City of Vancouver discounts on Property Taxes - BC Supreme Court Round 1

[Genauso]

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/...el-challenges/

At stake are millions of dollars the South Vancouver Parks Society asserts are or were vastly under-assessed at the following four sites:

1. 508 Helmcken Street (soon to become a 35-storey tower on Emery Barnes Park, downtown, swapped at $15 million now assessed at $130 million)
2. Oakridge Centre (41st Avenue and Cambie) (recently sold to new owner). Had a privately-arranged $367 million assessment reduction.
3. 949 West 41st Avenue (former transit site) (recently sold to new owner for $432,256,000). The July 31, 2016 assessment was for $170,882,000
4. Langara Gardens (Lower Cambie)

@FeeSimplePark
http://vanparks.ca/

Go get 'em, the public can buy amenities without Vision and their partners taking a skim. Time for some accounting at city hall, starting with granting building rights (they are granting more than ever, when the market price per sq.ft. is more than ever, and yet the public is receiving less than ever. Guess what the CoV doesn't keep track of. Something isn't right)
related:

The City of Vancouver is lagging behind all other major governments when it comes to response times for freedom of information requests, says an audit conducted by Newspapers Canada, a media advocacy group.

Freedom of information requests are submitted by the public to access information held by government bodies. According to Newspapers Canada's yearly audit, the city of Vancouver takes longer than any other major government with an average of 53 days per request before a response is issued.

Organization CEO John Hinds said such FOI requests are supposed to be processed in 30 days according to standard provincial and federal timelines.

"They're the worst in the country in terms of speed," Hinds said, adding Vancouver was given an F grade by the audit for speed and was mediocre when it came to disclosure.

Whether it's Tim Stevenson taking a $100,000 trip funded by Rennie & Wall, or Geoff Meggs caught on tape promising not to invite any private companies to compete against CUPE provided services for $226,000 in election donations... Vision Vancouver will end up like Vision Montreal, except that Vision Montreal lasted 20 years before it became defunct after a bribery scandal


Adrianne Carr of the Green Party tried to change the political donation laws so that donations are reported in real-time, all the time and not just during elections, with a ban on corporations and unions. Andrea Reimer of VV didn't like that because she's been working on reforming donations for 12 years now.

[Changing City]

You have been popping up with these broad (and unsubstantiated) anti-Council are more specifically anti-Vision rants on a number of threads. In this particular example, the court case has nothing whatsoever to do with the City of Vancouver, and absolutely nothing to do with Vision Vancouver, or any other party involved in municipal politics.

The City of Vancouver don't have any role is setting property assessments. That's carried out by an independent Provincial Agency, the BC Assessment Authority.

In a previous example of a community-based organization intervening in a perceived 'unfair' valuation, in 2013, the land for the proposed Northeast False Creek park was assessed at $400,000. The False Creek Neighbourhood Association appealed that this was too low. Their appeal “backfired” and the assessed value dropped $399,999 to just $1.

If this appeal is successful then presumably the valuation on these sites might be increased, and the taxes paid by their owners would go up. In the big picture of a $1,320,000,000 annual revenue budget, the additional revenue from these sites would have a tiny impact on everybody else's tax bill.

[cornholio]

Thanks Genauso for these posts that bring these issues to light. It is common knowledge that local municipal governments are corrupt through and through in the region, and not just the city of Vancouver. Low voter turn out and zero transparency clearly has led to this situation. It is unfortunate and we really need some major reforms from above to fix the mess.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Thanks Genauso for these posts that bring these issues to light. It is common knowledge that local municipal governments are corrupt through and through in the region, and not just the city of Vancouver. Low voter turn out and zero transparency clearly has led to this situation. It is unfortunate and we really need some major reforms from above to fix the mess.

Got any ideas other than ranting online?

People in Canada have no idea what it's like to live under corrupt regimes.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You have been popping up with these broad (and unsubstantiated) anti-Council are more specifically anti-Vision rants on a number of threads. In this particular example, the court case has nothing whatsoever to do with the City of Vancouver, and absolutely nothing to do with Vision Vancouver, or any other party involved in municipal politics.

“Vastly under-assessed”: Is public being short-changed on major assessments and deals (Oakridge Centre, 508 Helmcken, 949 W41st transit site, Langara Gardens)? Supreme Court (Fri, Feb 24) & BC Property Assessment Review Panel (Fri, Mar 3)
The 508 Helmcken site was subject to a no-bid property swap between the City of Vancouver and Brenhill Developments, agreed to secretly. The site was part of public land on Emery Barnes Park downtown, but is now under construction for a 35-storey tower, which CityHallWatch and media have covered extensively. SVPS asserts that the deal was made for many millions less than what it was really worth. Global New (see link below) reports that

• “the City valued its land at $15 million before the swap, in exchange for Brenhill’s land, which was valued at $8.4 million….The properties switched title last August [2016] and the land now in Brenhill’s hands is assessed at $130 million.”

The City of Vancouver don't have any role is setting property assessments. That's carried out by an independent Provincial Agency, the BC Assessment Authority.

Industry sources suggest that the price paid for the recently reported

• Oakridge land sale was well over a billion dollars. SVPS is appealing the recent assessed value of $611,181,000. They believe that Oakridge was assessed at only about 50% of the actual market value or less, as evidenced by a recent sale of the actual property in question
  
• SVPS says it is assessed at approximately 39% of the actual market value, as evidenced by the recent sale of the actual property ($432,256,000). The July 31, 2016 assessment was for $170,882,000.

Vision Vancouver has been working with sole-source contractors to do property assessments (and pro-formas from Rennie on rezonings), and winning big decreases from the BC Property Assessment Review Board -- who are political appointees by Christy Clark. Gregor and Christy share the same donors/puppetmasters. Their brands are different, but same hand pulling the strings.

The CoV has supported these demonstrably incorrect figures, and the case about 508 Helmcken seems to have caught them with suspicious loans to hide the accounting. The CoV should be looking out for the public at large, and not the profits of a few.

This under-assessment strategy being pursued for tax reductions is the tip of the iceberg where VV has spent billions in off the budget grants of building rights, and received a tiny fraction in return. The purchase price and annual taxes do make a difference when you're using high leverage financing, but the significant gains are in under-valuing and under-collecting money due from the non-standard privately negotiated rezoning.


If this wasn't a big deal, they would let everyone get 50% off taxes and triple their buildable floor space for free as well. I'll take the money if offered, but until then it's in my interest to fight for fairness.


I realize I've been brash and detracting from the general positive mood on these forums, and I like your posts ChangingCity, but with all due respect I think you owe me an apology for calling my words unsubstantiated.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Got any ideas other than ranting online?

People in Canada have no idea what it's like to live under corrupt regimes.

Corrupt and broken systems thrive when gullible citizens turn a blind eye to and possess blind faith for those in power. The regimes are usually pretty good at giving little treats to keep the citizenry happy and loyal. Democracies don't work when the people are fooled to vote for the worst.

With that said, I think Vision is creating a front for its "care" of Vancouver's residents, in the campaign promises to end homelessness, make the City more green with bikeways, protect viewcones and neighbourhood characters, and enhance restrictions of all sorts, in the name of the betterment of the people. These are all to placate the loud NGOs, but in reality don't really pack a punch.

In reality nothing much has been done to improve the socio-economic situation of this city. There is no push to bring back economic drivers like IT or other high-tech industry, ie. there are no new designated high tech parks proposed, or avant garde ideas to improve businesses. In fact, Vancouver is losing ground to retail businesses as the newer ones are migrating to other neighbouring municipalities. In terms of housing people, there are no wide rezoning measures to improve housing of all types by creating way more high-density neighbourhoods in the city. The selected high-density "gateway" neighbourhoods are set up for nothing but ego. There is also no effort to review by-laws that don't work or need improvement in order to improve the lives of the people. After Vision took power, a whole bunch of experienced City workers quit or chose to retire early, including the Planning department head, and the City was left with a young group of employees, many of them newly hired, who follow everything by the book and are "Yes-men" to those above. I encountered quite a few City workers during Open houses who had no opinions about the system. Maybe they are too afraid to speak up. The broken system also shows in the City's development and maintenance, from logical planning, architectural aesthetics, materials of buildings, heights, etc, right down to garbage collection, homeless shelter provision, snow-ploughing, etc. Even with a record amount of property taxes received due to a vast increase in property taxes, City planning, maintenance and other services are sub-standard, and third world in some instances. These are all the signs of a dysfunctional City Hall.

[WarrenC12]

Rebuttal:

I saw this today, don't take the URL as my support of VV/Gregor, but the data is from the conference board of Canada.

http://mayorofvancouver.ca/news/vanc...e-board-canada

Other Vancouver economic highlights:

Vancouver is home to over 75,000 tech jobs, which are expected to grow to 90,000 by 2019
Vancouver’s finance sector has moved up in the rankings of the Global Financial Centres Index from 27th place in 2007 to 20thplace in 2016
Vancouver is the third largest Film & TV production centre in the Americas
More than 10 million overnight visitors came to Greater Vancouver last year
Vancouver is the world’s number one VFX and Animation cluster (according to Variety Magazine)

I agree the city's ability to reduce homelessness has been proven not to work. However I give them credit for constantly trying to address the problem and create new spaces. Collecting less than 10% of every tax dollar does limit their ability to fund solutions to expensive problems like this however.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Rebuttal:

I saw this today, don't take the URL as my support of VV/Gregor, but the data is from the conference board of Canada.

http://mayorofvancouver.ca/news/vanc...e-board-canada



I agree the city's ability to reduce homelessness has been proven not to work. However I give them credit for constantly trying to address the problem and create new spaces. Collecting less than 10% of every tax dollar does limit their ability to fund solutions to expensive problems like this however.

It is just riding on the wave of good policies from the province, and neighbouring municipalities. I'm sure the numbers include the Lower Mainland as a whole. For instance, the bulk of people contributing to the economy of Vancouver do not live in Vancouver, as neighbouring cities are more successful in densifying residential communities. At my workplace, 90% of the workers DO NOT live in Vancouver, as city policies contribute in pricing them out. Almost all film production studios ARE NOT in Vancouver, but in Burnaby, Langley, etc.


Oh BTW, another theme of a bad regime is also the way it disseminates its propaganda materials. Everything always sounds rosey, until you are there to experience it.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Collecting less than 10% of every tax dollar does limit their ability to fund solutions to expensive problems like this however.

True, except you are not counting the value of the land rights they control. When they change the zoning on a site, they are creating sq.ft. of marketable RE out of thin air. It's got to be billions per year.

Secondly, without any study or justification they have held on to charging 70-80% of the market price for those building rights. Since adopting that policy land prices have increased, and there are economies of scale that reduce the cost/sq.ft. -- so they should have ratcheted the recapture %. Furthermore, as with Shannon Mews they apparently sold the building rights on a price estimate FAR below market value.

Thirdly, the province has less control over the cost/sq.ft. of space in Vancouver. Maybe the Federal government is on equal footing with its control of currency flows and interest rates.
The cost/sq.ft. is a broad based stress on a living city, and it multiplies both the scale and the cost of caring for housing the dependent.

It's a fact that VV has neglected the public interest in service of promoting their own. Their intentions may be golden, but the result has been rotten after 9 years of free reign.


Just yesterday Gregor's big question was "why don't we see more affordable walkup apartments? We should: allow 3 storey walkups to renovate and add a fourth floor / permit secondary suites in townhomes and apartments"

That's an insight from these forums. Except his action completely butchers the suggested action. He doesn't want to upzone the RS (SFH zoning) neighbouring the RM blocks (apartment zoning, they've added 0 in forever. Instead they make privately negotiated deals in CD1 rezonings that include free land for the developer that has acccess)

So:
a) no one owning a 50 year old apartment building is going to spend the time and money to add one more floor. They're going to rent the building until rent doesn't pay for maintenance.
If they don't, where do all the residents go while the building is being redone?
If they didn't have to abandon the city, their old apartment will cost more rent. New units always cost more than old units, just like cars.
b) Ok, stop sending bylaw officers to evict people subleasing an apartment? You've added a few hundred rooms?
c) You're basically red-in-the-face refusing to cede absolute control to grant favors that which has led to all of these problems.


This isn't being naive any longer, they are scrambling in media relations to preserve the status quo with the clear intention of wanting to do bad things.

The plan I suggest is a staged and smooth expansion on a wide scale.
First allow RS zoned SFHs to be upzoned to RT/RM, depending on two transparent and key factors: % in favour on a given block, and what neighbouring blocks are zoned for.
Then if/when they do agree, let there be a development levy of $x per sq.ft. of new building space, paid upon development permit. You don't need the whole block to be built at once.
Finally, say when 20 new units have been added in such a formerly RS zoned spot, allow the neighbouring RM/RT building of 20 old units to build 40 new units, again paying the same development levy of $x/sq.ft. of newly granted space at the time of construction.


Benefits: New space at a lower per sq.ft. rent. New units in places with underused parks and schools. Not evicting existing residents of affordable apartments and leaving them with no place to move into without leaving their community. Not funneling the profits to a few with access to city hall. Built in community support. Less time wasted in the planning department. Less uncertainty for developers and property owners, let the rules be clear and let them be master of their fate.

Believe me, VV is aware of this. They agree there is no argument against it. No the planning department and VV will not consider it, they will deflect and avoid confrontation or any direct conversation. The only possible benefit of the current system is its openness to corruption.

The city doesn't need more money, they don't need more powers. They just have to stop interfering and get out of the way.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Just yesterday Gregor's big question was "why don't we see more affordable walkup apartments? We should: allow 3 storey walkups to renovate and add a fourth floor / permit secondary suites in townhomes and apartments"

That's an insight from these forums. Except his action completely butchers the suggested action. He doesn't want to upzone the RS (SFH zoning) neighbouring the RM blocks (apartment zoning, they've added 0 in forever. Instead they make privately negotiated deals in CD1 rezonings that include free land for the developer that has acccess)

I don't know if you're deliberately leaving out parts of what he said or if you're doing it accidentally, but he also said that he wants to see significant new housing in SFH neighbourhoods by building more duplexes, inhouses, townhouses, and row houses.

It really sounds like you're picking and choosing things that he says to fit your vision.

Edit: It looks like you added a plan that pretty much lines up with one of the points that Robertson made in his speech, so I'm not really sure what you're getting on about.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by Vin

Oh BTW, another theme of a bad regime is also the way it disseminates its propaganda materials. Everything always sounds rosey, until you are there to experience it.

Michael Geller‏ @michaelgeller

Yes that's @geoffmeggs literally breaking ground! #Ironworks mixed-use light industrial/office condos Franklin & Victoria



lol. That's it right there.
I'm sure Geoff Meggs did loosen up some dirt, and I'm sure that work will contribute to the construction.


All I'm questioning is the cost. Maybe if he spent his time in another way, he wouldn't be further and further behind his claimed goals after every day he spends working.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Industry sources suggest that the price paid for the recently reported

• Oakridge land sale was well over a billion dollars. SVPS is appealing the recent assessed value of $611,181,000. They believe that Oakridge was assessed at only about 50% of the actual market value or less, as evidenced by a recent sale of the actual property in question
  
• SVPS says it is assessed at approximately 39% of the actual market value, as evidenced by the recent sale of the actual property ($432,256,000). The July 31, 2016 assessment was for $170,882,000.

This is how I read your post

1) you don't actually know what it was sold for
2) you won't acknowledge that value are going up after July 1
3) You will believe anyone who calls themselves an "industry source"

what was assessed at $170,882,000?

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by djmk

This is how I read your post

That's what's great about it being a case in the BC Supreme Court, we'll get answers.

Until then it seems like you need to read Do Vancouver & B.C. need a Charbonneau Commission? South Vancouver Parks Society might be showing the way.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Rebuttal:

I saw this today, don't take the URL as my support of VV/Gregor, but the data is from the conference board of Canada.

http://mayorofvancouver.ca/news/vanc...e-board-canada



I agree the city's ability to reduce homelessness has been proven not to work. However I give them credit for constantly trying to address the problem and create new spaces. Collecting less than 10% of every tax dollar does limit their ability to fund solutions to expensive problems like this however.

And yet yesterday we had yet another random violence spree that happen every few years because the city refuses to crackdown on drug users and the unstable homeless. I was shocked coming home from the North Shore the other night to see a virtual tent city along Denman. Vision has let the problem go completely out of control, holding out one limp carrot financed by taxpayers after another and no stick.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I don't know if you're deliberately leaving out parts of what he said or if you're doing it accidentally, but he also said that he wants to see significant new housing in SFH neighbourhoods by building more duplexes, inhouses, townhouses, and row houses.

It really sounds like you're picking and choosing things that he says to fit your vision.

Edit: It looks like you added a plan that pretty much lines up with one of the points that Robertson made in his speech, so I'm not really sure what you're getting on about.

Talk is cheap. Gregor can say anything that sounds nice. Even Trump knows how to regurgitate the phrase "Make America Great Again". In a way Gregor is much worse than Trump since he has nothing to show after a decade of mandate.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Genauso

lol. That's it right there.
I'm sure Geoff Meggs did loosen up some dirt, and I'm sure that work will contribute to the construction.


All I'm questioning is the cost. Maybe if he spent his time in another way, he wouldn't be further and further behind his claimed goals after every day he spends working.

Is that the site supervisor holding his hand for assurance?

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I agree the city's ability to reduce homelessness has been proven not to work. However I give them credit for constantly trying to address the problem and create new spaces. Collecting less than 10% of every tax dollar does limit their ability to fund solutions to expensive problems like this however.

I see this brought up all the time. Of course cities only collect a pittance of the tax dollar pie, and rightfully so. They are not responsible for paying the big ticket items tax dollars go to, medicare, education, defence etc. They are also contrary to Vision not responsible for social housing, or daycares... lets even forget about cutting property taxes and just imagine how far that 10% would go if the city focused on what municipal governments are actually supposed to do. I'm sure our sidewalk system would be complete by now, our streets cleaner and probably a couple more pools opened.

[misher]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I see this brought up all the time. Of course cities only collect a pittance of the tax dollar pie, and rightfully so. They are not responsible for paying the big ticket items tax dollars go to, medicare, education, defence etc. They are also contrary to Vision not responsible for social housing, or daycares... lets even forget about cutting property taxes and just imagine how far that 10% would go if the city focused on what municipal governments are actually supposed to do. I'm sure our sidewalk system would be complete by now, our streets cleaner and probably a couple more pools opened.

Exactly, charity should be a voluntary thing, my taxes should go towards things that benefit me

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Exactly, charity should be a voluntary thing, my taxes should go towards things that benefit me

Sincerely hoping this is sarcasm...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I see this brought up all the time. Of course cities only collect a pittance of the tax dollar pie, and rightfully so. They are not responsible for paying the big ticket items tax dollars go to, medicare, education, defence etc. They are also contrary to Vision not responsible for social housing, or daycares... lets even forget about cutting property taxes and just imagine how far that 10% would go if the city focused on what municipal governments are actually supposed to do. I'm sure our sidewalk system would be complete by now, our streets cleaner and probably a couple more pools opened.

This is true, but if higher levels of government aren't doing their part to fix these things, the municipal level doesn't have much of a choice, as ultimately they're the ones most affected. Obviously there are things the city could do too, but there's really only so much.

It always surprises me when people talk about the City of Vancouver needing to do more to improve housing affordability, when to me it was very clearly a provincial issue. If the problem extends far outside Vancouver, it's not their fault or problem to exclusively solve.