Toronto Municipality: The Big Tax Loser with a Condo Bubble Burst

While the biggest losers in a Toronto condominium bubble collapse would be the owners of the property – there will be fallout to other stake holders (looking to the US for clear examples) including banks, federal insurance programs, and the condominium complexes (abandoned units which don’t pay their condominium fees).

But owners that decide to simply bunker down and hold on to their properties until they rise once again will face an additional burden for their trouble: higher taxes.

Toronto has a Municipal Land Transfer Tax (MLTT) – on top on the provincial land transfer tax – which accounts to about 300 million dollars a year. This tax takes place when a property changes ownership. For a cost example, on the average cost of a condo ($369,892 – Toronto Real Estate Board) the Toronto MLTT works out to $3074.52.

If property prices fall 20% the drop in city taxes isn’t the same because the rate varies based on the price of the property. This is important to realize when the cost of detached homes in Toronto averaged $650,147, and the blended value of all property types  in Toronto averaged $517,556 – a 20% reduction in property value would result in a 34% reduction in the MLTT – or about $105 million in reduced revenue for the city.

A collapsed bubble market coupled with a MLTT will result in even further loss in property values. It will be bad enough when values naturally drop in a bubble, but with Toronto scrambling to make up 100+ million in taxes, there will be dramatic raises in property tax (or other service costs) that will continue to put a downward pressure on housing values.

People who hold on to under-water equity homes will get punished for riding out the loss with new and greater taxes that were previously funded by an addiction to the MLTT.

I’m not a big fan of MLTT – I much prefer a fair market taxation rate (which is nice – more expensive properties pay more taxes) as a single, primary, tool of municipal taxation. The MLTT seems too variable, too addictive in certain markets, and especially too difficult to deal with when a municipality has to go cold turkey on a collapsed housing bubble.

TD Canada Trust Condo Poll Results – Owners Confuse Fees with Rent

TD Canada Trust’s annual Condo Poll results have been released for 2012, and there are some interesting findings in the four releases they have published:

• Canadians don’t mind paying for the perks of condo living (link)
• Maintenance-free living but can Calgarians really relax in their condos? (link)
• Torontonians worry about affording their mortgage – but many don’t mind paying for the perks of condo living (link)
• More affordable than a house: Condos seen as an attractive option in Vancouver’s expensive real estate market (link)

The interesting point for me

More than one-quarter (28%) of Vancouver condo dwellers say that their monthly strata fees make it feel like they are still paying rent, so they are saving up to buy a home without set monthly maintenance fees.

Condo, Strata, and HOA fees are not rent, but the monthly payments required to maintain the property that you have purchased. There is no concept of profit with monthly condominium fees unlike rent. The collection of monthly condominium fees is based off of a budget that is designed to be as close to actual cost as can be forecasted.

There is another focus about paying maintenance vs. paying rent. With rent – you have an owner that looks to maximize revenue and that usually includes significant controls on expenditure. Every penny provided to update or maintain the property is an out of pocket cost for a landlord.

With condominiums, you are paying (usually, unless the board is unusual) for proactive and ongoing maintenance and work designed to maintain the common property and the corporation. While owners may not like paying fees (35% of poll respondents want fees $200/month or less, 44% are ok with fees up to $400/month, and 17% with fees up to $800/month), they should realize that instead of lining the pockets of a landlord they are lining their own pockets by maintaining the condominium corporation.

I hope that helps understanding the difference between rent and condominium fees.

Safe Deposit Boxes Sold As Condominiums

I have already blogged about the use of condominium designation for storage facilities (here, and here for super luxury) – so it seems a natural evolution to offer really really tiny storage. SafeBox Condominium Vaults (Parallax Investment Corporation is the developer) will be opening up the first (world wide) condoized safe deposit box facility in Toronto, with further development in most large cities across Canada.

On a square foot basis, the units go for either $2160/sq. foot (for 3” ceilings), or $3300/sq. foot for the luxury 8” ceilings.

I’m all thinking this is a phenomenal idea, until I checked out their website and see they are marketing the purchase as “the ability to own a prime piece of real estate at an affordable price.” This is not an investment opportunity, this is a different way to manage and secure valuables. That the company is even marketing 1.67 sq. foot condos as a real estate play is not only inexcusable, it makes that plan feel a little scammy to me. Now I’ve got a little of that “buyer beware feeling.”

More Fallout to Toronto’s Falling Glass: $20 Million Lawsuit

In 2010 and 2011 two recently built condominium – the Murano Towers (731 units) and Festival Tower (378 units) literally rained down glass on the ground below. 13 panes of glass balcony railing released and fell.

Since then the glass from all those balcony units (somewhere short of 1000 units) has been removed and the owners forbidden from utilizing the space.

Yesterday the owners launched a $20 million dollar class action lawsuit. That’s about $18,000 per unit – to cover loss of use and to have the issue fixed in a timely manner.

Developer Accepts Full and Utter Responsibility for Catastrophic Failure

I have written many times that the final and full responsibility for critical failures of a condominium are the sole responsibility of the developer. End of story.

So I found it surprizing refreshing that Kevyn Frederick, developer for the failed Leduc, Alberta, condominium development Bellavera Green, has stated:

As CEO of Bellavera Green, I take full and utter responsibility. I felt that to speak to anything involving anybody else’s responsibility would be to minimize the impact that I’ve caused upon the people of Bellavera Green. So I had no other choice but to do the right thing and speak to only my failures.

The failure of the Bellavera Green has most likely forced significant and likely in some cases complete, fiscal ruin for the 150 people forced out of the development. That doesn’t include unpaid bills to subcontractors and other stakeholders.

People are still going to be madly angry at Mr. Frederick – and rightfully so. There is significant pain and hardship now, and lasting well into the future, from such an absolute failure of the development.

But there is an upside.

A developer that takes no responsibility acts as a roadblock to an investigation. We’ve seen bad developers destroy documents, launch counter suits, attack people’s reputations and lives, in all – do everything in their power to cloud the issue and slow down an investigative review. All at the cost of hurting even more innocent people.

Having accepted responsibility (which I am still stunned, and think is an amazing step forward), it may open up Mr. Frederick to cooperate with an investigation.

Specifically, with the developer on side, an investigation can get a direct understanding on how the “development dream” changed into a “development disaster.” A personal reconstruction makes it significantly easier for an investigation to isolate key failures or holes in current legislation and best practices that could be rectified.

With Mr. Frederick, given his willingness (the acceptance of guilt is a positive sign), we may have a very unique opportunity to improve the process of condominium development and protect future buyers a little better.

For I’m sure – and as he has indicated under questioning – he and his company are broke. So if there is no fiscal compensation, some time and assistance would be a start. Call it a form of truth and reconciliation.

Catastrophic Condo Failure Is Not Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware

The Bellavera Green Condo, Leduc Alberta, has suffered a massive, catastrophic, failure requiring all 150 of the residents (85 units) to vacate the premises. The reasons: code-failing fire alarm system, missing or damaged firewalls, condemned exterior staircase, non-sustained heat and electric, a second phase abandoned – unsafe and unsecured, and inability for emergency vehicles to access the building.

It is unclear who has title to the units (it’s not clear if the developer handed over title to occupied units), who to go after for costs, and the developer – Kevyn Frederick – has conveniently disappeared. As with catastrophic failures of this type, residents who have mortgages will remain responsible for their payments even if they can never return to their units, or have other costs until such time they could reside again at the Bellavera Green.

In all, 150 people (and those that rely upon them) have suffered grievous fiscal harm due to the mismanagement and greed of yet another developer. And I lay the blame clearly and solely at the foot of the developer and none others. Developers have full and final control over the building and plans. It is their choice to follow legislation, or to cut corners and ignore building codes. The rest of the infrastructure – including building inspectors – is just there to try to catch errors. But these errors are not there because they haven’t been caught; they are there at the failure of the developer. Trying to pass responsibility off on inspectors is a lot like saying “you didn’t catch me, so I’m innocent.”

That’s why fools who imply that the Bellavera Green owners who put down money and purchased mortgages have a responsibility to the failure of the condominium because of “Caveat Emptor” – or “if you were stupid enough to buy into this building then too bad for you” are pathetic and dim-witted.

The whole issue of Caveat Emptor, for a situation like this, was thrown out with Supreme Court of Canada judgement of Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co [1995] 1 S.V.R. 85, January 26 1995 (further discussion here):

First, it is reasonably foreseeable to contractors that, if they design or construct a building negligently and if that building contains latent defects as a result of that negligence, [purchasers] of the building may suffer personal injury or damage to other property when those defects manifest themselves.

In this case, the act of negligence: that it fails to meet code, and there is a real and true concern over devastating fire; so that personal injury or damage: the effects of such fire, that –

The reasonable likelihood that a defect in a building will cause injury to its inhabitants is also sufficient to ground a contractor’s duty in tort to subsequent purchasers of the building for the cost of repairing the defect if that defect is discovered prior to any injury and if it poses a real and substantial danger to the inhabitants of the building.

And the ruling seems to support my thought that the sole responsibility for catastrophic failures like this lay solely in the hands of the developer:

Apart from the logical force of holding contractors liable for the cost of repair of dangerous defects, a strong underlying policy justification also exists for imposing liability in these cases.  Maintaining a bar against recoverability for the cost of repair of dangerous defects provides no incentive for plaintiffs to mitigate potential losses and tends to encourage economically inefficient behaviour.  Allowing recovery against contractors in tort for the cost of repair of dangerous defects thus serves an important preventative function by encouraging socially responsible behaviour.

In the end, the owners are in for a long term amount of lost monies and (more importantly) time that will be required in moving forward with their lives. It’s a sad thing, and the province needs to put better protection in place to help stave off this type of abuse by developers in the future.

Condos Can Equal Free Fuel for Electric Cars

Three years ago, when I was president of a 107 unit condominium, I suggested that we may have to take steps to regulate the electrical outlets in the underground parking. I was assuming that at some time an owner would buy an electric car and plug in at night. As electric charges for all common AND titled spaces were paid out of condominium fees (no individual meters) for that condominium, I wasn’t about to have someone freeload their “gas” off the rest of the owners.

I was scoffed and laughed at (awww, poor me!).

Well, Mike Nemat of South Keys condominium, Ottawa Ontario, was doing just that – slipping his power cord into a common property wall socket for his 2012 Chevrolet Volt. Now, once he got caught, he’s been offering to pay $50/month for the right to plug in (he estimates the actual electric bill is about $24/month).

The board is having nothing to do with it, and requires Mr. Nemat to install a $2000 meter to continue his siphoning ways. That’s not going well with Mr. Namat.

The board is within their power to demand a separate meter. Indeed, they’re well within their rights to deny Mr. Nemat access to any electricity served through the common property – and unless the condominium’s by-laws are really poorly written, they should back up the board on that fact.

While I am all for getting off the monkey’s tail of fossil fuels – older, and even newer condominiums – aren’t designed for electric car charging. All new construction moving forward though should have parking stalls that, at minimum, have the wiring and sufficient grid to power every car at once – even if they’re not activated or metered till sometime in the future. Retrofitting will be a pain.

Mr. Nemat should in all honesty have approached his condominium board first before buying his car. It’s much like new owners who buy a condo already possessing a vehicle that’s longer or taller than the by-laws allow, and then complain about the board preventing them from using their titled parking spot. Too bad.

Boards Can Enforce Parking Restrictions Even After Years of Not Doing So

There’s a recent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice between Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1737, and Farrah Hakim and Jaffar Kayyali, regarding board enforcement of owner parking.

Jaffar and Farrah bought a unit – with titled parking – and proceeded to park, according to by-laws, an overheight vehicle there for 3 years before the board informed them they were in violation. The couple fought the board and demanded the right to continue to park their vehicle in their titled spot. After 3 years of dispute the court ruled that the couple’s claim was invalid and ruled in favour of the board.

It’s important to note – because this comes up ALL (all!) the time with boards I deal with – that the court ruled the board didn’t have to grandfather the vehicle because the board issued and started enforcing the overheight violation on all deliquent owners (there were 7 at that time in violation) in a fair manner.

Many owners often argue that there is a “timeliness” requirement to be caught in their bylaw infraction. That requirement doesn’t exist. A board needs not be omniscient, nor perfect, in their application of the bylaws. They do need to show fairness when enforcing them, and that the board enforces bylaw infractions as they become aware of them.  That’s about it.

So, if you’re an owner raging against a board claiming that they “ignored the situation for years” and that should invalidate any restrictions listed in the bylaws, you might not find that a convincing approach to gain favor from a judge.

Why Toronto Condo Prices Will Absolutely Totally Go Down in 2012

Because I say so. And I’m only being partially facetious.

The base creation of property value is supply and demand. As long as demand exists beyond supply then the value of condominiums will remain static or grow. But that’s only part of the story for Toronto.

In Toronto the super vast (some reports over 80%) of pre-construction condos are investor purchased. Investors, versus homeowners, are looking for fiscal return. Cash. Money. Income. The Jackpot. The Dream. Investors are looking for a growth in their financial portfolio.

As long as there are three factors in housing their investment is good: (1) demand over supply and (2) revenue exists between purchase and sale (3) the perception of “need” to buy now exists in the market.

Let’s look at point 1: Toronto is about to bring on more units in the next two years than ever before. It is unknown if there will be enough population growth (and demographic movement) to create demand for all those units. While condo prices in Toronto have “always risen”, we have never seen this much inventory come on line over 3 years.

Point 2: Rents in Toronto have topped out at the moment. While the costs of condos have continually grown, the ability to rent them at a reasonable percentage of purchase price (about 6.25% of value per year) has not kept up. Rent levels are well below this ratio. This means its great value for renters, but returns for investors don’t exist on rental income.

Point 3: Perception of “need to buy” – and this one is important. If buyers think the market is hot (whether this is the Toronto area in total, or just the building they are interested in) they will pay the bucks and pay them now. Buyers who see competition for their “perfect” home will often become irrational about the purchase price. Investors and sellers love that. But as people like me (and I’ve blogged several times about my worry about Toronto prices),the Globe and Mail, the Financial Post (indicating a 15% Toronto correction), banks, and economic reports all start talking about an economic slowdown in condo prices – then buyers start believing that. Not only do they start believing it, they start acting on it. They start thinking at they might just be able to wait, or another awesome condo may come on sale slightly cheaper. Perception slows the market. That’s why in part Real Estate Boards always issue the most positive statement about demand. They are in the business of supporting good housing valuations – meaning larger commissions to their agents.

So when I say Toronto housing prices will go down because I say so, it’s because I’m part of the group of people writing about the downturn in prices. The more people writing with this opinion, the more housing prices will stagnate and likely drop. And I think there are going to be a lot of people writing about a downturn.

And those people who believe foreign investors will save housing prices – as foreign investors believe that Toronto is reaching a peak, or just growing slowly, they will sell and move their investment to the US for better returns. After years and years of depressed housing prices, newspapers and pundits are starting to whisper “the long US housing burst may be bottoming”. If there’s one thing that a good investor knows – buy low and sell high. So even if there is still growth in Toronto – there’s likely bigger growth south of the border.

Toronto Condo Market – Boom, Bust – Banks Divided

Toronto. Again.

The question is – will the growth continue, even with 21,000 units coming on-board this year and the same scheduled for next. The Greater Toronto Region has about 5.2 million people in it, and a growth rate of about 0.4%. That would suggest about 21,000 new people (including births) – if we average it out to the 2.1 people/family, that’s about 10,000 new units required. So we have an oversupply of 11,000 units/year in just condos alone – not including low-density housing.

To this the Bank of Canada, in regards to Toronto, has indicated:

The supply of completed but unoccupied condominiums is elevated, which suggest a heightened risk of a correction in this market.

In July of this year, the RBC said:

We believe that the attractiveness of investing in condominiums will gradually diminish … [and the overall housing market will be] mainly flat in 2011 relative to 2010, with some wakness emerging next year.

If you’re pro about market growth (average unit cost in November was up 8% from last year), National Bank Financial analyst Stefane Marion indicates that the current inventory of Toronto units could sell in 19.3 months – well below market lows of up to 48 months historically. You can also see in that Montreal, a reasonable close major metropolitan, condominium construction is up 68% year over year. It is unclear if this is added competition or an additional indicator that growth continues in Canada – especially the eastern heart.

I still think it’s due for a correction – earlier reports this year indicated 70% of new condominiums are investor funded. With world markets still tumbling (down 2% yesterday in financial sectors) investors will start limiting their exposure to a housing bubble. This in itself will start the downward trend on cost.