|
|
|
|
Well, last year
certainly was one for the history books. Of all the issues amplified by the
pandemic in 2020, housing and its affordability has been among the most
universal, and the most important. Tight vacancy and escalating rents,
construction cost and process challenges, plummeting interest rates and a
dearth of listings, CERB and eviction bans, renovictions and rent control,
escalating homelessness and guerilla shelters. The jury is still far out on
2021, of course, but the challenges and conversations around housing show no
signs of a speedy resolution.
I’ve been trying and
failing for some time to write about housing; what’s been happening in our
region, and how those trends have been affected by the ongoing pandemic. Part
of my challenge has been simply keeping up to date – these days you can’t go
more than a week or so without getting hit with some new and relevant
information. Another part of my challenge has been the complexity of the issue.
Housing is the bottom line that many personal, economic, and policy issues fall
down to; it is difficult to understand one major facet of the issue without an
appreciation for the others.
Originally my goal for
this piece was to do a punchy listicle with a couple interesting data points. In
my naivete, I established a working title of “3 Charts to Explain Housing”.
However, I’ve found it impossible to weave together anything worth saying using
so few threads. So, with apologies to our ever-patient marketing staff and any
of you who were wishing for a light read, I give you: Seven Facets of Our
Housing Situation Explained (with eight charts).
POPULATION GROWTH
While the COVID-exodus
to Atlantic Canada from elsewhere in the country has received much media
attention over the past few months, it is really a sideshow. Despite the
interesting anecdotes about sight-unseen sales in (formerly) sleepy markets, or
Realtors® conducting showings via Zoom, overall interprovincial migration is
not significantly different in 2020. We have longer term and more fundamental
growth drivers affecting our region. Many of these have been a significant
source of housing demand over recent years, but in some cases, have waned under
pandemic conditions:
Oil Patch Kaput
During the tar sands heyday from late 2004 to late 2015 out-migration
from Nova Scotia to Alberta averaged about 1,250 people every quarter. That’s
one Antigonish per year. For nine years straight. These days, with oil trading
at half its price, the exodus has collapsed by a similar proportion while in-migration
from Alberta has remained comparatively steady. The result: in the 62 quarters
from Q1 2000 to Q2 2015, net migration from Alberta to Nova Scotia was positive
only 3 times. In the 21 quarters since (no data yet for Q4 2020), it’s only
been negative once. A penny saved is a penny earned.
Real Estate Refugees
Yes, there is certainly a notable inflow of population and home-buying
capital from other Canadian regions that have experienced stronger price
appreciation, and worse pandemic performance. The work-from-home narrative
dominates the conversation on this, but it is not the whole story. This is a
combined house price arbitrage play with the beginnings of a structural trend,
principally from Ontario and British Columbia, driven by population aging as
households execute longer-standing plans to retire Down East. It has been going
on for several years, with 2017 being a breakout after Toronto and Vancouver
posted eyewatering year-over-year house price increases. The after-spring bump
in 2020 from ON and BC is only about 10% higher than the same period last year.
Increasing Immigration
The immigration story was really kicked off in 2016 with the
much-publicized landings of Syrian Refugees however other streams for entry
really took things from there. Nova Scotia went from welcoming about 610
international immigrants per year (2005-2015 average), to more than 1,390 per
year since. Numbers have waned in 2020, obviously, but the Federal Government
was early to state that immigration, and increased immigration at that, is a
core element of its post-pandemic economic recovery plans. We therefore expect
this trend to pick right back up as vaccination is rolled out globally.
Student Bodies
Efforts to recruit international students (and their sizable tuition
fees) have been front and centre for post-secondary institutions for some time.
However, the Trump presidency apparently supercharged things as a significant
number of prospective students have diverted to other western countries who didn’t
follow the same nationalistic and isolationist path. This is such an
interesting twist of fate that it deserved its own chart:  Again, the pandemic has had an understandable dampening effect as travel
has become restricted and classes moved online, but this is a temporary blip. With
sanity restored to the White House, however, it will be interesting to see how
quickly, and to what extent, this trend recovers in Canada.
Added together, we get a picture of population
growth which has been driving strong housing demand for a period well before a
coronavirus turned the world upside down.
In fact, the pandemic
has decelerated the net impact of these demand drivers, evidenced in CMHC’s
2020 Rental Market Survey which found apartment vacancy in Halifax rising
significantly from its previous record low… though it remains too low.
SUPPLY RESPONSE
All of this new
population needs shelter, demand requires supply. Adequate housing supply, in
and of itself, does not solve all housing challenges. However, making sure we
are expanding our housing inventory in pace with our population growth is a
fundamental piece of the puzzle solving some issues, and making many others a
lot easier to deal with. Supply and demand interact like tectonic forces in
housing markets, any of the other actions we might take are done in their
context. Let’s take a look at the Halifax area, which is generally where most
of the province’s population growth is landing. How have we been doing?  (Note: Household growth is derived
by applying occupancy rates to population growth estimates from Statscan.
Occupancy rates are interpolated/extrapolated from census figures, and are
approximately 2.3 people/household for recent years. This approach likely
underestimates the number of households added as the demographics of new
arrivers lean towards smaller households than the general population.)
Not good.
Typically, it would be
excessive to examine this data over a 30-year period, but here it is necessary
to show just how unprecedented the current growth disparity between people and
shelter is in Halifax. For the entire time series Halifax only rarely approached
– and never exceeded – an even level of housing construction for each household
added to the city. Each time that it did, the industry responded with stronger
building rates. This is important as demand is also increasing from shrinking
household sizes within the existing population in addition to this incremental
demand from growth. In 2016 Halifax blew past that previous ceiling, adding
more households than houses for the first time in at least three decades, and
more importantly, sustained these historic levels of under-building for 5 years
and counting! The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging.
CREDIT
As debt becomes cheaper
to carry and more easily accessed, it inflates the value of assets. Falling
yields on risk-free vehicles like government bonds drive investors to seek
higher returns, and the same low rates that motivate this behavior mean the
system is flushed with credit on which to acquire these assets. For decades,
interest rates have been in secular decline, and this was accelerated
significantly in 2009 when the Great Financial Crisis ushered in the era of
emergency near-zero rates which have seemingly evolved into permanently low
rates. Or perhaps the emergency is now permanent, it is sometimes hard to say.
Real estate is an
illiquid asset, which means transactions in the market are heavily influenced
by the marginal buyer; those who are willing and able to outbid all others for
the property, and thereby set the bar for valuation. We observe the impacts of
this monetary policy context clearly in the commercial real estate sector as cap
rates have compressed, amplifying the market value of properties
independent of changes in the income they generate. A similar effect is felt in
the residential sector, where increasing mortgage credit acts as an accelerant
in any market with a whiff of demand, launching prices higher, even as the
incomes that support them lag.
The chart below shows
the results of a simple model that applies typical mortgage parameters to
annual house price, income, and interest rate data to plot the changing
relationships between income, purchase price, and mortgage carrying cost. In
the data since 2000, incomes have increased by about 70%, new house prices by
200%, and average interest rates have dropped by 50%. 
The resulting price to
income ratio skyrockets by nearly 190 percentage points as a result. However,
the countervailing force of loosening credit means the actual carrying cost of
that price, which is what households actually pay (because we don’t buy homes,
we buy mortgages), is only up 5 percentage points over the same period and
generally fluctuates up and down within a tight 15 point range.
This is the critical
mistake made by those who talk about housing prices as being “detached” from
incomes. House prices are attached to incomes, firmly, by the sinews of credit.
As it has eased, that connection has lengthened, but the relationship is just
as firm. In fact, it is more accurate to describe this relationship in the
inverse; it is largely because interest rates have fallen that prices
have gone up! If interest rates were to reverse their long-standing trend, we
would see how quickly this detachment narrative disappears.
DISAPPEARING NOAH
Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing, in housing policy parlance, is a somewhat new and
misleading term that basically refers to unsubsidized housing that exists
within the private market at a relatively affordable price. Think classic
shoebox 3-story walkup apartment buildings (though it can come in any form). Without
non-market interventions such as capital grants or operating subsidies, this
housing is affordable mostly because it is less desirable relative to other
options in the market, and this is principally a function of when it was built.
Buildings go down in relative value over
time, or depreciate in valuation parlance, because they go out of style, they
get rundown and tired, they lack design features and amenities that more recent
buildings have, they are more likely to suffer pest nuisances… if competition
is the mechanism by which markets work, these buildings are losing the
competition.
This part of the
housing inventory is critical for those employed in entry-level positions or
lower-income industries. However, as NOAH is still firmly within the housing
market, it is subject to market forces. In times of growing demand, the lower
end of the market is generally where renovations and recapitalizations become
feasible first. In and of itself, this is a good thing. We want our building
stock to receive reinvestment and cycle back up through the market instead of
declining into uninhabitability. However, that idyllic impression of market
function is running into some cold realities.
The first is a quirk of our development history.
The chart below shows the distribution of apartment inventory in Nova Scotia by
building age (we have removed the comparatively minor contribution of buildings
built pre-1950 for the sake of our x-axis). With regular maintenance and the
occasional replacement of major building systems like roofs and HVAC, that
typical midcentury shoebox building may be expected to last 50 or so years
before a complete revamp is required to extend its lifespan.
At any given time there
is a continuous stream of building stock aging down and being recycled back up
through the market, but a disproportionately large section of the apartment
inventory is now coming due. Units constructed during the boom of the 70s are
turning over, and there are far fewer units next in queue replace them at the
bottom. Particularly cruel examples notwithstanding, this dynamic is largely
responsible for the increasing prevalence of “renoviction” stories that we’ve
seen in the media over the past couple years. Our total supply of NOAH is
dwindling.
INCOME INEQUALITY
The second reality affecting
the ability of NOAH to adequately serve lower income households is the fact
that those households are falling further behind. The majority of households in
rental housing are in the bottom 40% of the income distribution. The chart
below shows how incomes (adjusted for inflation) have changed over time. 
This of course does not
reflect the added issue of declining income mobility, highlighted in recent
research from Statistics Canada. Still, even this
incomplete picture is concerning: over four decades real family incomes in this
lower 40% have, at best, increased by less than $4,000 or about 0.26% per year.
Unfortunately, the operating expenses of the buildings they occupy (property
taxes, utilities, construction materials, insurance premiums, contractor and
trade labour, etc.) are growing at a much higher rate. Compounded over decades
this means rent in stable, older buildings – even if run on a break-even
financial model – will increasingly outpace the ability of many renter
households to afford them.
This is mostly a
renter’s issue, but it affects those in owner-occupied housing as well. Though
interest rates have maintained affordability in the carrying costs of mortgages,
other costs associated with home ownership, such as down payments, have become
increasing barriers to entry. Ultimately, the spectrum of the population that
the housing market serves is getting narrower, and a big part of that issue (especially
the “crisis” part) is due to stagnant household finances and stagnant social
supports as inequality in our society grows.
SUPPLY OF NON-MARKET
HOUSING
The third reality is
the availability of housing options for those who are finding themselves
outside of the limits of the market. Canada as a whole has not engaged much in
the production of social housing, especially since the late 80s and early 90s
as the federal government unwound their previous decades of involvement. Yet,
even by these low standards Nova Scotia has the dubious distinction of being
the second worst province in terms of adding to its stock of non-market housing
since 1990: 
A brief pause here to look
over the rim of my glasses at New Brunswick which has apparently built all of
thirteen (!) units in the last three decades. This data is from CMHC’s
inaugural Social and Affordable Housing Survey, so hopefully in future updates
more units will be identified.
Barely more than 7% of Nova
Scotia’s non-market inventory has been built since the 90s, and I would wager the
proportion for more recent decades is closer 0%. Over this same timeframe, all
housing completions tracked by CMHC totaled nearly 98,000 units, meaning only
0.93% (910 units) of what we’ve built has gone towards increasing our
non-market inventory.
Now, this is at least
somewhat understandable. Up until recently Nova Scotia has been able to coast
along without too much trouble thanks to stagnant population growth and the
ability of NOAH to take considerable pressure off the waitlists for non-market
options. Well, those days are over. If there was one thing the Province could
do without having to wait for their Affordable Housing Commission to tell them,
actually increasing the inventory of social housing would be it!
IMPORTED DEMAND
Finally, we get to the
Boogeymen. For those who subscribe to the “detachment” perspective described
earlier, the thought process is straight forward enough; if local fundamentals
are not viewed as an explanation for housing costs, logic dictates that
something else must be afoot. There is a fairly large goodie bag of these
something-elses, but they are always fundamentally about pathways for external
demand to enter and distort local market conditions: money laundering crime
lords, capital from unstable regions flying to the local real estate of safer
countries, foreign and local speculators turning houses into tax-advantaged
capital gains, Wall St. and Bay St. financializing local housing in order to
transfer wealth from residents to shareholders, wealthy tourists displacing
locals via AirBNB conversions.
Like any good story,
there is always an element of truth at the core. And like any good Boogeyman, a
lack of information prevents us from ruling them out entirely. The issue with these
explanations is not whether they are completely fabricated; most are true to
some degree and documented to have occurred somewhere at some time. The issue
really is whether they are happening locally, and if so, are they to a degree
that would have a material effect. In our view, there are enough conventional
and locally-based explanations for our housing conditions in this region.
Occam’s Razor and all that…
Having said that, we
fully agree with at least one of the proposed mechanisms by which outside
demand has been imported into our local markets: the proliferation of
short-term rentals. The number of housing units in our communities now
dedicated exclusively to providing short-term accommodations on a commercial
basis has exploded since the global advent of AirBNB and its imitators just a few
years ago. While there are some interesting and ultimately beneficial facets to
this trend, what demands the most attention currently is the resulting reduction
in housing supply available for traditional forms of tenancy. In response, we
have invested in access to world-leading data services covering this new sector
of the real estate market. Currently we have market data coverage for all of
Nova Scotia at the individual listing level, updated monthly. We have a few interesting
extra-curriculars in the works for this resource, but alas, these are busy days
and client needs come first (seems like a certain provincial government should
be beating down our door on this one, but I digress). In the meantime, here is
why Short-Term Rentals have our attention: 
This chart shows the growth of
housing units (CMHC tracked housing completions) against growth in what we
estimate to be commercially operated STR units (i.e. entire-home AirBNB
listings that spend the majority of the year available on the platform rather
than housing a long term resident). Starting with only a couple hundred in
2016, commercial STRs have grown rapidly, peaking at nearly 1,700 units in
2019. This negates about 18% of the 9,300 housing units completed in the
municipality over the same timeframe. In a time when we need all the supply we
can get, this is an unnecessary headwind. At the same time, these overall
numbers are not earth-shattering; it’s hard to imagine that conditions would be
that much different if the industry had been able to pump out 11,000
units instead of 9,300 over those three years.
However, those are the overall
numbers. The short-term rental market is not dispersed evenly throughout the
housing market, it is having vastly different impacts within Halifax. Some
locations have no loss of housing availability, others are under significant
pressure. To illustrate, though STR units peaked at 18% of completions for HRM
overall, if we narrow our analysis to just the Peninsula, that figure jumps to
about 30%. You can imagine how that may escalate further looking at some of the
high-demand neighbourhoods.
More on that in the future. [1][2].jpg)
Whew, you made
it to the end, but when it comes to housing issues there are no shortcuts! This
is an immensely important challenge and we’re trying to do our part. We are
proud to support the work of Nova Scotia’s Affordable Housing Commission
through our involvement in their Data and Financial Modelling Working Group. Of
course, Turner Drake is also engaged in numerous consulting assignments,
including non-market housing feasibility studies, and Housing Needs Assessments
from coast to coast. To see how your community can benefit from the unique
expertise of our Planning and Economic Intelligence team, call Vice President
Neil Lovitt at (902) 429-1811 or nlovitt@turnerdrake.com.
Among the fun things to look forward to at this
time of year is PNC’s annual (37 years now!) Christmas Price Index, in which
they calculate the prices of the twelve gifts from the classic song, “The Twelve
Days of Christmas”. The highest increase
year-over-year was for the two turtledoves, up 50% to $450, which contrast to a
few of the other avian gifts: swans, calling birds, and a partridge will cost
you the same this year as last…as will minimum wage milk maids. This year’s index accounts for cancellations
of many live performances: the unavailability of dancing ladies, leaping lords,
pipers, and drummers means that the total cost of these gifts is down over last
year. How far down, though, is a matter
of measurement. If you were to buy just
one of each of the gifts – one goose, one ring, one French hen, etc. – you’d
pay 58.5% less than last year, for a grand total of $16,168.14 (USD). But you can also measure by the full cost of
all the gifts – both the turtle doves,
all the geese, none of the performers – to arrive at grand total for 2020 of
$105,561.80, down just 38% since 2019.
Or, and I’m assuming this is based on the one-of-each option, PNC also
provides a “core” index, which excludes the Swans-a-Swimming, the price of
which is apparently the most volatile.
The core index for 2020 costs $3,043.14, down 88.2% from 2019.
So, the same index has three different
year-over-year price changes. That
provides a perfect segue into a discussion of the critical thought, and careful
consideration required before relying on Price Indices for decision making,
planning, and policy purposes…there are many available from which to choose, including
the overall, oft quoted, Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is not to say that price indices are not
a valuable tool – just that care needs to be exercised in choosing and using
them.
Twice a year, we undertake a comprehensive market survey of rental office
and warehouse space;
the summary results include average net rental rates, realty taxes and
operating expenses, and gross rental rates.
As part of our analysis, we look at the relationship between the
All-Items CPI and the total for realty taxes and operating costs (RTCAM), over
a five-year period. The CPI is a measure
of the cost of a certain “basket of goods”, and as such generally measures the
rate of inflation – which is expected to be reflected in the costs to operate a
building. The fact that the cost to
operate a building includes a different basket of goods than that required to
run a household – more cleaning and heating, fewer sneakers, school supplies,
and food items – makes it unsurprising that, while these two measures usually move
generally in concert, there can be significant variation. This year, where costs have shifted up and
down across various sectors, particularly highlights the challenge of relying
on the CPI as a surrogate for other baskets of good: the five-year ratio
between CPI and RTCAM, describing how the RTCAM moved for each 1 percentage
point change in the CPI, varied from a 1.14 percentage point decrease in office
RTCAM in Saint John NB, to a 1.01 percentage point increase in Fredericton,
with Moncton, St. John’s NL, and Halifax falling at varying points along that
range. December’s survey includes both
office and warehouse space in Halifax, and there is a differential between the
ratio of CPI to RTCAM for the two sectors, with office RTCAM coming in at 0.59
to 1 percentage point change in CPI, and warehouses coming in at a ratio of 1.2
to 1.
PNC says
about their index:
The PNC Christmas Price Index® is an annual tradition which shows
the current cost for one set of each of the gifts given in the song "The
Twelve Days of Christmas."
It is similar to the U.S. Consumer Price Index, which measures the
changing prices of goods and services like housing, food, clothing,
transportation and more that reflect the spending habits of the average
American.
The goods and services in the PNC Christmas Price Index® are far more
whimsical, of course. And most years, the price changes closely mirror those in
the U.S. Consumer Price Index. This year, the approach to PNC’s CPI takes into
account the sociopolitical environment brought on by the pandemic by using the
Index to provide an analysis of current market conditions, while including the
impacts of COVID-19 as highlighted by the data.
It’s a fun way to measure consumer spending and trends in the economy.
So, even if Pipers Piping or Geese-a-Laying didn’t make your gift list this
year, you can still learn a lot by checking out why their prices have increased
or decreased over the years.
It’s definitely worth checking out. And if you’re interested, we publish the
summary results of our market surveys on our website and through email
distribution. Watch for them in the New
Year – or contact us to subscribe. Wishing
you and yours all the best for the holidays, from all of us at Turner Drake
& Partners Ltd. 
Alex Baird Allen is the Manager of Turner Drake's Economic Intelligence Unit. If you'd like more information on market research or our semi-annual Market Survey, you can reach Alex at 902-429-1811 Ext.323 (HRM), 1-800-567-3033 (toll free), or email ABairdAllen@turnerdrake.com
 Photo
Credit: istockphoto
The Asking Price is a critical element when
listing a commercial property. If it is too low you may under sell your
property. If it is too high it will scare away prospective purchasers and the
listing will go stale: it may then be necessary to withdraw the property from
the market and re-introduce it at a later date, or alternatively reduce the
price substantially to reignite interest. But while property sells at Market Value, owners often measure its
worth in terms of Intrinsic Value. This
can give rise to a difficult conversation between real estate broker and
property owner.
Market
Value
is generally defined as "the most probable price which a property should
bring in a competitive and open market as of the specified date under all
conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently
and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus”.
More specifically, market value is based upon a property’s Highest and Best
Use. The Highest and Best Use of a property is the probable and legal use of
land, or an improved property, that is physically possible (what can be
physically built on the site?), legally permissible (what uses are permitted
under the current zoning?), financially feasible (will the purchaser achieve an
acceptable return within a reasonable investment horizon?) and maximally
productive (what use generates the highest return?). Simply put Market Value is
the highest price attainable assuming the property is expertly marketed to the
widest pool of prospective, knowledgeable purchasers.
Intrinsic
value
is the owner’s perception of the inherent value of their property to them. This
value can be based on the actual amount of money they have invested in the
asset, any sweat equity by the owner, emotional attachment, or just their
perception of current market conditions. Sometimes the property owner may be
constrained by the debt burdening the property, or the net cash they need to
realise on sale after paying capital gains tax and transaction costs.
How do you bridge the divide between Market
and Intrinsic Values? It starts with the acceptance by both parties, broker and
property owner, that they have a common goal… to sell the property on the most
advantageous terms to the owner. Before we undertake to market a property for
sale, we sit down with the owner (vendor) to go over the marketing plan for their
property, the pricing strategy, and the listing agreement, to ensure the vendor
understands the selling process and each party’s obligations under the contractual
arrangement. Since an appropriate asking price is critical, we research the
property, its zoning and planning considerations, and sale prices of comparable
properties, to develop an asking price based on the Market Value. Because Intrinsic
Value frequently differs from Market
Value the vendor may have price expectations that cannot be realised on
sale and it may be better to withhold the property from the market until prices
increase…. realising of course that there is always the risk that prices may
fall too, as is the case currently in some market sectors. However if the owner
is serious about selling, it is imperative that the asking price be reflective
of Market Value plus a negotiating
buffer (every purchaser likes to feel like they have negotiated a good deal for
themselves). Otherwise, the overpriced property will sit on the market and become
stigmatised: potential purchasers will wonder why it has been on the market for
longer than is typical, if there is something wrong with the property, or will want
to try to use the long marketing exposure as negotiating leverage. On the other
hand if a property is reasonably priced and is properly exposed to the market,
a vendor will have much better chance of consummating a sale at a price, and
within a time frame, that optimises their sales transaction.
Reduce
Stress: Live Longer
Selling your property, even commercial real
estate, is rarely anybody’s idea of fun… so we have compiled a list of the
difficult questions you meant to ask your real estate broker but were too
embarrassed, simply forgot… or did not know you should ask. Questions such as “I don’t want my staff to know I am selling:
what can I do to keep it quiet?” or “I
am already talking to a prospective purchaser: do I still have to pay you a
commission if I sell to them?” and even “Why do I need a real estate broker anyway?”. Better still we have
provided our answers in the way we do best… frank, forthright and brutally
honest! Call or email me, I will happily send them to you. 
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 (902) 429-1811.
Residential fires are soaring, causing millions of dollars in damages, and claiming the lives of many. While this headline may sound shocking, this has become a catastrophic reality for many apartment owners across Canada and worldwide. It’s quite clear how the ongoing pandemic has changed our daily lives in a socio-physical sense - most notably the way in which we interact with others, and how we navigate the shopping malls and hallways in our apartment or condo buildings. What many have not considered however, is the increased risk of fire-related emergencies resulting from higher daytime occupancy levels in multi-unit residential buildings. National Fire Prevention Week runs from October 4th to 10th. This might not be something you typically note in your calendar, however, if you are an apartment owner or manager, you should! If you have yet to equip your building and tenants with clear evacuation plans, or reviewed your latest fire-insurance policy, these items should be top of mind.
Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the attempt to abide by physical distancing protocols, employers worldwide have been forced to encourage remote, work-from-home policies. According to StatsCan, 32.6% of companies reported 10% or more of their workforce were teleworking in the month of May, compared with just 16.6% in February. Furthermore, 22.5% of companies expect 10% or more of their staff to continue working from home post-pandemic. It’s a typical noon hour on the fourth floor of your apartment building, and you’re finishing up a conference call while lunch simmers on the stove. The kids are racing around the apartment while the laundry machine chugs through the spin cycle. There’s a knock on the door - another amazon delivery… Sound familiar?! Working from home has allowed significant flexibility in a world of fast-paced multitaskers however; it also raises concerns surrounding at-home fire emergencies. Building owners, managers and insurance companies are quickly growing concerned as the slightest distraction can have severe (and sometimes fatal) consequences. A recent article by Greg Meckbach of the Canadian Underwriter noted that the number of fatal at-home fires in Ontario has risen by 65% compared to this time last year. Local sources including the Halifax Fire Investigation Summary also highlight this issue, shedding light on the growing frequency of fires in predominately multi-residential apartment buildings across the Halifax Regional Municipality. It is crucial that building owners ensure the safety of their residents by establishing a formal fire emergency and evacuation plan. To the surprise of many, this is also a requirement set forth by most municipalities and within the National Fire Code of Canada (see our March blog post for specific details/requirements).
Sadly, the majority of buildings do not have adequate fire plans or procedures in-place. These protocols are an added level of insurance that are typically overlooked until it’s too late. Now more than ever, apartment owners and managers should be establishing or reviewing existing fire protocols for their buildings. We also suggest reviewing your current fire insurance policy to ensure you are equipped with adequate coverage. On the face of it, these suggestions may seem like an added expense however; they could be invaluable in the event a fire arrives at your doorstep. In my dual roles of Manager of Turner Drake’s Lasercad® Division and consultant in our Valuation division, I have experience in both the preparation of Fire Escape floorplans, and the completion of Fire Insurance reports. I have worked with a number of building owners and managers to implement Fire Safety Plans in apartment buildings throughout Atlantic Canada. If you have any questions regarding our Fire Safety Plans or how to go about reviewing your current Fire Insurance coverage for your property, feel free to contact me at 902-429-1811 or mjones@turnerdrake.com
.jpg)
It
goes without saying that the COVID-19 pandemic has directly and abruptly affected
both short-term cash flow and long-term economic prospects for real estate
owners in the Atlantic region. Commercial and investment property has been
particularly hard-hit, with hospitality and retail property profoundly (and in
many cases, irreversibly) impacted.
Not
surprisingly, my colleagues and I field multiple inquires a week respecting the
potential for property tax relief. Unfortunately,
we find ourselves delivering the unwelcome news that there’s very little
immediate aid available; in some cases, not for years to come. A little
background will help to explain why this is so.
Property
taxes are the product of a property’s assessed value (a point in time estimate
of market value which is calculated as of a legislated date: in assessment
parlance, the “base date”), and the applicable tax rate. In most Atlantic Canadian jurisdictions,
assessment and taxation are separate functions.
Assessed values are calculated by assessing authorities (the Property
Valuation Services Corporation in NS; Service New Brunswick in NB; the
Department of Finance in PEI; the Municipal Assessment Agency and the City of
St. John’s in NL); mil rates are set (and taxes collected) by the
municipalities.
In
providing relief, Atlantic Canada’s assessing authorities and its municipalities
are stymied by legislative authority that varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. The ability for the
pandemic to be reflected in assessed values (which, in all four provinces, are
to market value) depends to large degree on the base date: 
On the taxation side, we have prepared a reference
guide detailing the myriad of programs available in various Atlantic Canadian cities,
towns and municipalities. It
is available on our websites at https://www.turnerdrake.net and https://www.turnerdrake.com/products/propertytax.asp. The vast majority have been limited to extension of tax deadlines and
reductions in interest rates applied to arrears.
There is little that can be done with
respect to the tax rate applied to your property; your tax management
strategy should therefore focus on your assessed value. What will be the impact of the pandemic on
values? In my opinion, few property
types will escape unscathed, and for many, recovery will be protracted. While I
don’t have a crystal ball, we do have a rear view: experience in the aftermath
of historic cataclysmic events- e.g. the recessions of the early 1990s and
2007-2009; 911; and SARS, for example- will all provide guidance in
establishing the penalties on the value of ICI real estate.
Property taxes can be an enigma under
conventional circumstances. COVID-19 has created a property tax quagmire. My
colleagues and I would be happy to provide advice on a property-specific basis.
Have you ever gazed over a decrepit old
building, or vacant parcel of land, thinking to yourself “This would be the
perfect place for…”
Taking this vision and transforming it into
reality is the premise behind an as-if-complete valuation. This form of valuation
provides a current or prospective (future) value opinion of a development prior
to it being constructed. In addition to undeveloped properties, real estate
owners and developers can also utilise this form of valuation to determine the contributory
value of renovations to an existing property.
Owners and developers typically require this
form of valuation as an input for mortgage financing and proceed in one of two ways: The property can be valued as though it were complete as of the
effective date of the report or alternatively;
it can be valued as at an assumed date of completion. Regardless the path, the
values presented rely heavily
on the standard described in the report,
and the proposed timeframe of the development.
Working together with architects, engineers, lenders,
designers and planners is an integral part of orchestrating the materials
required for this form of valuation. Building plans and renderings paint the
backdrop while finish schedules, cost estimates and operating projections
provide focus to the finer economic details required for these projects.
Financing details are based on the lender’s
relationship with the developer together with their experience completing similar
developments, financial position, cost of the project and overall loan-to-value
ratio. Once the as-if-complete value of the property is determined the bank
will typically schedule formal draws for the various milestones of the development.
For example; the first milestone may cover the cost of excavation and site
work, foundations, framing and roofing. This is where experience, organisation and
timing are key to the financial and fiscal success of the project.
Often developers run into issues during initial
milestones, where projected budgets are exceeded and the initial draw does not
cover the costs allocated to such milestones. This can occur as a result of
unforeseen circumstances, an unexperienced contractor or builder, fluctuating
material costs etc. If the developer
does not have access to an outside source of funds to complete this work and
proceed to the next milestone, lenders will sometimes issue a “swing-line” or short-term,
interest-only line of credit to see them through to the completion of the
milestone at hand. Progressing through the first and second milestones of a
project are often the most difficult as they can be the most capital intensive.
Paying close attention to cash flows and budget are paramount to ensuring the
financing terms are met and the project is completed as scheduled.
While construction pushes forward and
developers achieve various milestones, it is typically the responsibility of
the valuation consultant to confirm the work completed falls in-line with the
details described in the report. Various meetings and site visits are completed
throughout the project, and progress reports filed to the lender as per the
scheduled incremental milestones leading up to, and including, the completion
of the project.
New developments and renovations are
susceptible to a number of different variables that could easily alter a
project cost or timeline. Such variables can heighten the risk of a project;
therefore, including proper contingencies and mapping out the development in
fine detail will aid in minimising risk and provide additional comfort to
lenders considering your project.
The ongoing pandemic has had a tremendous effect
on the world and although primarily negative in nature, many clients have taken
this additional time to dream big and “put the wheels in motion.” Formerly
neglected ideas are re-surfacing and with the help of this form of valuation we
are playing a key role in bringing these ideas to fruition.
[1].jpg)
Patrick Mitchell is a consultant in our Valuation Division and has extensive experience in the valuation of projects that are in early stages of development, or have yet to break ground. Patrick’s passion for design and architecture has strengthened his relationships with local architects, builders and developers. For more information about our range of Valuation® services, or more details concerning as-if-complete valuations, feel free to contact Patrick at (902) 429-1811 or pmitchell@turnerdrake.com
In truth, very few people get the chance to
suffer the trauma of an expropriation.
You have to be in the wrong place at the right time. But if and when
your opportunity does come, your best hope is to emerge financially “whole”,
albeit a little battle scarred, confident that the lawmakers have your back
through their expropriation legislation.
Expropriation legislation has its roots in the
Dickensian days of the English railway boom of the 19th century, a
time of rapid industrialization that needed legislative “devices” to hurry
things along. Reforms followed until eventually the individual was adequately
protected against the state. In Canada, legislative reform came along in much
more modern times, but by the 1970’s most provinces had a pretty decent code of
expropriation compensation in place. And
Nova Scotia was among the best of the best.
Its 1973 Expropriation Act fully embraced the commendable philosophy
that because expropriated owners were being deprived of their property against
their will, they should not be treated as typical litigants. Instead they were
entitled to be satisfied – at the authority’s expense – that they were indeed
being treated fairly. The playing field was level: all was good.
Alas, things have changed since then. Numerous
subtle and not-so-subtle changes have been introduced over the past 25 years
that have tilted the playing field. And
always in the same direction. Perhaps the biggest changes, in the Nova Scotia
Expropriation Act at least, have been with regard to the expropriating
authority’s legal obligation to reimburse a claimant’s fees. The original
safety net was contained, in plain and simple language, in section 35 of the original
Nova Scotia Expropriation Act. It
entitled an expropriated land owner to be reimbursed for “the cost of one
appraisal and the legal and other costs reasonably incurred…in asserting a
claim for compensation”. Checks and balances protected the public purse from frivolous
abuse, but the basic intent was that, win, lose or draw, an owner – rich or
poor - was entitled to be heard at the authority’s expense.
The first change came in 1996. Section 35 was abruptly
repealed and in its place stood a re-enacted section 52. Things became
considerably more dicey for the property owner with respect to the
reimbursement of costs, which were now only assured if the owner proceeded to a
hearing and won outright. The owner was
now in much the same position, for cost purposes, as a typical litigant who
chooses to engage in combat. Of course,
there is nothing preventing an amicable settlement without resorting to a
hearing – and the vast majority of expropriations are settled that way – but
the safety net of section 35 was removed.
2019 saw more changes when the Nova Scotia government
introduced a Tariff of Costs to control the amount of appraisal, legal and
other experts’ costs that an expropriating authority must legally reimburse.
Henceforth the amounts that combative property owners can recover are
prescribed by law. With respect to
appraisal fees, the allowable amounts depend on the complexity of the case
(measured against a rather loosely defined benchmark called “ordinary
difficulty”). In some cases the Tariff will
be sufficient. In other cases it will fall short. The same with the reimbursement of legal
fees. Claimants may very well have to
reach into their own pockets to pursue their case from now on, as would a
typical litigant. If you think that sounds a tad unfair, you are right. After all, no one chooses to be expropriated.
And from my experience it is always more time consuming, and therefore more
costly, to represent a claimant than it is to represent an expropriating
authority. For property owners, this is a once-in-a-lifetime event. The rules have to be explained; facts sorted
from fiction; expectations managed. Expropriating authorities, on the other
hand, can draw on their in-house resources and often have a wealth of
experience. The conversations are
different.
And it’s not just the issue of cost
reimbursement that has been tilted. Another amendment in 1996 denied compensation
for loss of access along provincial highways when alternative access is being provided
by new service or access roads. An odd, and as far as we know unique, twist to
the Nova Scotia compensation code. More recently, a 2019 amendment introduced a
new definition of Disturbance to the Nova Scotia Expropriation Act, a
particular head of claim that arises when a claimant has to relocate. The old words had withstood the test of time,
undefined but “undisturbed” for a generation. In Nova Scotia it is now very
narrowly – and again, as far as we know, uniquely - defined and will inevitably
defeat claims that have previously been upheld. Indeed that’s the whole point.
Changes to the Expropriation Act in Nova Scotia
have usually been introduced as knee jerk reactions following adverse decisions
by the courts, introduced as helpful “clarifications” to help them get it right
next time. Challenging an expropriation and pursuing a claim through the courts
has never been for the faint-hearted. But
these days you might need a war chest with no guarantee that you will emerge
financially “whole”. .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
COVID-19, despite months of rumblings that it might be on
its way, arrived rather abruptly on our doorstep. Collectively, we shifted from theoretical
preparations “in case” and “if” the virus impacted us directly, to many people
working from home, a transition that happened within days in some cases. Ready or not, here it came.
Now, just (“just”!) a couple of months later, the next
transition is upon us, as the economy reopens and we figure out, industry by
industry and company by company, what the new normal will look like. It’s a question on the minds of many, and one
my department has spent a fair bit of energy contemplating from our makeshift
at-home workstations (check out this
CBC article
for a peek at mine…kids and various home schooling accoutrements banished for
the deception of professional appearances).
The short answer is that it is too soon to tell, though there are
rumours and rumblings that work-from-home will continue for some people and/or
companies (demand for that may come from either end of the equation).
The longer answer is that major recessions usually result
in a sea change in how office space is utilised. After the 1990
recession, which coincided to a certain degree with the advent of cell phones
and the internet, there was a rise in “telecommuting”, some people working from
home, and “hot desking” where different people used the same desk at different
times of the day. Cubicles rose in
prominence over individual offices (as evidenced by every 90s movie that takes
place in an office). Post-2008 recession, the movement was to open
concept offices, with bullpen style areas where everyone has a laptop and a
cell phone and shares common space and/or works from home part of the
time. Each of these shifts, from individual offices to cubicles to
bullpens, equates to fewer square feet of office space per employee…which in
turn equates to lower costs for companies, for whom office space is often the
single largest expense after HR.
The logical next step in the continuum is an increase in
employees working from home, with an overall reduction in the amount of office
space leased. This could be driven by
employees who find they like shedding their commute and are productive at home
(and expect to be more so when schools and daycares reopen). It could also be mandated by employers who
find that cutting workplace expenses - from rents to coffee supplies - can come
without significant detriment to their business model.
There are some companies for whom this is a viable option,
but for others, it is not practical. Will
confidential meetings between lawyers and clients take place in lawyers’ basement
playrooms, or out in public at coffee shops? Unlikely. Further, many industries rely on the sharing
of ideas to innovate and problem solve.
The benefit of casual conversations and impromptu collaborative meetings
is worth the expense of working together in one location. So there will
remain demand for professional office space from certain sectors for a variety
of sound reasons. Worth noting, too, is the consideration that the pre-COVID
bullpen office set up has significant drawbacks until (unless) a vaccine
becomes available: shared space is not practical from a public health
perspective, and may redirect those who can’t realistically work from home long
term, to shift back to individual offices that ameliorate physical distancing. That is: more square feet of space per
employee.
And then the final elephant in the room is the total elimination
of demand for office space from companies which do not survive the economic
fallout of the pandemic. It is too soon
to measure how extensive this will be, but there certainly will be casualties
of a recession that may well be deep and prolonged.
So, coming full circle to the short answer: even with lots
of companies opting to return to offices, a decline in overall demand for
office space is certainly expected, probably over the next couple of
years. Because leases are typically signed on 3-5 year terms (or longer),
a “shadow” vacancy of leased-but-vacant space could surface first (i.e. space
for sublease), though if the original lessees can’t pay, the space is
effectively just vacant regardless of any contractual debt on it (distinguished
from, for example, a healthy company who chooses to move to a new office
building when they still have a year left on their lease). With increasing vacancy, landlords will opt
first for rental incentives to entice tenants to their space, and there will be
downward pressure on net rental rates.
Our June Market Survey is underway now…stay tuned in the coming months
for the early indicators of impacts on the market. 
Alex Baird Allen is the Manager of Turner Drake's Economic Intelligence Unit. If you'd like more information on market research or our semi-annual Market Survey, you can reach Alex at 902-429-1811 Ext.323 (HRM), 1-800-567-3033 (toll free), or email ABairdAllen@turnerdrake.com
No one
wants to own a “dirty” property; it is important to both Buyer and Seller that
they understand how a sale can be impacted by the discovery of contamination.
From the Seller’s standpoint, they may need to remediate the property prior to
selling. Remediation is costly and time consuming – it can take a year or
longer to test the soil and groundwater, adequately address the contamination, and
ensure that the site is fully remediated. The Seller will incur carrying costs,
such as property taxes, during the remediation.
There will
be other problems too, in addition to the time delay. The Buyer’s lender will rarely
finance a dirty property and will almost always require a Phase 1 environmental
assessment to confirm that it is not contaminated. In most cases it will be the
Buyer who commissions the Phase 1 report. This consists of historical research
of site… do past uses point to possible contamination from chemicals or
hydrocarbons?... was the property
previously used to house a gas station?... were manufacturing or service uses
such as dry cleaning, sand blasting (lead paint), etc. conducted on the
property?... The term “mad as a hatter” originates in the fact that hat
manufacturing utilised mercury as part of the process, with unfortunate
consequences for the participants. The Phase 1 audit will also investigate
existing and surrounding property uses that may have contaminated the site; for
example a bus depot whose leaking underground storage tanks have resulted in
contamination of the ground water and its concomitant migration into
surrounding “downstream” properties. It will also consider the building
materials used on site…. are the plaster, or ceiling tiles, likely to contain
asbestos; the fluorescent lights, PCBs; the paint, lead; what other horrors
lurk in the building structure? If anything suspicious comes out of this
research, the Phase 1 report will recommend a more invasive Phase 2
investigation requiring drilling or removal of building material for laboratory
investigation.
A Phase 1
report can cost anywhere between $1,200 and $3,000 for most small to medium
sized properties. Since a Phase 2 environmental assessment comprises soil and
ground water testing, more intrusive testing and the use of heavy equipment,
this study can easily cost over $20,000. Should the Phase 2 study identify
contaminants, the level of contamination and the intended use of the property
by the Buyer, will determine the degree of remediation required. If contaminants
exceed the maximum allowable level, the Department of Environment has to be
notified and they will issue an order to remediate the property within a
specified timeline.
Remediation
can be time consuming. Once the contaminated soil has been removed from the
property, an environmental consultant will set up “test events” whereby the
soil will be re-tested to confirm that the remediated property falls within the
specified guidelines. These test events usually occur once every three months
over a year long time period. However, if the groundwater below the property is
not static, the test events may register that it is “clean” during one test and
then show contamination at the next test event, as the groundwater migrates
back and forth.
The intended
use of property also determines the overall impact of the contamination and the
level of required remediation. For example, a former gas station site to be sold for apartment development requires
a higher level of remediation than a site to be utilised for industrial purposes….
properties intended for residential use are held to a higher environmental
standard than properties to be occupied for commercial uses.
Since the Seller
is in the chain of title they may be held liable for contamination after the
property has been sold… even though they may not be the source of the
contamination! This is why mortgagees, such as banks, will rarely foreclose
contaminated property… and why governments would be wise to avoid expropriating
pulp mills (Government of Newfoundland take note!). It is therefore to the
Seller’s advantage to establish the present extent of contamination (if any) to
safeguard themselves for the future. If a property is sold and is subsequently
discovered to be contaminated, the Seller will need to establish that it was “clean”
when they sold it, otherwise they could be held liable for the contamination
even if they did not cause it.
A Buyer is
similarly advised: If they purchase a property without undertaking the proper
environmental assessment to confirm that the property is “clean”, they are at
risk; they could be held liable for the contamination, even though they did not
cause it, and be ordered to remediate the site at significant cost. Unless the
Buyer is a risk seeker they should invest in hiring an environmental consultant
as part of their overall property purchase due diligence.
The moral
of this story? Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish! It matters not whether
you are a Buyer or Seller: a few thousand dollars spent on an environmental
audit can save you hundreds of thousands in potential remediation costs.
Ashley Urquhart is the Senior Manager of our Brokerage Division. She has a vast network of contacts and would be happy to assist you with all your leasing needs. If you would like more information, please feel free to contact Ashley at (902) 429-1811 or aurquhart@turnerdrake.com.
As summer edges near, warm days
pull our minds and hearts outdoors - reminding us of the natural areas that
make Nova Scotia a beautiful place to live.
From the maple-dappled shores of the St. Marys River to the sweeping
rocky coastlines of Yarmouth’s Tusket Islands Nova Scotia has an abundance of
natural beauty spanning countless ecosystems.
These natural spaces from a web of protected and semi-protected
landscapes across the province ranging from provincial nature reserves to prime
agricultural lands protected in perpetuity from development beyond a plough’s
furrow.
Canada’s legal concept of
‘owning’ land, though heavily based in a euro-centric view culturally, does
provide tools to assist in the protection of our natural environment. Most of the time when someone purchases a
property what they are actually paying for is a registered legal interest in
the property which allows them to use it unencumbered by others (the “Fee
Simple” Interest). However, there are many ways to split up this interest and each
comes with a value reflecting what the interest holder can and cannot do on the
property. For example, by placing a
restrictive covenant on lands, or placing ownership with a land trust, it is
possible to prevent the spoilage of natural places.
Valuing a partial interest in
land is a critical step in protecting wild areas through the use of Land Trusts,
which are not-for-profit organisations dedicated to the protection and stewardship
of special places including rare species habitat, areas of historic cultural
significance, and precious agricultural land.
Sometimes these Land Trusts acquire property outright through donation
or purchase, and other times an interest is granted to the Land Trust as a
Conservation Easement which details what is – and is not – permissible activity
on the land. In this way, these Land
Trusts have steadily grown a network of protected places over the course of
many decades.
For many landowners, the decision
to donate land is driven by a love of nature or a desire for a lasting legacy. As an added incentive there can be tax breaks
associated with these ecological gifts – the value of which must be determined
by a professional appraiser. In this way
Turner Drake has played a quiet (but important) role in the protection of an
abundance of properties which ultimately contribute to Nova Scotia’s roster of important
wild places. We are fortunate that
through this process, we have walked across places few Nova Scotians have seen
or heard of, but which nonetheless provide safe haven for many plants and
animals.
The season for outdoor
exploration is here and given current restrictions in urban-based gatherings
Nova Scotians have a unique opportunity to explore their surroundings and
connect with their natural environment in a meaningful way. .png)
James Stephens is a consultant in our
Valuation Division and is heavily involved in the valuation of lands for the provincial
governments, private land owners, and land trusts including the Nova Scotia
Nature Trust, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Annapolis Valley Farmland Trust,
and the Island Nature Trust. For more information about our range of Valuation®
services, valuations for land donations, feel free to contact James at (902)
429-1811 or jstephens@turnerdrake.com
|
|
|
|