|
|
|
|
Specific Claims are launched by a First Nation band against the
Government of Canada for historic grievances, typically over issues like
unfulfilled treaty obligations, loss of reserve lands and mishandled First
Nation funds. The most common cases that cross our desk involve the sale of
reserve lands by the government of the day without the Band’s consent, either
because it was never surrendered by them or because it was invalidly surrendered.
The events are always historic and quite often pre-date Confederation
– a time when settlers were actively seeking to establish themselves in the new
world and the government of the day was eagerly trying to accommodate them
through grants and leases of land. And
sometimes that happened to be unsurrendered reserve land.
Those readers with a penchant for all things historical will find
interesting reading on the origins of these claims by researching King George III’s
“Proclamation of 1763”, issued in those turbulent times of squabbling between
the French and the British. It imposed a fiduciary duty of care on the Crown
which endures to this day, and is enshrined in the Constitution Act of
1982. Heady stuff.
Our involvement in these files begins when the historical research has
been done and the claim has been accepted by the government for negotiation.
The stage is then set for negotiations to begin over the amount of compensation
that the FN should receive from the Government of Canada.
The structure within which these negotiations take place is laid out
in federal government guidelines. The first, released in 1982, set out the
policy on specific claims and established guidelines for the assessment of
claims and negotiations. These were tweaked under successive governments but
the fundamentals remain the same. They
can currently be found in the document entitled “Specific Claims Policy and
Process Guide”, available online and currently (still) under review.
We have been actively engaged on claim files in the Maritime provinces
since the company began over 40 years ago – impressive, but a mere blink of the
eye within the context of the time periods actually covered by these types of
claims. Our involvement occurs in one of two ways. 1.
As an independent Consultant, hired under a
joint terms of reference to calculate the ingredients of the claim, which then
forms the platform for negotiations between the parties. 2.
As a Technical Expert on behalf of the First
Nation, advising their negotiation and legal team on the technical aspects of
the claim, ensuring that the process follows the guidelines and that the FN
receives the compensation it is due.
We have represented (or continue to represent in currently active
claims) over half a dozen First Nations throughout NS and NB, usually in the role
of Technical Expert.
The structure of a claim is set out in the guideline and usually there
are two components, calculated separately but intrinsically linked through the
historical record. (1) Current Unimproved Market Value - Where a
claimant band can establish that certain of its reserve lands were never
lawfully surrendered, or otherwise taken under legal authority, the band shall
be compensated either by the return of the lands or by the current unimproved
value of the lands. A relatively straight forward process….. (2) Historical Loss of Use -
Compensation will include an amount based on the loss of use of the lands in
question, where it can be established that the claimants did in fact suffer
such a loss. This can include losses from timber, agriculture, minerals and
aggregates, fishing rights, land rental losses and a myriad of other
components. A far from simple process,
often involving experts from different fields … and forests. The claim clock
begins when the lands where first taken – usually 100 years or more in the
past.
The process is not a quick one.
Reconstructing historical events – and placing a value on them - takes time and
diligence. This is no splash-and-dash
appraisal job. And rightly so because
there is much at stake here. Claims typically run into the millions of dollars
and the calculations behind them must withstand robust scrutiny by both
sides. The cost of righting past wrongs
does not come cheaply – or quickly. .jpg)
Lee Weatherby is the Vice President of our Counselling Division. If you'd like more information about our counselling services, feel free to contact Lee at (902) 429-1811 or lweatherby@turnerdrake.com
Happy
GIS Week! We were working recently on an assignment in the
Annapolis Valley, the land of orchards and sloping vineyards…and that got us
thinking about the impact of elevation on land area. Ultimately, the question is one of land
value: inherent in the value of agricultural land is potential crop yield. More land area equals more growing potential equals
more value. Where slopes are acceptable
or even advantageous, they may serve double duty in that sloped land is larger
than it seems. Our Valuation Division’s MO is to maximise your property
value…this is an Economic Intelligence Unit blog post, and this is GIS Week, so
we’re going to geek out on how to ensure you’re counting all your land, using a GIS, a little high school math, and a fair
bit of Pythagoras[i]. Pythagoras’ Theorem defines the relationship between the
sides of a right triangle with the equation a² + b² = c². Side “c” is the hypotenuse, and is always the
longest of the three sides.
For illustrative
purposes, we created a convenient, perfectly rectangular, parcel. It measures 500 x 1,150 m, for a total area
of 575,000 m² (57.5 hectares).
That is:
 But the land comprising
this parcel is sloped. The contour lines
added to the image below demonstrate the degree of the slope; on average, there
is an elevation differential between the highest and lowest elevations of 140
m.
Thus, the 500 m parcel dimension is effectively 519.2 m: 
and
the effective land area is 597,080 m²
(59.7 ha.), a difference of 22,080 m²
– over 2 hectares of extra space for crops!
This
is a highly simplified example of the impact of slope on land area. There are many other factors to take into
account, such as the tipping point between beneficial slopes and unusable
inclines. But in a world where “land:
they’re not making any more of it,” holds true, the most informed decisions are
the best ones. Where a precise figure is
required, you’ll need to call in a professional land surveyor. But when an area scaled from a map is fit for
purpose, using a GIS and a little high school math can yield a more useful
number than you’d get from a regular map.
P.S.
a related fun fact was shared at Wednesday night’s Geomatics on the Town event (part
of the 2018 Geomatics Atlantic Conference): tree planters space their seedlings
at a certain distance from each other.
For one tree planter, this was the equivalent of 3 steps on flat ground,
but on sloped terrain, it was 12 steps in order to leave sufficient room
between trees!
[i]
Mainly for defining the relationship between the sides of a right triangle, but
a little bit for first floating the idea that the Earth is a sphere...it comes
into play in measuring distance. There
are two methods of measurement in a GIS, Cartesian and Spherical. The Cartesian method calculates distance and
areas based on data as projected onto a flat surface (like scaling from a paper
map), while the Spherical method accounts for the curved surface of the Earth
(like scaling on a globe). The distances
in this example were measured in MapInfo using the Spherical method.
Alex Baird Allen is the Manager of Turner Drake's Economic Intelligence Unit, and has a high level of expertise and interest in GIS. If you'd like to reach Alex, call 902-429-1811 Ext.323 (HRM), 1-800-567-3033 (toll free), or email ABairdAllen@turnerdrake.com
Why Hire a Commercial Broker? How a Commercial Broker Adds Value in Real
Estate Transactions
There are ample online and
offline resources available at your fingertips to help you purchase or sell a
commercial property on your own – so why hire a broker? If you have the time,
negotiating skills, real estate market information, and understand your target
market and how to reach them, you don’t!
However, unless you can say
yes to all of the above, here is how a commercial Broker adds value to your
transaction:
1. Your time is valuable. Letting a Broker do the heavy lifting and
deal with “tire kickers” allows you to focus on your business.
2. Brokers have the contacts
and resources to market your listing or find you a suitable property, ensuring
all opportunities are uncovered.
3. Brokers understand your
target market and how to reach them.
4. Brokers do not have an
emotional attachment to the property or transaction.
5. Brokers are often members
of local real estate associations, which can provide you with access/exposure
to the MLS system in addition to their own websites, social media platforms,
and databases.
6. Brokers have the inside
track on market data, sales transactions, planning considerations and players
in the market who are looking to purchase or sell commercial properties. They can
help you determine a reasonable price and can help maximise market exposure.
7. Brokers know how to
properly measure a building and collect the property information required, such
as any material latent defects that must be disclosed in a transaction, which
can avoid future lawsuits.
8. Brokers prepare Purchase
& Sale Agreements, Counter Offers, etc. on your behalf, saving you from hiring
a lawyer to assist with these items.
So, once you’ve decided to
hire a commercial broker, how do you choose which broker/brokerage to represent
you? The short answer is to simply hire the broker with whom you feel most
comfortable. There are many excellent commercial brokers locally, so meet with
a few, ask them questions, and choose the broker you feel will best represent
you, and who understands your wants and needs. Each commercial broker has their
own strengths; it is up to you to determine which one is the best fit for your
organisation.
As Senior Manager of our Brokerage Division, Ashley Urquhart assists
both landlords and tenants meet their space requirements, and vendors and
purchasers optimise their property portfolios. For more real estate brokerage advice, you can reach her at
aurquhart@turnerdrake.com or 1 (800) 567-3033.
October 7th
through 13th is Fire Prevention Week in Canada. With firefighters in Nova Scotia responding
to over 1,400 fire related incidents in 2016/2017, it is important to ensure
that you have the resources in place to help tenants safely clear a property in
the event of a fire.
The theme of this year’s Fire Prevention Week is “Look. Listen. Learn. Be aware. Fire can happen anywhere.” The “learn” component of this year’s them refers to the need for everyone to learn two ways out of every room. We can help. 
Our LaserCAD® team is able to assist with “learning” by creating fire escape diagrams for your building. We can add additional crucial details to your fire escape diagrams by including the locations of fire extinguishers, pull stations, hose cabinets, and emergency lighting, as well as clearly indicating escape routes. These maps allow tenants to quickly identify an escape route and the location of fire safety equipment in the event of an emergency. We can also customise the diagrams as needed, showing separate escape routes for each individual tenant space and noting any other relevant details, such as muster locations. You may not be able to predict when a fire will occur, but you CAN plan for it. For further information feel free to reach out to any one of our Lasercad® space measurement experts at (902)-429-1811 or toll free at 1-800-567-3033.
.jpg)
It is a common misconception that a piece
of real estate has a single value. This
is simply not true. Determining which
value is appropriate likely has the biggest impact on property value.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’
Global Valuation Standards, specify six types of real estate value (Market, Rental,
Equitable, Investment, Synergistic, and Liquidation). The Appraisal Institute
(of America) has identified ten distinct, and valid, property valuation bases in
common use in North America. Legislation, case law, and the purpose of the real
estate assignment, result in many variations of these property valuation bases.
Any conversation about valuing your property has to start therefore with
an understanding of the purpose of the valuation assignment or you can end up
with a conclusion which is worthless at best, or seriously misleading at worst.
Let’s discuss the
two most common types of value.
Market Value (Highest and Best Use) is typically quoted and understood by many (including
appraisers) to be the only type of value.
It is the highest price you would get for your property on a specific
date, if it was offered for sale, properly marketed, and exposed for a
sufficient period of time to alert and allow all potential purchasers to submit
offers. It assumes that both seller and
buyer are knowledgeable of property values, that neither are under pressure to
sell or buy, are typically motivated, and are each acting in their best
interest. It assumes a cash purchase, or typical mortgage financing, in
Canadian dollars. It also anticipates that the purchaser will be able to put
the property to its “Highest and Best” use, which may for example, include
redevelopment, if this will create a higher value than the existing use of the
property.
But beware, Market
Value is not the
price you could expect to get if the purchaser (1) was an adjoining owner, (2) was
undertaking a land assembly, (3) was a relative or business associate, (4) knew
something that the vendor should have known but did not, (5) did not know
something known to the vendor of which the purchaser should have been aware,
(6) wanted a “vendor take back” mortgage, (7) intended to lease back the
property to the vendor, (8) enjoyed a negotiating advantage because, for
example, the vendor was in dire financial straits, … and so on.
I was recently contacted by an
existing client looking to secure financing for their property located on the
Halifax Peninsula. Their property was
improved with an older, single storey commercial building. The underlying land was worth considerably
more than the building and property under its current use. After discussing the purpose of the
assignment with the client and their bank, it became clear that the bank was
interested in more than just the Market
Value (Highest and Best Use) of the property in this instance. The bank’s goal was to determine if the
income generated by the property, under its current use, was sufficient to keep the lights on and pay the existing mortgage. However, the bank also wanted to know what
they could expect to sell the property for if they ended up taking possession
of it and selling it on the open market. Effectively, the bank had two different
goals which gave rise to two different values.
We completed a thorough analysis of
the property and provided the owner, and their bank with two values (1) Market Value (Highest and Best Use), which in this
case was for redevelopment of the property, and (2) Market Value (Value in Use) as it currently exists
without regard to redevelopment potential.
Market Value (Value in Use) is similar to Market Value (Highest and Best
Use) but is based on the assumption that your property could only be utilised
for its existing purpose.
Difference in Value
In this instance the
difference in value was significant: $1.5 million (Market Value - Value in Use)
versus $2.3 million (Market Value – Highest and Best Use). Both values were included and supported in
the report, allowing the bank to make an informed decision on lending.
Looking for explanations on the different types of values listed
above? Visit our Valuation and Advisory
Services site https://www.turnerdrake.org/WhichValue for more information on the various types of values.
Nigel Turner, Vice President of our Valuation Division, can be reached at nigelturner@turnerdrake.com
The Halifax Regional Municipality is in the throes of moving its
long awaited Centre Plan from draft to reality. With the first package of
draft policy and regulation released in late February, it’s come a long way
from the high-level guiding document that Turner Drake assisted with in 2016.
However, there is still a ways to go. As one might imagine, when replacing
multiple planning policy and development regulation documents for the most
dynamic and complex urban environment in Atlantic Canada, the devil is truly in
the details.
One of the biggest details being grappled with is the deployment
of density bonusing, which is principally designed as an affordable housing
tool. Depending on what you read, the current framework may actually backfire by
delivering no affordable housing and even drive up market-rate housing prices
by suppressing supply, or it may be perfectly fine and a good replacement for
present ad hoc negotiations which are falling
short of the Centre Plan’s achievable outcomes. Either way it provides
an opportunity to highlight the perks and pitfalls of this increasingly common
strategy.
What is Density Bonusing?
Density bonusing is a planning policy tool whereby new development
projects can access higher regulatory limits on built area in return for
provision of some public benefit. In other words, trade height for amenities.
It is sound in concept. The value of urban land (but not the buildings on it)
is primarily driven by where it is located, and what can be done on it. Thus,
it is value created by our collective society through the infrastructure and
services provided to it, the legal framework that governs it, and the
surrounding public and private activities which would make one desire a
particular location over another. When local governments “add density” by
increasing regulatory limits over what is currently anticipated by the market
(i.e. already reflected in its price), they literally create additional land
value out of thin air. In requiring a developer to provide public benefits for
this added density, local governments are recapturing the value they created in
the first place.
There is an obvious tension here in terms of why this ‘bonus’
density was not permitted in the first place, but in the messy world of
city-building, ideological purity will always lose to practicality. Density
bonusing thus becomes something akin to racketeering: nice development
application you’ve got there… what say you give us some art and affordable
housing, and maybe that shadow ain’t so bad anymore.
How Does it Work?
While it’s a clear win-win in concept, it can be complex in
practice. There are four important factors that determine whether or not
density bonusing works on a given site:
·
the value of the property as it exists today
·
the value of the land if purchased for redevelopment
·
the value created by adding bonus density
·
the value captured through required public benefits
It is important to note that all but the last factor on this list
are determined by the real estate market. The value captured is set by the
municipality, and is typically based on an estimation of the value of the bonus
density. In HRM, the tradeoff of density for benefits is structured under a
predefined framework. Other municipalities negotiate these arrangements on a
case-specific basis, but this approach it generally used in far larger centres
due to the complexity and sophistication involved.
Roughly speaking, development projects are feasible in areas where
the market price for land exceeds the value of properties as currently
developed. Adding a density bonusing program to the mix will increase the
redevelopment value, but also add a new cost in the form of requisite public
benefits. On net, this is usually a positive value; these programs are designed
to recapture only a portion of the value they create.
It should be apparent that density bonusing is not, in principle,
a drag on development. In fact, a properly designed program should improve the
feasibility of existing projects and even increase the total pool of viable
projects where the net positive addition of value (bonus density minus benefit
cost) actually tips the balance of feasibility. For all intents and purposes,
this is indistinguishable from a basic upzoning.
Where Can It Go Wrong?
There are plenty of opportunities for density bonusing programs to
go awry, but most are the usual pitfalls of any public policy. There needs to
be a logical and efficient administration process. The program needs to be
supported by accurate data so that its function lives up to its intent.
Appropriate buffers needs to be left to account for secondary costs and added
overhead created by the program itself. There needs to be additional mechanisms
in place to deal with the outputs (this is an important topic of conversation
in the Centre Plan context, in which the majority of benefit is supposed to be
in the form of affordable housing while the municipality has no formal
jurisdiction or established programming).
However, the fundamental issue of whether a density bonusing
program works is the value relationship between what is proposed, and what
exists today. Most of the debate and discussion in HRM has been focussed on
aspects of the former: what is the best value capture rate to use, what is the
right threshold for triggering the bonus requirements, what are the correct
value assumptions? Important questions, but their answers are all derived from
the latter issue, not determined in a vacuum.
At the scale of a city, form follows finance. Whether density
bonusing is implemented or ignored by the private sector will ultimately depend
on whether the total value of entitled and bonus density, less the cost of
delivering it (development costs plus public benefit), is a sweeter deal than
exists today. If a profit incentive exists, a badly designed program will still
deliver. If a perfectly designed program equates to a downzoning, don’t count on
anything happening until prices rise, or losses are written off.
How to Get it Right?
As municipal planning increasingly makes use of economic and
market-based tools (and it should) it also needs to expand its understanding of
the principles and systems that underpin them. Weight does need to be placed on
the market conditions of the present given their influence on the future (to
say nothing of the municipality’s complicity in forming them).
The traditional approach would state planning policies cannot be
captive to past practices and existing conditions, otherwise change would never
be possible. While this is true, it is not justification for being willfully
ignorant either. Understanding the basic value relationship between today's
conditions and those proposed under new policy is the key to understanding
whether density bonusing, or any planning policy for that matter, will deliver
on its promise. [1].jpg)
Neil Lovitt, our Senior Manager of Planning
& Economic Intelligence can be reached at 429-1811 ext. 349 (HRM), 1 (800)
567-3033 (toll free), or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com.
The Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA) publishes measurement standards for office, industrial,
retail, and mixed use spaces. These
measurement standards provide guidelines for measuring the area occupied by each
tenant within a building and, when appropriate, allocating common spaces.
BOMA states that if a building
contains a single occupancy type comprising 51% or more of the total building
area, the corresponding standard should be used. In other words, the building owner does not
have the right to simply choose the standard that best serves their interests.
Given the ubiquity of commercial buildings that can be used for both office and retail uses, particularly in suburban and
rural areas, it is critical to understand the differences between these
standards.
Boundary Condition
Where does my measure line extend
to? One of the most important differences between the Retail and Office
Standards is how the measure line differs for exterior enclosures. The Gross Leasable Area of a retail building
is measured to the outside face of
the exterior walls. Under the Office Standard
the measure line for the exterior enclosure is the dominant portion of the inside finished surface. The dominant
portion is the finished surface that comprises over 50% of the vertical height,
measured from floor to ceiling (not exceeding 8 ft.). This difference can be significant. The illustration below shows how a unit
measured to the Retail Standard (right) captures more area than a unit measured
to the Office Standard (left) based on this condition:
 Allocation of
Common Area
Under the Office Standard, building
owners can allocate to each tenant their proportionate share of common area. This
process of “grossing-up” the tenant’s space means each unit has two areas: a Tenant Area (the space physically occupied
by the tenant), as well as a Rentable
Area (the Tenant Area plus a proportionate share of common space). In a retail building this is not the case, as
this Standard does not allow for the grossing up of common areas. Under the
Retail Standard, Gross Leasable Area is simply the area designed for the exclusive use of an occupant with no share of
common area.
Consider a hypothetical office
unit with a Tenant Area of 1,250 ft.2 located within a building that
contains three additional units of the same size and 200 ft.2 of common
area. Each unit comprises ¼ of the total
Tenant Area, and is allocated 25% of the common area (25% x 200 ft.2
= 50 ft.2) making the Rentable Area of the unit 1,300 ft.2
(blue overlay on left side graphic below). If this were a retail building the
Gross Leasable Area would be 1,322 ft.2 as this unit would simply be
measured to the exterior face of all exterior walls, while excluding any allocation
of building common areas (green overlay on right side graphic below).
These are just two of the many
differences between the Retail and Office Standards. With a total of six BOMA Measurement
Standards it is critical to verify that the correct standard has been applied
to your building, and that your space has been certified to verify its accuracy. .jpg) Mitchell Jones splits his time between Turner Drake's Lasercad® and Valuation Divisions. For further information feel free to reach out to him, or any one of our space measurement experts at (902)-429-1811 or toll free at 1-800-567-3033.
Of Heaven and Sea and Earth 
Please be suitably impressed by
this photo: it has all three of a church, a lighthouse and a commercial
heritage building
Five years ago, the Chronicle
Herald reported that some of Nova Scotia’s churches were exploring the option
of deregistering their buildings’
heritage status under the provincial Heritage Property Act. Nova Scotia’s churches are often their town’s
signature property, featuring architectural details ranging from elaborate
stained glass windows to ceilings built by 19th century shipwrights
using the same techniques used on the hulls of wooden ships. But cultural and demographic shifts have
reduced demand for churches in the province. Dwindling congregations mean reduced budgets
unable to cope with the high costs of maintaining and operating historic
properties. Deregistration is required
for demolition, the only option some congregations saw in the face of financial
realities: maintenance requirements outweighed the ability to keep these
architectural gems standing. Recent
years have seen other churches amalgamate congregations, keeping and
maintaining a single building while selling the rest off for (hopefully
sympathetic) redevelopment. 
Wolfville United Church as it was A more literal beacon facing a
similar threat of extinction is the Canadian lighthouse. Changing technologies have rendered redundant
their function, if not their cultural attraction. In May 2008, Parliament passed the Heritage
Lighthouse Protection Act, a bill to designate and preserve lighthouses of
historic significance. It took effect in
May 2010, only to be followed in June by an announcement declaring almost all
Canadian lighthouses surplus, no longer to be maintained by the Coast Guard. Since then, community groups have become the
champions of select historic lighthouses, while the rest, presumably, will
suffer the same fate as many an unfortunate ship along our rocky coasts.  Peggy’s Cove lighthouse, a likely survivor
The foregoing each illustrate the
perils of functional obsolescence: when a building’s functionality no longer
meets market demands only its cultural significance can protect it – and then
only if a champion steps up, e.g. government, community group, or passionate
property owner. Urban heritage
properties are particularly susceptible to rising functional obsolescence due
to the high value of the land on which they sit: the financial rewards of
redevelopment contrast starkly with the economic pitfalls of retaining and
maintaining them. Demolition is tempting.
This year we celebrate Canada 150. With our history and heritage, for better or worse,
on prominent display, we decided to turn our attention to the uphill battle
faced by commercial heritage properties in Halifax.
Size Matters
Hemlines are the
harbinger of stock prices. Construction
of the tallest skyscraper
marks the dawn of recession. Floorplates
sound the death knell of heritage properties?
 Open concept office-in-waiting
Downtown heritage buildings in
Atlantic Canada are at an inherent disadvantage versus modern construction
because they are simply too small. Even
30-year-old buildings are feeling the strain imposed by their new, more
spacious contemporaries, whose design is able to accommodate demand for open
concept offices. In Halifax, total demand
has yet to catch up with new supply. Rental rates are restricted and tenants
can afford to move into the new buildings, leaving the last generation of Class
A office space struggling to stay relevant – and occupied. The trend is toward larger floorplates as companies
are opting for large, open concept offices with collaborative workspaces and
few individual offices. Downtown Halifax
doesn’t have a supply of unused historic warehouses with high ceilings and large
floorplates ripe for conversion well suited to modern tastes. Instead, our heritage
properties are mainly small buildings, 3-6 storeys high and with floor plates
between 1,000 and 6,000 square feet (typically at the lower end of this
range).
Halifax has a few examples of
what can be done to overcome this drawback.
Barrington Espace and the RBC Waterside Centre both maintained the façades
of a number of adjacent heritage properties while completely overhauling their
innards, joining the buildings within to allow for larger floorplates (Saint
John’s CentreBeam Place is another example of where this technique was used
successfully). If done carefully, this
can present a best of both worlds compromise.
If not, the result may be the Disneyfication of heritage: it looks about
right, but there’s no soul. Either way,
it is not an option for detached heritage properties: they are left to find
occupants happy with the original floorplates size. 
Barrington Espace, RBC Waterside Centre, CentreBeam Place…thanks, Google
Street View! Finding a Fit Heritage properties need a
certain tenant. The predominant
competitor of the heritage office building is the home office: to attract a
tenant away from this “free” space, a historic building must provide cachet and
interest, and must find a tenant who wants (or needs) both as marketing tools
for their business. Heritage tenants are
drawn from a pool of largely creative firms represented by public relations and
marketing firms, IT companies, and (interestingly) employment recruiting
agencies. Often, these firms are start-ups;
there is a symbiotic relationship between the two, with the heritage property
providing an inspiring ambiance (and maybe cheap rent: see below), and the
company providing income and life to the building. What the heritage property has more trouble
providing is a flexible workspace that can grow with the company. When they become too large for their space,
they must seek a larger floorplate in a more modern building. There is a happy medium: mid-sized companies
who could occupy an entire heritage property as a single tenant. But in Atlantic Canada, most companies are
either large or small, a by-product of provincial regulatory demands which
force companies to “get large or go under” (Atlantic Canada is made up of four
small provinces each with their own regulatory requirements for businesses:
half the population and half the land area of any other province, but four
times the regulations…but this is a topic for another day). The Champions There are three classes of
champions for heritage properties: passionate owners (hopefully with deep
pockets), community groups who recognize the social benefit of maintaining our
built heritage, and governments which either have a measure of both these
characteristics or are open to the influence of those who do.
Heritage property owners must
appreciate the unique features of old buildings. To quote one (you’ll never guess who), they
“speak to you in a way new buildings don’t.
There is a sense of calm, a personality.
They have been there for centuries, and if the economics can work, they
will be there long after you’ve turned to dust.” Ah, the economics. Heritage properties in Halifax do not attract
a rental premium as they do in some larger cities, such as Toronto’s trendy Distillery District. There may be a purchase premium, albeit not driven
solely by heritage, but location as well, due to the prime situation some
heritage properties enjoy by virtue of having gotten there first. Halifax’s downtown is distinguished by its
waterfront; heritage properties with a connection to it in particular may enjoy
a purchase premium, provided this connection is maintained (pause now to be
thankful for the public outcry that halted “Harbour Drive” before it
started…and hopeful that the redevelopment of its first phase, the Cogswell
Interchange, will be successful in repairing the fabric of the area).  Toronto’s Distillery District, as modelled by a pair of junior TDPers There is a social benefit to
heritage properties, usually external to the site itself. A 2011
study by Place Economics highlighted six areas of positive economic impact
attributed to heritage preservation: jobs, property values, heritage tourism,
environmental impact, social impact and downtown revitalization. Heritage properties differentiate cities from
one another, providing a unique draw to residents, visitors and immigrants
alike. The world’s most successful
cities have vibrant heritage architecture, often interspersed with modern
buildings. Community groups recognize
this and fight to preserve historic built environments, but it is often the building
owners who fund these broader social benefits by bearing the increased costs of
renovation and upkeep. It is here that
governments can play a vital role via heritage preservation policies, but they
must take care that they get them right.
Incentivise or incense? Halifax Regional Municipality
recently commissioned a study to investigate heritage incentives. However structured, these are a means by
which society as a whole, via taxes, can help pay for the social benefit of
heritage properties. Two of the largest
pitfalls of which governments must be wary when enacting policies to protect
heritage properties both involve the risk of (inadvertently) penalizing
property owners. The first is the more obvious
one, wherein the owner of a protected building is prevented from redeveloping a
site to a more lucrative density, diminishing the ability to make money from
the property and potentially its market value.
One avenue available to the city is to compensate the property owner for
the diminished value by purchasing the air rights, i.e. the space above the
building in which they would otherwise be allowed to build, but are prevented
by heritage preservation policy. This
could be accomplished either directly, with the municipality retaining
ownership of the air rights, or by opening the market for air rights trading, allowing
heritage property owners to sell their air rights to developers of non-heritage
sites to increase the allowable height on their sites. (Yes, this has the potential to open another
can of worms, but it’s a good theory if the policy is well thought out). The second potential pitfall lies
in supporting some, but not all heritage properties; such as with the creation
of a heritage preservation zone. While
those properties (and their owners) located within the zone stand to benefit
from financial incentives offered by the municipality, any heritage properties
outside the zone are placed at greater disadvantage. Still competing against larger modern
buildings, they are now on an uneven field against their direct (heritage)
competition. The supported properties
have the money to modernize without deficit to their owners’ bottom line, while
unsupported properties are further penalized physically and financially. For more on heritage rights and
wrongs, don’t miss our Summer 2017 newsletter, coming soon to a mailbox near
you. If you are not already subscribed
to this informative and gutsy publication, please get in touch with us at
902-429-1811 or tdp@turnerdrake.com.
Alexandra Baird Allen is the Manager of our Economic Intelligence Unit,
a position which makes surprisingly good use of her liberal arts degree in
history & cultural studies, as well as her expertise in GIS. For more information on our Economic
Intelligence Products, visit our website or contact Alex at 902-429-1811 ext. 323 or abairdallen@turnerdrake.com.
(Image via Global News)
Symptoms of an Election
In the run up to the now transpiring Nova Scotia provincial election, our governing party engaged in the time-honoured tradition of the spending announcement roadshow. A few million for a community centre here, a few million more for an overpass there, culminating finally in the double whammy of a new outpatient facility in suburban Halifax, and toll-free twinning of several sections of highway.
Unlike most spending announcements, the outpatient facility drew immediate criticism. While the highway twinning has started to attract some rightful critique, the patently foolish choice of locating a medical facility in the retail backlands of a dysfunctional industrial park was apparent to many; not the least of which being senior municipal staff who’d advised the Province of these issues months prior. Embarrassingly, the location is a miserable failure when measured against the Province’s own aging population action plan, Shift, which it had announced along with nearly $14 million in funding mere weeks before.
As an aside: of the opportunities for criticism of the outpatient location, and there are many, the purchase price of the land is not a fruitful one. Without the benefit of knowing the particular details of the deal, the $12.00/ft² paid by the Province for the raw land includes the cost to bring the site to a state of development-readiness. Land in this condition elsewhere in Bayers Lake has sold in the neighbourhood of $11.50/ft², so this is hardly the 12,000% markup insinuated by some reporters and rival politicians. (For future reference, comparing purchase price to assessed values for development land – or any real estate for that matter – can be extremely misleading. Media Types: if you’re looking for a real estate angle on a story, give me a call… I know some people.)
A Bad Prognosis if Left Untreated
So here’s the rub. Atlantic Canada, as we’ve described many times, is facing a serious demographic crunch that will constrain income tax revenue to the provinces, and property tax revenue to municipalities (in Nova Scotia, see Canso, Springhill, Hantsport, and Parrsboro for a preview). Given the scale of these trends, immigration is not likely to alleviate this difficulty. This means public investment utilises increasingly precious dollars; long gone is the time where we could rely on growth to overcome poor decisions.
Yet, public capital spending is and will remain one of the most significant factors in the trajectory of our communities. The provision and location of these facilities influences development trends for decades. A new medical facility is not just a site for convenient patient care. It is also a major employer, and consumer of both public and private services. It generates broader impacts; spinoffs that if harnessed properly can enhance the benefits of other facilities, strengthen neighbourhoods and local business, and mitigate future infrastructure costs. A newly twinned highway is not just a safety improvement for the travelling public, it is a half-billion dollars no longer available to be spent on other priorities. We’ve got to get serious, we’ve got to be scrappy, and we have to be careful to maximise the benefits our public spending generates. Opportunities of an equivalent scale from private-sector activity are few and far between.
By narrowly constraining their site selection study (I presume, as this information is also not publicly available), the government has perhaps saved money on the land for the outpatient facility, only to create far greater costs in the form of municipal servicing expenses, diminished economic spinoff, and foregone social benefits. This short-sightedness is not resigned only to our provincial overlords, municipalities large and small consistently miss opportunities to strengthen and improve neighbourhoods or commercial main streets. At best, we have a habit of placing community facilities in a location that only performs well on measures of land price and vehicular accessibility. At worst, it is directed by decades of parochial bickering and ends up in a location agreed to be equally terrible for everyone.
Nice wellness centre you have there, shame about the sidewalk.
(Image via Pictometry ©2015)
Prescription
As the highway twinning issue has shown, no “overwhelming public consensus” is going to emerge on any policy or funding choice other than those promising a free lunch. It is going to take political guts to lead the way: the decisions we need to make are pound-wise at the risk of appearing penny-foolish. Better analysis can help identify the optimal site selection and communicate the wisdom of that choice. A paltry million saved in cheap land will pale in comparison to full lifecycle costs of poorly located public infrastructure. The property taxes generated by that good natured economic development project might never recoup its initial cost. And increasingly, methods are available to help quantify and communicate the broad community and economy strengthening effects that government undertakings can create. A complete approach to site selection and capital project analysis in a time where each dollar counts is the difference between spending decisions that achieve lasting public value instead of fleeting public relations.
.jpg)
Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we have the skills required to evaluate your options in the context they deserve. Neil Lovitt, our Senior Manager of Planning & Economic Intelligence can be reached at 429-1811 ext. 349 (HRM), 1 (800) 567-3033 (toll free), or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com.
Property tax is by far the most important source of revenue for municipalities in Canada, accounting for 49.5% of revenue in 2008 with an annual average growth rate of 1.6% (1988-2008). As reliance on property tax increases, so does the complexity of administering this regressive but necessary evil. Increased computing power in the mid-1960s prompted a shift towards automation of property tax systems, beginning with simple tasks and culminating in today’s fully automated assessment, notification, and payment systems. Modern Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) allow for rapid processing of data with minimised human-bias… but (and this is a large but) real estate appraisal is a nuanced trade: reducing the role of Appraiser to AVM Technician can have significant negative repercussions.
Service New Brunswick’s ongoing cleanup of their attempt at an AVM is a prospective case study in the dangers of a “hands-off” approach to the valuation process. Massive value errors were created by a computer-driven system with insufficient checks in place to alert users to suspicious results. When reviewed by human appraisers many of the shockingly incorrect valuations were easily overturned based on traditional market comparison valuation. Autopilot replaced the flight crew and actual appraisers are left cleaning up the crash, while their political and bureaucratic colleagues deal with the rightful public outcry.
While seemingly seductive, potential time and cost savings offered by an AVM should never mask the fact that, in order to operate successfully, an AVM must integrate human expertise throughout the valuation process. At Turner Drake the “A” in our in-house AVM stands for Accelerated to reflect the role that expert opinion plays in our two-stage computer-assisted mass appraisal model. Stage One combs through real property sales to select comparable properties based on locally relevant, value-defining attributes such as size, location, and design. Stage Two adjusts and weighs a unique set of comparable sales to create a market-based value estimate for each subject property in an assessment area. Throughout each stage of the model, a professional appraiser defines the selection criteria and adjustment values for comparable properties based on market evidence and local expertise. The model does the heavy lifting but certified appraisers evaluate and refine the results.
Outliers - which no system can avoid - can wreak havoc on the results of an AVM unequipped to handle the inherently diverse nature of real estate. It is critically important to flag potential outliers for review so the model can be adjusted for future assessments. During the initial rollout of an AVM model, refinement is time consuming but absolutely necessary for creating reliable, equitable assessments in successive years. In developing our Accelerated Valuation Model, we put the time in up front so the system flags out of the ordinary results, and the professional appraiser, made aware of the potential issue, is able to quickly and easily account for them.
In a Case Study of condominiums on the Halifax Peninsula, the Turner Drake AVM out-performed PVSC assessment values by a margin of up to 45%. That is, 86% of TDP value estimates were within 5% of an actual time-adjusted sale price versus PVSC’s 41% and 98% of TDP values were within 15% of actual sale price versus PVSC’s 84% in the same pool of properties. Our combination of custom programs and a traditional direct-comparison valuation can produce a list of unique comparables with adjustments for 1,000 properties in about two seconds.
Property tax administration systems are as diverse as the municipalities they serve and every region relies to a degree on the convenience of computers and automation. However, no matter the size or complexity of a property tax system it is important to follow best practices, and learn from the success - or failure - of others. When the pursuit of speed comes at the expense of quality there is a significant risk to the accuracy of valuations and the credibility of the property tax system as a whole.
For more information on how our AVM can benefit you, call James Stephens at 902-429-1811 ext. 346 or email jstephens@turnerdrake.com
Our Economic Intelligence Unit is always on the hunt for new data sources to bolster our maps and feed our spreadsheets: any good analysis begins with high quality data. The majority of our databases are populated with a wealth of information via a process of blood, sweat, and tears (though increasingly data is graciously released by provincial gatekeepers) and it could be that our next trove of valuable data is being cultivated on farms across the Maritimes. The movement of food from field to plate involves numerous stops along the agricultural supply chain and, when property tracked, that data can prove valuable for a host of analytical tasks.
The ability to track an item from Point A to B in a large-scale supply chain is known as traceability. The theory behind it is relevant in all aspects of our lives: be it an Amazon package or a donair pizza, consumers - and businesses - have discovered that real-time knowledge of where a product is, physically, at any point in time is a competitive advantage in terms of marketing and efficiency. Agriculture is no exception. Traceability is already in use as a health risk management tool: it allows for rapid response to health emergencies by identifying exactly where and when afflicted produce or livestock stopped along the supply chain. Efficiently pin-pointing sources of contamination (think E.coli outbreaks) and creating cost-effective responses, such as targeted treatments and recalls, are critical in a modern, globally connected agricultural sector.
In addition to the obvious benefits of using traceability from an epidemiology perspective, there is also major potential for economic spinoff benefits from tracking the movement of agricultural goods. At a recent gathering of Nova Scotian Agrologists, speaker Chris deWaal of Getaway Farm (of Seaport Market fame) touted the very real benefits of offering consumers the entire life history of their food as a competitive advantage over mass-produced “mystery meat.” The introduction of the “Trace My Catch” program for canned seafood provides an example of how seafood processors are embracing traceability as a marketing tool, and provides an indication of the feasibility of doing so. In a province with a growing love affair for all things local it is no surprise that demand for local meat and produce is on the rise.
Benefits beyond health and marketing can be opened with traced agricultural data. Used in conjunction with GIS, the location and density of animals, farms, stockyards, abattoirs, and processing facilities become inputs for site selection and trade area analysis and indicators of economic health in rural economies - an issue of pressing concern for many Nova Scotian communities.
Imagine opening a meat processing and distribution facility to feed growing demand for local, organic products while still maintaining capacity for foreign exports. A standard GIS-based site selection analysis would use static location data (suppliers, purchasers) with network data (highway, rail, sea) to build a short-list of potential development sites which minimize transportation costs for both inputs and outputs. Additional variables such as workforce availability, machinery and equipment suppliers, veterinary services, and property taxes can all be integrated with locational data to suit the needs of the processor. But a standard analysis does not take into account how many animals are produced by individual farms or the variability in production from year to year.
Traceability data can enhance GIS analysis by optimizing site selection so it is based on not just the density of farms within a trade area, but the capacity to bring high volumes of livestock (or produce) efficiently to market. Historic tracking data of individual animals could forecast future production including where livestock are ultimately processed and sold. A savvy processor would use this data to identify opportunities for expansion and generate reliable, defendable business projections.
The agricultural sector already collects traceability data for use in health risk management; leveraging that same wealth of data for marketing and day-to-day business operations is the logical next step. The agricultural sector is a ray of light in the gloom of rural Nova Scotia: according to Statistics Canada’s census, between 2006 and 2011, Nova Scotia was the only province in Canada to see an increase in the number of farms, total farm area, and number of farm operators. Should the 2016 census indicate continued growth, it will clearly indicate that it’s time for all players in the agricultural game to leverage their existing data infrastructure to gain a competitive advantage at home and abroad.
For more information on how spatial analysis can benefit your business, call James Stephens at 902-429-1811 ext. 346 or visit: Economic Intelligence Unit
Finding Answers in the Bottle
Recently our Brokerage Division closed a deal that will see a mid-century commercial building transition from a hair salon to Halifax’s first cidery – a business dedicated to the production and enjoyment of hard ciders. It is the city’s newest addition to the burgeoning craft beverage industry, and by my count, the fifth such business within short walking distance of our head office. Thanks to double digit year-over-year growth in the industry, such businesses have been setting up shop throughout our region, but I have good reason to believe we at Turner Drake are working in the very nexus of Beer Oriented Development.
The craft beverage industry is booming throughout the continent evidently. However, BOD is a specific variant distinguished by integrating the production element the brewery, with the social gathering element of a retail/food service business, wrapping it all in a locally authentic brand identity and plunking it in walking distance to residential neighbourhoods. The term itself was apparently coined in the weary rust-belt city of Buffalo where a pattern of revitalisation lead by the craft brewing industry has been observed in neighbourhoods otherwise dogged by the Midwest’s manufacturing decline and hard hit by the Great Financial Crisis.
Back in our corner of North America, we can certainly attest to the healthy “third place” function of Beer Oriented Development. That is to say, in addition to the production itself, many businesses serve as a nexus for community development outside of the home and workplace. They are small enough operations to revitalise defunct or underused properties without the timeline and complexity of projects requiring land assembly. The size and design of the retail operation typically creates an enjoyable atmosphere and promotes interaction between customers (who are often neighbours). Where the sale and service activities are able to spill outside onto a patio or sidewalk café, they further add to the vitality and liveliness of the entire street. With seemingly endless groups of engineering school buddies (it’s always those engineers) keen to start their own sudsy venture, why do some areas see a flourish of BOD while others simply get an increase in breweries?
The Broken Window Fallacy
There’s a classic economic parable that goes something like this: A baker’s shop window is broken and he hires a glazer to repair it. Passersby observe the glazer at work and remark on the economic activity stimulated by the broken window. Meanwhile, the baker having spent his money on the window now postpones his plan to purchase a larger oven to increase his production. In this way, the passersby are mistaken about the benefit of a broken window because they consider only what they see, and not what they can’t see. That is, they do not consider the opportunity cost; the lost benefits that would have been generated by things that were prevented, often without conscious purpose, from ever happening in the first place.
We don’t often think about opportunity cost in planning. We like to have the initiative; there are no problems that can’t be fixed through the application of more regulation or better policy. In this mindset, it is sometimes easy to lose sight of the fact that many (perhaps even most) good things tend to happen on their own if we leave the space for it. Nevertheless, Halifax, like many Atlantic Canadian cities, does benefit from not having gone too far off the deep end when it comes to land use regulation… at least compared to standard practices west of our region. Consider the present (if outgoing) land use bylaw for the Halifax Peninsula area where residential land use is governed by 6 zones. Contrast that with London Ontario, a city of comparable population and municipal budget, where no less than 17 zones are needed just to regulate single detached housing! Clearly one approach provides more “regulatory space” than the other.
Six of One Ain’t Always a Half Dozen
London, like Halifax, is a university town with no shortage of thirsty students or courageous engineering buddies. Like Halifax, it has its own litany of recently launched microbreweries. And finally, like Halifax, London did not, and does, not specifically target or promote Beer Oriented Development. What London does have is its hyper specific approach to coding land use which classifies microbreweries as “Food, Tobacco, and Beverage Processing Industries” and among the 20+ flavours of commercial zoning, relegates such uses to the “General Industrial” areas of the city. In Halifax, some microbrewers also set up shop in the industrial areas, depending on their business model. However, Beer Oriented Development is mostly occurring under the General Business zone which allows – to paraphrase – basically any business that doesn’t create problems in the area.
The shocking result? All of London’s new microbreweries are segregated into soulless industrial parks. Sure, they’ve got a quality product, backed by the same witty, self-aware marketing, and most even have attached tasting rooms and offer brewery tours, but to access any of it you’ve got to drive out past electrical suppliers and find their docking bay among the other distributers and warehousers. So while both city economies are benefiting from growth in the craft beverage industry, only Halifax is gaining the additional benefits to neighbourhood revitalisation and contributions to a lively pedestrian atmosphere. These are not just intangible perks for urban hipsters. There is a hard dollar cost to London in terms of lost economics spinoffs and unrealised gains in property value, but that cost is the new oven, hidden behind a broken window.
The Future is Delicious
Beer Oriented Development is just a microcosm of a larger dynamic. No one was anticipating an explosion of craft brewing or the potential of BOD when the zoning codes were written twenty years ago, just as the codes we write today do not address a futuristic possibilities like the rise of distributed manufacturing, or an explosion of artificial intelligence. In truth, it’d be foolish if they did. In dealing with an ultimately unknowable future, it is basic human nature to play it safe; control what is knowable, and regulate the unexpected out of existence. The costs of this approach are easy to ignore because we are never fully aware of paying them. Yet, as Beer Oriented Development clearly demonstrates, there is a benefit, indeed a competitive advantage, to the city that sets itself up to embrace the unknowable future and capitalise on the unexpected.
Our Role
What can you build on your property? The answer to this is determined by interpreting the local planning policy and regulation. However these are living documents, and project timelines are often measured in years. Thus, it is essential to not only look at the present-day context, but peer into the future for additional opportunities. This is precisely why all our Planning Policy and Regulatory Review reports contain a Long-term Outlook section.
For a recent client, this feature paid dividends. For their property, the desired outcome would have required multiple amendments and the negotiation of a Development Agreement under present requirements; an expensive and risky process overall. However, by casting a wider gaze in our investigation, we identified an opportunity to pursue the same goals through a larger policy update the municipality was preparing to make. While this didn’t save our client any time, it lowered the risk, and greatly reduced the cost.
We’re finding our Planning Division lends vital assistance to our other areas of operation, improving the detail and delivery time of Valuation, Counselling, Economic Intelligence, Property Tax and Brokerage assignments. More importantly, it creates value for our clients, aiding with development projects big and small.
Whether you’re musing about options or working towards a clear goal, ask Neil Lovitt, our Planning Division Manager, how we can help: 1 (902) 429-1811 (HRM), 1 (800) 567-3033 (toll free), or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com
Every year at this time, the Island welcomes the prospect of summer with an explosion of colour: yellow daffodils, orange tulips, green grass, blue skies and dancing waters. Less welcome is the annual burden heralded by flowering of the 2016 Assessment Notices. If you are a property owner, you should have received it by now. It was officially mailed on May 6th and you have 90 days in which to file an appeal or wear the consequences for the rest of the year. If your property is enrolled in our PAMSTM Property Tax Manager program, you can relax; we are already reviewing your assessment and will file an appeal if the opportunity exists to reduce your tax load. If your property is not yet PAMSTM protected, procrastinate not: you have work to do.
The legislated basis for your Year 2016 assessment is your property’s Market Value on January 1st, 2016. However, the Assessment Act also implicitly includes a “uniformity” provision hidden in the appeal process, so similar properties are required to have similar assessments. You should appeal your assessment if:
(1) Its Assessed Value > Market Value as of January 1st, 2016, or
(2) Its Assessed Value > Assessed Value of Similar Properties.
The first test is to estimate your property’s Market Value on January 1st, i.e. the price it would fetch had it been offered for sale during the last six months of 2015. Purchasers look to the future, but their expectations are usually coloured by recent history. So if, for example, you own a tourist related facility, your 2015 season will impact its value to the degree that it would influence potential purchasers for 2016 and beyond. The Market Value too is based on its anticipated selling price… not the price that would persuade you to dispose of the property.
In 2012, our Economic Intelligence Unit conducted a demographic study of Atlantic Canada for a national client. Their study utilised data from the 2001, 2006 and 2011 Statistics Canada censuses. The rate at which our regional population aged during that period is frightening; the rate at which it will age over the next ten years is terrifying. Last year, a government initiated study was released, which reviewed the changes to the economy resulting from that demographic change. The report studied Nova Scotia but its conclusions apply to all three Maritime Provinces. The report is not a happy read.
If you own a “lifestyle property,” e.g. motel, golf course, vineyard, restaurant, etc., past sales of similar properties may not be a reliable indicator of your property’s current Market Value. This type of property is usually owned by an owner operator, many of whom are now reaching retirement age. Unfortunately, the pool of prospective purchasers is shrinking rapidly as the entire population ages. Fewer purchasers translate into lower values. This is over and above any adverse impact resulting from declining tourist dollars as Americans in particular shun foreign travel.
If you own an office building in Charlottetown, you may be suffering from burdensome vacancy rates. Our most recent survey (December 2015) covered 100% of the rental stock and revealed an overall 15.69% vacancy rate… well above the sustainable economic rate and up from 10.4% from the previous year. Our survey of industrial space recorded an overall vacancy of 14.00%. If you own an office or industrial building, you should carefully consider if an appeal is warranted.
The provincial assessment authority sometimes assesses property at less than its Market Value to forestall appeals. There is an assumption by most property owners that they will not be able to successfully challenge an assessment if it is less than the property’s Market Value… even if the assessment is higher than those of similar properties. This is not the case. Buried in the appeal section of the provincial Real Property Assessment Act is the requirement that “the Minister shall demonstrate the uniformity of the assessment in relation to other assessments” (Section 28 [1]). Thus, albeit somewhat belatedly, does the Assessment Act acknowledge that similar properties should have similar assessments. Comparing commercial properties and their assessments can be a little tricky however, which is why we have built an Assessment Database for the entire province that allows us to conduct peer group comparisons… and quickly determine whether your property is uniformly assessed.
The Bottom Line: Fortune favours the brave.
Action Required: Call our PEI Tax Team members Mark Turner and André Pouliot at 902-368-1811 (Charlottetown) or toll free at 1-800-567-3033. Alternatively, you can email them at markturner@turnerdrake.com or apouliot@turnerdrake.com. Using our proprietary software CompuVal®, our PEI Assessment and Transactional Databases, and basic property information provided by yourself, they can usually determine in a five minute telephone conversation whether you should appeal. There is no charge for this service, nor will big men come to call.
Immigration into Canada is nothing new: the country admits an average of 253,875 immigrants each year. This number is responsible for almost two-thirds of the national population growth from 2005 to 2015. Based on a housing demand projection study conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a 1% increase in immigrant population causes housing demand to rise by about 0.66%. However, the Maritime housing market is facing a projected decline in the coming years due to three interdependent facors: an aging and shrinking population, a dearth of immigration and very low rates of economic growth. This is not new information: alarms were given by various sources and it’s time to halt the slide.
History has proven that an aggressive immigration policy can help smooth the impact of an aging population (e.g. Ontario and Vancouver). It is not surprising, therefore, that increasing migration into the Maritimes is an effective way of addressing the adverse effects of our aging population. New immigrants will not only help increase the production of goods and services but will also directly increase the demand for housing.
Becoming a Maritime immigrant myself, I have a special interest in exploring the relationships between immigrant and housing trends in this region. I came to Canada in late 2012 as an international student and have seen several immigrants who decided to stay and purchase a house here. Many of them are below age 40, well-educated, and economically independent. Do they represent the majority immigrant group in the Maritime Region? I decided to dig into the data to find the answer.
The Maritime Immigration Trends
Immigrants comprise less than 6% of the Maritime Provinces’ total population, but 20.6% of the national population. Immigrant inflows to the Maritimes fluctuated dramatically from 1991 to 2006, however in the last decade, trends have been rising. This can be attributed to new policy initiatives (e.g. provincial nominee program, skilled worker express entry) aimed at attracting more immigrants to the Maritime region. From 2006 to 2011, the number of immigrants to PEI rose six-fold. Not surprisingly, employment growth in PEI caught up with the national average during the same period. Although this growth is from a small base, it still means the island is attracting more than twice as many immigrants compared to its share of the total population.
Maritime Immigrants: Countries of Origin and Demographic Profile
The United States and United Kingdom were the top two source countries of the Maritime immigrants during the 1980s. The position was taken over temporarily by some Middle Eastern countries (in the aftermath of the Gulf War) and China in the 1990s. In the last decade, the US and UK again became the top two sources of immigrants, but China and other Asian countries are listed among the top five.
The map above shows the percentage of the total population formed by Maritime immigrants in in 2015, along with the most common countries of origin. Immigration to the Maritimes is heavily slanted in favour of Halifax County (NS), Queens County (PE), Westmorland County (NB) and York County (NB). However, according to the immigration demographic profile report provided by the Atlantic Metropolis Centre, more than one-fifth of immigrants who arrived in the Maritimes from 2006 to 2011 declared their intended destinations to be outside a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), which indicates the potential for allocating new immigrants to rural areas.
The age profile of immigrants in the Maritimes is dominated by the lower age group according to the most recently released Statistics Canada data. About 75% of immigrants who arrived from 2011 to 2015 were under age 45, and 7.5% were under age 25. The corresponding numbers for resident Maritimers aged under 45 and under 25 in 2015 were 44.3% and 14.7% respectively.
The Housing Situation and Needs of Immigrants
There have been many reports and studies exploring the current economic and population trends in the Maritime region: evidence shows Maritimers are now on the brink of an extended period of decline. The unavoidable aging trend is weakening the Maritime housing market and will continue to do so unless effective action is taken. The key to slowing down the aging trend is to be open to the outsiders by targeting and attracting skilled immigrants to the region.
In last month’s TDP trends, we explored the HRM residential house market tipping point. In the Atlantic Region, most first-time buyers are aged 25 to 34, followed by a small portion in the 35 to 59 group. Second-time buyers are also primarily aged 25 to 34. Finding suitable and affordable housing is an essential step in immigrant integration. With relatively lower housing prices (compared to Ontario and Vancouver), the Maritimes have advantages in attracting potential younger aged immigrant home buyers. Such a future can have only one outcome: reversed housing declines in demand for the aging population trend, which will boost the regional economy.
Written by Chen Shi, Consultant in our Economic Intelligence Unit. To learn more about Chen, visit our Facebook page to see her Featured Consultant article.
|
|
|
|