The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[sailor734]

I believe part of the payout deal Irving got for closing the yard was agreeing that the site would never again be used as a drydock/shipyard. Still, I suppose any agreement can be altered if both parties agree.
There is also a persistent and longstanding rumour that Irving wanted to move all their shipbuilding work out of Saint John anyway because the shipyard unions here were just too difficult to deal with.

[bingun]

Another article on the building on Bayard Drive, similar to the one CBC did recently.

Developer looks to next phase of Hospital Hill project

https://tj.news/saint-john-south/developer-looks-to-next-phase-of-hospital-hill-project

“We’re still not completely done, we still have a floor to kind of finish up, I’d say we’re 95 per cent done,” Wowchuk told Brunswick News earlier this month.

Wowchuk said at least 17 of the 25 units in the five-storey are rented, with two, two-bedroom units and the rest one-bedroom, and they expect to be fully rented by August.

He said work is ongoing on wiring on the top floor of the building. He said they took the interior on each floor “down to the steel frame” and reinsulated everything and changed the windows. The building also includes a community room and an office for personal support workers, as well as a basement for maintenance and storage, Wowchuk said.

Phase two of the planned four phases of development involves landscaping on the building site, including adding a rock wall and walking trail across the ridge that runs from St. Joseph’s Hospital, past the Bayard Drive building and to the site of the former general hospital, where he hopes to build at least one 56-unit, six-storey building.

Wowchuk said he’s looking for financing and a non-profit partner on the building, which he said would focus on affordable and middle-income housing including two- and three-bedroom apartments.

“Building new will be expensive, but we’re going to do what we can to keep the costs low, so that people … can afford these units,” he said, saying they’d like to keep rents below $2,000 monthly on the market side.

The goal would be to start work on that building by early next year, Wowchuk said. Phase four of the project would include a second building of similar size next door, he said.

[cdnguys]

Land is being cleared close to Linda Ct and a construction trailer is on site. Anyone know what’s being built in there ?

[cdnguys]

Land is being cleared close to Linda Ct and a construction trailer is on site. Anyone know what’s being built in there ?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

I know this is one of EnvisionSJ's talking points, but I'm thinking there might be something here too.

On another board, there was some chatter about the BC Ferries contract with the Chinese ship builders. And how no Canadian shipbuilders even considered bidding on the contract, partly because they are booked solid with work.

Reading between the lines, having all our ship yards going flat out with no spare capacity feels like a bad thing.

So it seems to me, that maybe it might be a good Nation Building Project for Holt to propose to Carney to bring SJ ShipBuilding back online. Repair and modernize the drydock and shipyard, and spread out the work a bit more so we have some spare capacity left (and can also handle the military requirements that Carney's about to push hard for).

Yeah, I think it’s complete nonsense that some “experts” on military procurement, etc, believe Canada has the exact right amount of shipyards, and that there’s no room for reopening Saint John Shipbuilding.

If Carney is really going to spend that much on the military, and wants to build as much of the equipment in Canada as possible… then there could definitely be an opportunity to resume shipbuilding in Saint John. Canada’s got the longest coastline on earth, but our navy and coast guard are severely lacking the equipment and vessels they need. We have one operational submarine… one! We need far more ice breakers… and it that’s without even getting into the possibilities for non military vessels.

I understand they have the drywall factory now, but a drywall factory isn't integral to national security. It’s still one of the largest dry docks in Canada, but it’s now verging on a ruin. It shouldn’t have to stay that way… it could become a productive dry dock and shipyard. I'm sure the feds would be willing to pay Irving to shut down the wallboard plant and re-fit it as an assembly hall.

edit: there's also the possibility of the former Saint John Shipbuilding site being utilized for the submarine maintenance facility.

[bingun]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

Land is being cleared close to Linda Ct and a construction trailer is on site. Anyone know what’s being built in there ?

The plot below, I assume? It appears that it was sold two years ago for a fair amount relative to the assessment, but I have not heard anything specific. Zoning is RM.

[sailor734]

^

Here's a question. How can a property that sold in 2023 for 521K be assessed for taxes at 59K in 2024 and at 61K in 2025? Aren't assessments supposed to reflect fair market value? Our tax assessment system is a mess!

[cdnguys]

Originally Posted by sailor734

^

Here's a question. How can a property that sold in 2023 for 521K be assessed for taxes at 59K in 2024 and at 61K in 2025? Aren't assessments supposed to reflect fair market value? Our tax assessment system is a mess!

Wouldn’t it be the surge protection that’s in place ? Or maybe that’s not a thing with new sales? Don’t know

[bingun]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

Wouldn’t it be the surge protection that’s in place ? Or maybe that’s not a thing with new sales? Don’t know

No spike protection for property sales.

I am not sure if the fact that it's vacant makes a difference. The other situation I have seen is where multiple properties are bundled together, so the sale price isn't for that specific lot, but for all of them.

[Ottawa]

Originally Posted by sailor734

^

Here's a question. How can a property that sold in 2023 for 521K be assessed for taxes at 59K in 2024 and at 61K in 2025? Aren't assessments supposed to reflect fair market value? Our tax assessment system is a mess!

Tax hikes far exceeding the actual growth of the economy are not going to promote a better economic future. That property has had a ~30% hike in just 2 years. This happens all the time in every municipality.

So, unless our inflation is much higher than is being admitted, 30% is exorbitant. Taxes should reflect productivity gains, not the day to day valuations that can go both ways.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

Wouldn’t it be the surge protection that’s in place ? Or maybe that’s not a thing with new sales? Don’t know

Surge protection does not apply to new sales. When property sells it loses that limit and is taxed on the full assessed value.

My question was more about "If a property sells on the open market for $xxxxx is that not the market value?" If that is the new, recently established market value why isn't it automatically assessed at that?

[cdnguys]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Surge protection does not apply to new sales. When property sells it loses that limit and is taxed on the full assessed value.

My question was more about "If a property sells on the open market for $xxxxx is that not the market value?" If that is the new, recently established market value why isn't it automatically assessed at that?

As bingun says most likely because it’s vacant land - I assume it’s assessed differently

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

As bingun says most likely because it’s vacant land - I assume it’s assessed differently

If it is that raises the question of should it be assessed at less than fair market value? Ultra low tax bills would seem to encourage owners to sit on land for years rather than developing it or selling it for development.

OTOH the argument could be made that undeveloped land is consuming virtually no municipal services so......

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by sailor734

If it is that raises the question of should it be assessed at less than fair market value? Ultra low tax bills would seem to encourage owners to sit on land for years rather than developing it or selling it for development.

OTOH the argument could be made that undeveloped land is consuming virtually no municipal services so......

yes, the bigger question is WHY vacant land is assessed so far below fair market value. It's one thing for the city to tax it at a lower rate, but the assessed value should at least reflect fair market value.

While undeveloped land may be consuming virtually no municipal services, it's also preventing our city from being able to grow as much as it could.



This vacant property, big enough for small subdivision, next to the most highly desirably neighbourhood in the entire Saint John Region, is only assessed at $98,900. How the hell is that fair market value? This tiny, vacant parcel directly beside the property pictured, has no shoreline, and is valued at $92,000! The assessment system is beyond fundamentally flawed. It's corrupt.

Even if its not costing the city anything in terms of municipal services, keeping it vacant is costing the city a lot in terms of lost potential.

There's no good reason why vacant properties should have such blatantly inaccurate tax assessments, but I think we all know the reason why vacant property remains critically under-assessed.

While, I'm confident Premier Holt will deliver more substantive tax reforms than Higgs or another PC Premier ever would, I'm still worried tax reform is just not a sexy enough issue for people to care about and hold the government's feet to the fire in terms of delivering on their promises. Tax reform remains one of the most important unresolved issues in New Brunswick, and that should be of much greater concern to home owners, especially to Saint Johners.

The SNB tax assessment system is beyond flawed... it's inconsistent, and I'd say even downright corrupt. The recent surge in assessed values to residential homes in Saint John the past few years, especially West Saint John, is just outrageous. I think it's clear that a lot of the people at SNB assessment department live in outlying communities, as they've seemingly gone out of their way to keep assessed values lower for properties outside of cities, and found ways to justify raising assessments more on residential properties within cities.

However, the biggest BS in terms of SNB's assessments being wayyyy below fair market value, is on vacant, industrial, and commercial properties...

The whole SNB assessment system is rotten to the core, but I'm not sure the Holt government will be willing to go as far they need to, to actually fix it. Nor am I confident they will fully deliver the reforms needed to let city's keep a bigger portion of the tax revenue they generate, or let city's tax industry at a higher rate. I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic that they will deliver, but with how little people seem to care about the nitty gritty details, and how little the government has filled us in on their reform plans, my expectations are pretty low. I think we will see some reforms, but not likely as much as we should see. So, while I hope to be pleasantly surprised, I'm prepared to be disappointed.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

yes, the bigger question is WHY vacant land is assessed so far below fair market value. It's one thing for the city to tax it at a lower rate, but the assessed value should at least reflect fair market value.

While undeveloped land may be consuming virtually no municipal services, it's also preventing our city from being able to grow as much as it could.



This vacant property, big enough for small subdivision, next to the most highly desirably neighbourhood in the entire Saint John Region, is only assessed at $98,900. How the hell is that fair market value? This tiny, vacant parcel directly beside the property pictured, has no shoreline, and is valued at $92,000! The assessment system is beyond fundamentally flawed. It's corrupt.

Not sure this particular example is one of corruption though it is perhaps flawed. It's mostly a function of the small lot being serviced and ready to build on and the same is likely not true for the large parcel of land.

If the lot does not have access to services and perhaps is not yet zoned for development then it is probably difficult and unrealistic to ascertain an accurate fair market value. A provincial assessor likely does not have the time or expertise to figure out the potential development value of a property, or the cost of extending services to it and such – all factors impact the fair market value of the property.

Conversely, if you have a lot zoned for a single family home with services stubbed in, it's generally relatively easy to figure out how much it is worth.

[Pugsley]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

yes, the bigger question is WHY vacant land is assessed so far below fair market value. It's one thing for the city to tax it at a lower rate, but the assessed value should at least reflect fair market value.

The reason this lot is not valued at more is because of the rules around the key transactions which trigger a tax re-assessment. Currently, a property assessment value is capped at a maximum each year. Meaning it can only go up assessment value wise by a small amount. I forget what that is but easy to look up.

There are two events which can remove this "cap" assessment-wise:

#1 - When a building permit is issued, such as a building being added to the property, or an existing property being expanded, then it triggers a re-assessment when this is done.

#2 - The other trigger for a re-assessment is when it is sold, where the assessment can be increased significantly based on the sale price, compared to others in the area.

In the lot you've shared, it has no sold history on record, which means it has likely been the same owner for a long time - so there has never been an assessment increase beyond the "cap" that it would get each year.

Given there was little to no interest in homes or properties in NB prior to COVID, when people started moving here, you still have lots of properties like this that have increased under the "cap" compared to others that have sold, expanded, etc...where they've seen significant increases.

Personally, I don't see these properties being assessed lower as an issue. It is actually a good thing.

This lot you've shared will one day sell to a developer. The buyer will want to maximize return on the price and it will be hard for the current owner to sell this lot for a high X-factor of its assessed value when they choose to do so. This makes it VERY attractive for developers to negotiate, but the owner will still make a big windfall, likely in a 3-4 X value of the assessed amount - which 10 years ago was likely below $98K.

Basically, while the city may not be making a lot of money off it today, it is VERY valuable to a developer who one day will buy it, subdivide, and build on it. Once that happens, the city will see more tax revenue at a significant increase too.

So, you either raise the assessment value and get a modest amount short-term in terms of taxes, or wait and let it be bought and developed and get much more later in terms of taxes. But if it is too highly-assessed, it may never sell or be developed.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

The reason this lot is not valued at more is because of the rules around the key transactions which trigger a tax re-assessment. Currently, a property assessment value is capped at a maximum each year. Meaning it can only go up assessment value wise by a small amount. I forget what that is but easy to look up.

That's not true though – the 10% assessment cap only applied to owner occupied residential properties before 2025.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

How is it a good thing to keep vacant land under-assessed, Pugsley? It seems a lot of vacant property in NB isn't just under-assessed, it's critically under-assessed.

Wouldn't assessing these vacant properties at fair market value generate a lot more tax revenue for the city? That would be a good thing, imo. While keeping them under-assessed and generating less tax revenue for the city is a bad thing. Raising assessments on vacant property would actually create an incentive for properties like the one above to be sold to a developer... instead of just being held onto by wealthy landowners.

Waiting for a property to sell to assess it at fair market value sounds like a completely arbitrary rule that only benefits wealthy, long time land holders, and doesn't benefit our cities. Also, I'm not buying your theory that if a property like this was fairly assessed, "it may never sell or be developed."

I'd argue that if a property like the one above was fairly assessed, let's say at like $400k or $500k, the higher tax bill would motivate the property owner to sell it to a developer. Keeping it under-assessed keeps the current owner under-motivated to sell to developer. If the current assessment system doesn't allow fair market assessments on vacant property that hasn't been sold or begun to be developed, then the system should be changed!

This property in question is over 100 acres of prime real estate, directly adjacent to the most desirable suburban community in the whole region, or debatably the most desirable suburban community in the entire province.

If provincial assessors do not have the time or expertise to figure out the potential development value of a property like this... then what the hell are we paying them for? How much training do they need to know $98,900 is a ridiculously low assessment for over a hundred acres of land directly beside one of the most desirable suburban communities in the entire province?

Keeping assessments on vacant land artificially low and below fair market value, seems entirely counterintuitive to prioritizing development. If the goal is to get properties like this developed, then raising assessments will either motivate the landowners to develop the land, or sell.

What's the risk to raising assessments on vacant land to fair market value? That they don't pay their taxes? Doubtful... but if that did happen, wouldn't the province just be able to repossess the property and sell it?

[cdnguys]

Originally Posted by Pugsley

The reason this lot is not valued at more is because of the rules around the key transactions which trigger a tax re-assessment. Currently, a property assessment value is capped at a maximum each year. Meaning it can only go up assessment value wise by a small amount. I forget what that is but easy to look up.

There are two events which can remove this "cap" assessment-wise:

#1 - When a building permit is issued, such as a building being added to the property, or an existing property being expanded, then it triggers a re-assessment when this is done.

#2 - The other trigger for a re-assessment is when it is sold, where the assessment can be increased significantly based on the sale price, compared to others in the area.

In the lot you've shared, it has no sold history on record, which means it has likely been the same owner for a long time - so there has never been an assessment increase beyond the "cap" that it would get each year.

Given there was little to no interest in homes or properties in NB prior to COVID, when people started moving here, you still have lots of properties like this that have increased under the "cap" compared to others that have sold, expanded, etc...where they've seen significant increases.

Personally, I don't see these properties being assessed lower as an issue. It is actually a good thing.

This lot you've shared will one day sell to a developer. The buyer will want to maximize return on the price and it will be hard for the current owner to sell this lot for a high X-factor of its assessed value when they choose to do so. This makes it VERY attractive for developers to negotiate, but the owner will still make a big windfall, likely in a 3-4 X value of the assessed amount - which 10 years ago was likely below $98K.

Basically, while the city may not be making a lot of money off it today, it is VERY valuable to a developer who one day will buy it, subdivide, and build on it. Once that happens, the city will see more tax revenue at a significant increase too.

So, you either raise the assessment value and get a modest amount short-term in terms of taxes, or wait and let it be bought and developed and get much more later in terms of taxes. But if it is too highly-assessed, it may never sell or be developed.

It’s currently owned by a developer, and I see new road(s) and clearing in that red zone

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

If provincial assessors do not have the time or expertise to figure out the potential development value of a property like this... then what the hell are we paying them for? How much training do they need to know $98,900 is a ridiculously low assessment for over a hundred acres of land directly beside one of the most desirable suburban communities in the entire province?

How much time and effort do you think it takes property developers to study the feasibility of building something on a piece of land? In some cases it's necessary to bring in engineers and consultants to figure out if and what can be built. It also entails consulting with city staff, possibly about rezoning the land or seeking variances. Putting in this time and money is where a substantial part of the value of developable land comes from, and I don't think anyone should expect that the assessment service should be doing this.

For all we know that particular parcel of land has limited development value. At this point it's 100 hilly wooded acres with no city services. Who knows what it is truly worth.