Is it just the bistro building or that 6 storey building is included too? Love that Bistro building.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Not heritage. Just has a tacked on facade.
Click to expand...
Jean-Jacques and crew have been operating this restaurant in various forms since the early eighties (late seventies). They have built one of the great collections of wines and continue to deliver an experience that will be missed when it's gone.

The are also at the forefront of the "tax every building like a super tall condo" problem that small businesses, in particular restaurants were dealing with pre-pandemic and clearly with the pandemic the whole industry is in crisis.

Sometimes heritage isn't just the building.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I don't disagree - I've enjoyed myself every time I've been there. That said, if the restaurant / food / experience is what's 'valuable', it can be relocated if the owners so desire.
''
Click to expand...
Most new developments have mixed use/ground floor retail. I wish we would see it where the business reopens in the podium of whatever the future building may be. One must think there would be some way the developer and original owners could come to some sort of an amicable agreement.

Particularly during the pandemic when a lot of these small businesses are shut, and being sold for redevelopment when they may otherwise not be. Redeveloping the site and taking a few years and then reopening could be a win win for everyone during the pandemic right now.
 
Le Select is nice but it definitely caters to a certain crowd/demographic. It's not your hip young hot spot. If they were wise they'd try and secure a sweet unit across the street in the Well, which could really benefit having such a tenant upon opening
 
DSC04590.JPG
 
How much did Le Select sell for? I can't say i've enjoyed it there. Food was extremely average bistro food, but the wine selection is very good.

However, when it comes to the "value like a condo" argument, sorry, but this is development land and should be valued as such, because that is how it would sell. The assessment act is pretty clear on how properties are valued for taxation. The foundation of appraisal is determining the highest and best use. The HBU here is not a two story faux historic building.

Now, we should differentiate between prices paid for mid rise density land vs. high rise density to be sure, but their protest of fair market value was ill conceived in my opinion. I am very curious to see how much they sold for.
 
Urban-Affair said:
How much did Le Select sell for? I can't say i've enjoyed it there. Food was extremely average bistro food, but the wine selection is very good.

However, when it comes to the "value like a condo" argument, sorry, but this is development land and should be valued as such, because that is how it would sell. The assessment act is pretty clear on how properties are valued for taxation. The foundation of appraisal is determining the highest and best use. The HBU here is not a two story faux historic building.

Now, we should differentiate between prices paid for mid rise density land vs. high rise density to be sure, but their protest of fair market value was ill conceived in my opinion. I am very curious to see how much they sold for.
Click to expand...

I confess, I'm not a fan of MVA as the method of property tax assessment. I don't think it's the correct tool.

I have no aversion to taxing income or wealth, including property wealth.

I simply see MVA as a cumbersome system, relatively expensive to maintain (the need for constant reassessments) which clearly has its drawbacks in terms of penalizing some buildings and businesses most people would rather see stay, based on a theoretical highest and best use that may or may not every come to pass; and might be neither in any event; while at the same time not achieving much in policy terms.

I would prefer UVA. (Unit Value Assessment); where the focus is accurately assessing the resources your site, in its current use is costing the rest of us.

So we look at frontage, (how much sidewalk/road should you pay for); we look at # of water fixtures and pools (how much larger do you compel the water mains and sewers to be); we look
at the amount of hardscape on the property for the same reason, we look at the number of parking spots provided (more cars, more road costs) etc.

Those numbers are mostly fixed; that eliminates the need for constant re-assessment.

That creates predictable costs for property owners and every economic level.

You can still craft additional policy goals in; such as a lower rate for providing non-profit rental housing, or maintaining a heritage designated building.

Again, so long as the underlying conditions don't change, there's no need for reassessment and no unpredictability.

I think it's quite sufficient to simply up-zone land you'd prefer to see developed and let the market take its course.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I confess, I'm not a fan of MVA as the method of property tax assessment. I don't think it's the correct tool.

I have no aversion to taxing income or wealth, including property wealth.

I simply see MVA as a cumbersome system, relatively expensive to maintain (the need for constant reassessments) which clearly has its drawbacks in terms of penalizing some buildings and businesses most people would rather see stay, based on a theoretical highest and best use that may or may not every come to pass; and might be neither in any event; while at the same time not achieving much in policy terms.

I would prefer UVA. (Unit Value Assessment); where the focus is accurately assessing the resources your site, in its current use is costing the rest of us.

So we look at frontage, (how much sidewalk/road should you pay for); we look at # of water fixtures and pools (how much larger do you compel the water mains and sewers to be); we look
at the amount of hardscape on the property for the same reason, we look at the number of parking spots provided (more cars, more road costs) etc.

Those numbers are mostly fixed; that eliminates the need for constant re-assessment.

That creates predictable costs for property owners and every economic level.

You can still craft additional policy goals in; such as a lower rate for providing non-profit rental housing, or maintaining a heritage designated building.

Again, so long as the underlying conditions don't change, there's no need for reassessment and no unpredictability.

I think it's quite sufficient to simply up-zone land you'd prefer to see developed and let the market take its course.
Click to expand...
In essence the "up zone" you mention was done via the OP designation applied on this site. It set the whole thing in motion.

In short, and given this is OT - I agree with you the system isn't perfect and it is very expensive to maintain as you mentioned. I would propose a new valuation date each year is the right way to go and I would get rid of phase-ins as well in that case. I don't think UVA is the way to go however - that seems to be a more regressive system that generally benefits the wealthier, to the burden of those with less or those with larger families who use up more resources but who may not necessarily be wealthy. I agree it may be cheaper to admin. I also think it would be harder to capture some of those costs, and more sophisticated property owners (read: wealthier) might again benefit where less sophisticated property owners are unduly over taxed. We also should not follow anything California has done historically haha - in my opinion a disaster with prop 13 from 1978. I would not mind seeing a more progressive taxation system but I am not sure exactly what that might look like - perhaps the same system but with added province wide regulation to help maintain historical buildings or contextually significant areas to municipalities? Something that also allowed the city to jump in more regularly to address situations where small businesses are unfairly affected.

In terms of theory around HBU and appraisal, a lot of it is theory, but the theory is pretty sound. I can complete a HBU analysis based on the site as if vacant and based on the current improvements, and derive my comparable sales I would use to get to a market value from there, and generally I have a pretty solid track record. The OP here is regeneration lands, that tells you pretty much all you need to know to estimate the legal and probable HBU. The system is indeed in need of repair, but it is in need of repair to help those who don't have recourse to appeal like wealthy property owners might. I will say no more, but happy to discuss in a PM.

Also sale price here was 15 mill to Allied as shown above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top