext]

There was an interesting article in the Sun a couple days ago, about the effect of the leases coming due on SE False Creek, the downward pressure on prices there and the inability to get a 25 year mortgage on leasehold property. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds:

Back in 1976 when people started buying the first 275 condos in South False Creek on rehabilitated industrial land owned by the city, 60 years seemed an eternity for a land lease.

Few who bought then likely imagined that they'd still be living there by 2036.

Fewer still would have known then that by 2011 - with 25 years remaining on the leases - that uncertainty about the land's future would begin to diminish, if not destroy, the equity they've built up in their homes.

Even owners who bought more recently may not have realized that with the clock ticking down to 2036, every year their homes will be worth less because even now some lenders are already refusing to approve 25-year mortgages even with prepaid land leases and that means fewer buyers...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz1ZXwV6Ats

[s211]

Heck... my UBC urban planning prof in the late 80s was already raising the red flag about the original term length of these ground leases. Sixty years is a little low for a ground lease...

[Millennium2002]

It's probably way too far into the future to think about it, but I think once the leases are up, parts of the place should be re-redeveloped to incorporate some principles of Olympic Village design... namely the upgraded wider Seawall and a small local commercial centre. =S That's just me though.

[ckkelley]

Leasehold property......I don't think I would ever have a true sense of ownership.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by ckkelley

Leasehold property......I don't think I would ever have a true sense of ownership.

Leasehold property is pretty common elsehwere, like London where the Duke of Westminster own a huge whack of land. Honolulu as well.

What happens if the city decides not to renew the lease and wants to redevlop the land with higher density? The owners still own the building, but can the city order it demolished?

[Spork]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Leasehold property is pretty common elsehwere, like London where the Duke of Westminster own a huge whack of land. Honolulu as well.

What happens if the city decides not to renew the lease and wants to redevlop the land with higher density? The owners still own the building, but can the city order it demolished?

The city can probably order it demolished if the owners don't remove their build. Similar to if you don't remove your mobile home from a mobile home park.

[red-paladin]

When the Non-Partisan Association-dominated council hiked the lease rates in 2006, its current mayoral candidate Suzanne Anton told owners, "This is not a social housing situation, it's a market housing situation."

Vision Vancouver Coun. Raymond Louie was blunter.

"You are all adults, you knew it was coming," he told residents.

"You should have carried out due diligence."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz1Zf6qJlOn

(From the same article)

Sadly that's my take on it too. These are people more wealthy than I; they made a bad financial decision and it's not right have the city bail them out is it?

[jlousa]

I imagine the city will offer to extend the leases as they start winding down. Probably and extra 25yrs-40yrs. I also imagine that some of the buildings might not be up to par and might not be worth renewing a lease on, and the area will begin to see some redevelopment within 25yrs.