North Shore Updates

[madog222]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't understand why you rephrased what I said.

The posts above are talking about the future rail rapid transit line, hence Jimbo's comment.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by madog222

The posts above are talking about the future rail rapid transit line, hence Jimbo's comment.

Then I stand by what I said; If the province takes ownership of a major property in an area where transit expansion is expected, it's reasonable to discuss what they could do with that property.

[Migrant_Coconut]

TBF the SkyTrain's alignment has no effect on the actual site.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TBF the SkyTrain's alignment has no effect on the actual site.

It's fair to discuss whether the site has an effect on the SkyTrain's alignment, however.

I don't think it does, but I think it's an acceptable thing to bring up.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Excavating around an existing tunnel is also a nightmare scenario, and Forbes is like >5% grade my man. It's not a feasible route.

Errecting pillars adjacent to a tunnel is simpler than excavating an entire street somewhere to do cut and cover or tunnel boring. And Forbes is at 4.5%, skytrain is good at higher grades, and being elevated, it can be designed to be more elevated at Esplanade and shorter at Forbes to lower the grade further. I'm just saying there should be something in mind for this when they rebuild, than write it off entirely because a hill is steep.

[whatnext]

Some commentary on the ICBC sale from BIV:

Rob Shaw: Eby's rationale for sale of ICBC head office stretches credulity
Is turning the aging ICBC headquarters into affordable housing a bad deal for British Columbians?
Rob Shaw
about 3 hours ago

There’s nothing wrong with the basic idea of taking the Insurance Corporation of B.C.’s aging, half-empty, waterfront headquarters in the heart of North Vancouver and turning it into housing. But the governing BC New Democrats left lingering questions about the move with their less-than-honest approach to the announcement this week.

Premier David Eby credited his government with swooping in to save the ICBC HQ from a private sale by buying the building from the Crown auto insurer to turn into affordable housing.....

... The BC NDP has been in power for seven years and Eby, as the former attorney general in charge of ICBC, has had iron-clad control of the corporation the entire time through a leadership team and board that he picked and is loyal to him.

The corporation wasn’t going to go against the premier’s wishes and offload the building under former board chair Joy McPhail, a close confidant of Eby’s. Nor was the current board chair Catherine Holt about to double-cross the NDP and flip the property — especially given she’s currently seeking the BC NDP nomination in the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head...

… The government paid ICBC $53.3 million for the property. That’s only half of the around $100 million assessed value. And that assessed value is likely a lowball for such a prime chunk of waterfront real estate right beside the Lonsdale Quay and SeaBus terminal.

“It appears that the NDP government is prepared to short ICBC policyholders by some $40 million by redirecting savings from the purchase of the headquarters building,” wrote Richard McCandless, a retired deputy minister who monitors the financial performance of ICBC through a series of public policy updates.

“In essence, the government has appropriated almost $40 million of ICBC policyholders’ capital, which could have been used to strengthen its capital reserves or to reduce pressures on future insurance premiums.”..

...Again, there’s nothing wrong with a public policy decision to turn the ICBC headquarters into housing.

But it isn’t honest to cast it as an emergency manoeuvre designed to save the building from an imaginary private sale concocted entirely within the minds of New Democrat election strategists and pinned on a previous government seven years out of power, three leaders removed.

Nor is it honest to pretend ICBC ratepayers are getting a good deal out of the transaction, as they take below-market value for the property to help backstop the provincial treasury.

It’s hard to take the NDP government seriously when it fabricates rationales like this...

https://www.biv.com/news/commentary/...dulity-9105337

[GenWhy?]

So buying the land too quickly, and for less than an assessed value is bad now?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Errecting pillars adjacent to a tunnel is simpler than excavating an entire street somewhere to do cut and cover or tunnel boring.

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

And Forbes is at 4.5%, skytrain is good at higher grades, and being elevated, it can be designed to be more elevated at Esplanade and shorter at Forbes to lower the grade further. I'm just saying there should be something in mind for this when they rebuild, than write it off entirely because a hill is steep.

Just because it can do 4.5% for a full three blocks doesn't mean it should. Likewise, buses can make the climb up Burnaby Mountain to SFU, but the slope wears out their transmissions considerably faster - not a good option for a medium rail line meant to last a century.

There's also how 3rd is the main E-W arterial and has most of the buses and current/potential density. Esplanade's really only SkyTrain-worthy up to St Georges; once it becomes Low Level Road, it might as well be Spirit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Rob Shaw's a Lib/United attack dog (unless he swings Con now). Take everything he says with a few grains of salt.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

So buying the land too quickly, and for less than an assessed value is bad now?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul as the saying goes. Or robbing ICBC's largely captive customer base....

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

So buying the land too quickly, and for less than an assessed value is bad now?

The argument that the author is trying really hard not to make is that in theory it might make the BCNDP no better than the BC Liberals who were also considered bad for tapping into ICBC coffers. But that would require admitting that BC United, which is of course still at its heart the BC Liberal party, would not be any better than the BCNDP in this respect.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Good thing the future residents won't need car insurance, then. They're literally on top of the SeaBus.

Originally Posted by chowhou

The argument that the author is trying really hard not to make is that in theory it might make the BCNDP no better than the BC Liberals who were also considered bad for tapping into ICBC coffers. But that would require admitting that BC United, which is of course still at its heart the BC Liberal party, would not be any better than the BCNDP in this respect.

That itself is dubious, because the NDP aren't tapping into any coffers - at worst they're denying ICBC the maximum revenue that would've gone into the coffers.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Robbing Peter to pay Paul as the saying goes. Or robbing ICBC's largely captive customer base....

Isn't the land sale still a net gain to ICBC?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That itself is dubious, because the NDP aren't tapping into any coffers - at worst they're denying ICBC the maximum revenue that would've gone into the coffers.

I would argue that real estate, as the name implies, is some of the realest value that an entity can have. If ICBC has $100MM in a bank account and the government takes $50MM is that really so different from ICBC having a $100MM FMV property, and the government requisitioning it at a $50MM discount? The balance sheet isn't going to look any different. The government bookkeepers are going to see a $50MM loss for ICBC and $50MM gain for the province.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I would argue that real estate, as the name implies, is some of the realest value that an entity can have. If ICBC has $100MM in a bank account and the government takes $50MM is that really so different from ICBC having a $100MM FMV property, and the government requisitioning it at a $50MM discount? The balance sheet isn't going to look any different.

AFAIK net worth =/= revenue, because it's not liquid; real estate won't show up on a budget or balance sheet unless it's rented or sold. So from a certain point of view, Eby actually increased their budget by buying it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

AFAIK net value =/= revenue, because it's not liquid; real estate won't show up on a balance sheet unless it's rented or sold. So from a certain point of view, BC actually increased their budget by buying it.

So it's not a big deal if the province pillages crown corps, as long as it only touches their assets?

(and FYI assets certainly show up on balance sheets, we're not talking cash flows here)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

So it's not a big deal if the province pillages crown corps, as long as it only touches their assets?

(and FYI assets certainly show up on balance sheets, we're not talking cash flows here)

Doesn't pillaging mean taking things for free (often by force), against the other party's will? Correct me if wrong, but none of those seem to be the case here - BC bought a thing which ICBC wanted gone anyway. People sell things at a discount all the time.

If you're asset-rich and cash-poor, that's a much worse image than the other way around.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Doesn't pillaging involve taking things for free? Usually with coercion? Neither is the case here.

If you're asset-rich and cash-poor, that's much a much worse outlook than the other way around.

You should have been the BC Liberal spokesperson when they were making the same case for their dividend checks!

FYI if that's your definition of pillaging, then this is by definition pillaging. Unless you think ICBC has a choice in this sale, the province is quite literally undervaluing ICBC's asset in order to extract that free value through a forced sale (in the least charitable terms).

Feel free to make the argument that ICBC is in a stable enough financial state to allow the province to extract some surplus value, but it's silly to say that BC is actually improving ICBC's balance sheet through this sale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

Again, the Dippers bought a building which ICBC wanted gone anyway. $53m/$100m is 47% off; not the best deal for ICBC, but amazing when the Libs/United took $1.2 billion straight from the revenue stream! There's a difference between lowballing a (possibly willing) vendor and flat-out robbing a bank.

[chowhou]

It's inarguable that the BC Liberals extracted more from ICBC than the BCNDP have, but I think you're being extremely partisan when you essentially imply that because the BC Liberals did worse it's impossible that what the BCNDP are doing right now is bad at all.

Would you consider it okay if the BCNDP bought the property for $1? After all, it still would have made ICBC $1 richer...