Commentaire
Myself and my startup, MapYourProperty, would like further clarification on calculating land valuation.
Land valuation is a very arbitrary process and is based on a market or a different party perspective. For example, a parking lot probably was sold for $100,000 about 20 years ago. Is the land value: the value of the property as a parking lot or the land value based on perceived value to become a 52 story condo?
1. Is the land value based on the purchase price by the developer?
2. What if it is a 99 years lease and the property hasn't been purchased in the last 20 years.
3. What if the developer purchases the land for nominal amounts?
4. How would you calculate land value if you are using other nearby purchase or land value that is astronomical? For example, RioCan purchases a site at Yonge and Eglinton for $27 million for 50% interest. So if I bought the nearby site about the same size of RioCan, that would be $52 million value - $10 million for the building *15% is $6.3 million
5. The Automatic Valuation System by Brookfield and MPAC could be inaccurate like with the Yonge Street fiasco where land value for small shops was extremely high, pushing high taxes on small owners.
We advocate that a clear formula for land value be provided and sets across the province or define for each city, similar to Section 37 outside of the City of Toronto. Otherwise, you will be lead to the same problems as Section 37 for Toronto where an arbitrary value is argued or negotiated. Without a formula, it is likely the process will be just as cumbersome and red tape as the original community and parkland benefits, possibly worse. The CBC strategy would make the development charge and benefits differ for each city dramatically.
An unknown value depending on what the developer, the city, or a 3rd party decides without a set formula could lead to disaster and likely increase red tape and unknown that before Bill 108. For Pro Forma, the development charges would widely be unknown as three different parties could come up with the 3 different numbers.
Reference:
https://investor.riocan.com/English/investor-relations/press-releases/p…
https://www.mpac.ca/Media/PressReleases/MPACReduceAssessmentsYongeStree…
Soumis le 20 avril 2020 2:48 PM
Commentaire sur
Proposition de questions réglementaires relatives au pouvoir d’imposer des redevances pour avantages communautaires en vertu de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire, la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la Loi de1992sur le code du bâtiment
Numéro du REO
019-1406
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
45626
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire