[Halifax] Skye Halifax (1565 Granville) | 66 m | 2 x 21 fl | U/C - Page 67

Aegon123 · #**1321** Posted **Mar 20, 2022, 4:00 PM**

I walk by this site every work day and try to look for any activity. Not much to report except they put caution tape in front of the building blocking off the sidewalk. I don’t know if this is telling of upcoming action on the site or if it is just an acknowledgment by the city that this building is becoming more and more hazardous to the public?

There should be a push by the city to at least get this building demolished as it is clearly causing safety issues. The windows keep falling out and hanging on by a thread. How is United Gulf allowed to keep this lot in this state? It is also covered in junk and garbage. Also, does anyone know the construction timeline they are bound by? This was supposed to start in Jan 2021. I have a feeling United Gulf is just going to continue to push off this site as long as possible. The fact that they’ve had this site since 2004 with no action is a prime example of the system failing.

someone123 · #**1322** Posted **Mar 20, 2022, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegon123

The fact that they’ve had this site since 2004 with no action is a prime example of the system failing.

I wonder about the economics of this. Keeping a site in a poor state can minimize assessments and taxes paid while land prices and probably shooting up right now. I would guess the typical empty lot in downtown Halifax yields great returns right now.

OldDartmouthMark · #**1323** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 1:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder about the economics of this. Keeping a site in a poor state can minimize assessments and taxes paid while land prices and probably shooting up right now. I would guess the typical empty lot in downtown Halifax yields great returns right now.

IMHO this needs to change. If you're going to maintain an empty lot in the prime downtown area, there should be some landscaping/beautification requirements. It's ridiculous that this lot has remained like this for 30 or 40 years.

Nouvellecosse · #**1324** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 2:04 PM**

There's an opportunity cost for un/under developed properties - not only for the owner, but also for the city - and the taxes don't reflect that. Having taxes based solely on assessed value is good in that it generally means that either those with more wealth who can afford to contribute more actually pay more (in the case of individual, high value properties) or buildings that are valuable because they house a lot of people/activities and therefore require a lot of services pay more to cover their costs. But it often penalizes properties that contribute the most to the city in terms of vibrancy, housing volume, commercial activity, etc. while not penalizing properties that aren't contributing.

It's the same thing with urban vs suburban properties. If there are two similar properties with one being near downtown and the other out in the 'burbs, the one near downtown will be worth a lot more and therefore have a higher tax burden but is also costs the municipality less to service. So it ends up being a relative cash cow which is great except that it acts as a negative incentive.

Keith P. · #**1325** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO this needs to change. If you're going to maintain an empty lot in the prime downtown area, there should be some landscaping/beautification requirements. It's ridiculous that this lot has remained like this for 30 or 40 years.

That empty lot downtown is (or should be, if PVSC is doing their job) valued as if it was being offered for development, so it's not like the owner is paying pocket change in taxes.

OldDartmouthMark · #**1326** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That empty lot downtown is (or should be, if PVSC is doing their job) valued as if it was being offered for development, so it's not like the owner is paying pocket change in taxes.

That's all well and good, but how much would it cost to plant some shrubs and strategically place some mulch to clean it up a bit? Get one of their maintenance employees to drop by the lot once a week to pick up garbage?

While I would also like to see this lot developed, it has been vacant since the 1980s and has looked like 🞵🞵🞵🞵 ever since. Why is that considered acceptable? You've got me on this one.

Arrdeeharharharbour · #**1327** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 3:47 PM**

This site looks like a dump. Contrast this site with the former Ralston site which is kept tidy. United Gulf is demonstrating a complete and total lack of respect to citizens. At the very least they should be fined for littering or keeping an unkept property or whatever the term would be. If my neighbours kept their lot in such a state the city would be all over them...or I'd be wearing out 311.

Keith P. · #**1328** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 5:06 PM**

I think United Gulf have a long list of grievances with the way HRM treated them, so this is their way of paying back the city.

Saul Goode · #**1329** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That empty lot downtown is (or should be, if PVSC is doing their job) valued as if it was being offered for development

PVSC can only value it the way the market values comparable properties. Otherwise, the assessment would be vulnerable to challenge on appeal. If the market sees and prices such properties "as if being offered for development", then the assessment would be expected to reflect such values.

But maybe that's exactly what you meant anyway...

OldDartmouthMark · #**1330** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think United Gulf have a long list of grievances with the way HRM treated them, so this is their way of paying back the city.

Really? So they think they've been hard-done-by and as 'revenge' they want to take it out on the citizens of the city by making them stare at this heap of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 for decades? Not really what I'd expect from a developer that wants to play in the big leagues. If your theory is right, it shows a lack of professionalism on their part... but I'll qualify that by saying I don't think you're right. You do seem to feel the need to make excuses for them, though.

The impression I'm left with is that perhaps their business is struggling, in that they can't seem to get it together to actually develop the site, much less maintain it while waiting to get started on the project.

Or it could be that they have little pride in the city where they conduct their business, nor do they seem to carry much pride in their image, based on the impression of letting their stuff go like this...

someone123 · #**1331** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 10:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The impression I'm left with is that perhaps their business is struggling, in that they can't seem to get it together to actually develop the site, much less maintain it while waiting to get started on the project.

I think so too. I hope they will develop it soon but I'm not optimistic. If a developer like Southwest or Dexel had taken it over years ago there would be a good quality building there already.

"Getting back at the city" shouldn't feature into the business plans and the city/province should be asking what can be done to avoid such failures in the future. I'm not sure I can think of a comparable site like this elsewhere in Canada, on such a prominent location surrounded by so much development.

Keith P. · #**1332** Posted **Mar 22, 2022, 11:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The impression I'm left with is that perhaps their business is struggling, in that they can't seem to get it together to actually develop the site, much less maintain it while waiting to get started on the project.

Oh, I think they are a lousy developer, no question about that. They seem rather... strange in their decision-making.

worldlyhaligonian · #**1333** Posted **Mar 23, 2022, 3:55 AM**

Is the "Boss Plaza" complete? That might be their best development, but it's been going on for a long time.

Aegon123 · #**1334** Posted **Mar 23, 2022, 10:24 AM**

I remember reading somewhere that they will begin construction after a project is finished which at the time was estimated to be finished in 2021. I think that project is the Boss Plaza which is nearing completion but still a good few months away from completion by the looks of it.

atbw · #**1335** Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 9:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That empty lot downtown is (or should be, if PVSC is doing their job) valued as if it was being offered for development, so it's not like the owner is paying pocket change in taxes.

For those on Viewpoint, it looks like assessment on this site has jumped from $1.4 million in 2021 to $4.7 million in 2022, about $166,530 in tax. Definitely looks like it's being valued on highest and best use.

Keith P. · #**1336** Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 11:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atbw

For those on Viewpoint, it looks like assessment on this site has jumped from $1.4 million in 2021 to $4.7 million in 2022, about $166,530 in tax. Definitely looks like it's being valued on highest and best use.

There you go.

someone123 · #**1337** Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atbw

For those on Viewpoint, it looks like assessment on this site has jumped from $1.4 million in 2021 to $4.7 million in 2022, about $166,530 in tax. Definitely looks like it's being valued on highest and best use.

This does not cover the value of improvements. To contrast with the Skye site, the Maple site is assessed at $86M. As you suggest the capital appreciation is greater than the cost in property taxes, so land banking is profitable.

Saul Goode · #**1338** Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atbw

For those on Viewpoint, it looks like assessment on this site has jumped from $1.4 million in 2021 to $4.7 million in 2022, about $166,530 in tax. Definitely looks like it's being valued on highest and best use.

This may seem to some to be an overly technical point, but the Assessment Act requires that property be assessed at "market value"; the term "highest and best use" appears nowhere in the statute. The distinction to be made is that "market value" may or may not coincide with highest-and-best-use value, depending on a variety of factors. In this case, they probably do coincide. My point is simply that no assessor approaches valuation from a highest-and-best-use perspective; in fact they rarely even use the term.

The Texpark site is vacant land and as such would have been valued for assessment purposes primarily by comparison with the sale prices of comparable vacant lands. For an improved property which has sold, it's also possible to estimate a "residual" land value by subtracting from the sale price the calculated cost to reproduce its improvements (i.e., buildings, primarily) as new, less appropriate depreciation, with the remainder then being attributable to the land. However, that's inherently less accurate than direct sales comparison and is typically done only as a rough check.

Late edit: I meant to add that nobody needs to use Viewpoint (as good as it is) to check an assessment. All assessments are public record and freely available on the PVSC website.

OldDartmouthMark · #**1339** Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There you go.

So the value of their investment just increased by $3.3 million and they can't afford to clean up their lot a little?

Poor guys, having to pay all that tax...

IanWatson · #**1340** Posted **Apr 8, 2022, 3:43 PM**

Density bonus agreement for this one is going to Regional Council next week.