|
|
|
The simplest answer is the homes must be vacant but ownership doesn't change (if owners dont want to sell). Maybe metrolinx rents them from the owners with a good before/after inspection. Rent would have to be well above market rent to allow owners enough after tax dollars to rent something else at market rate. Not sure if there is a legal way to do this though. They are residential properties but metrolinx would want owners to have zero access for many years.
When lands are expropriated in Ontario, the owner usually gets the better end of the financial part - taxpayers the short end.
In this case, I disagree. When the line is complete there will be a step change in value. Even a generous settlement now will pale in comparison to the increase in value of the property missed. No sane/solvent property owner would dump property right before a major underground transit project is implemented very close by.
While that annoys me as a taxpayer, I agree that is closer to the number that is reasonable if you are forcing people out. That may also alter the economics of the plan so they choose to do repairs or some other path instead of buying them. When they sell after construction, double current value may be close. That leaves the lost opportunity cost with MX as the money was tied up and got deflated but otherwise they recovered most of the money spent on acquisition.
Many farmers who lost lands to the Pickering Airport in the 70s had a 10-year first right to repurchase their lands if they became available. I know 1 farmer who repurchased his farm for 1/2 what they were paid at the time of expropriation. Most expropriation agreements include some sort of timed repurchase right.
The law says 4 mos or less. I believe those property owners were served notice in Jan 2020.
I know of situations where developer land was expropriated and big cheques cut (with NDA's all around).
www.barrietoday.com
This is not that. Those houses were bought for the station. The current group of houses on Pape were recently notified that because they may get cracks, they are forced to sell.
That is a different one.
This is a case where the parties need arbitration to solve FMV. Don't know how that land is zoned, but inside Bradford land is $500K-$1m/acre -- the land in question is 8.5 acres, the seller wants $555K/acre. doesn't seem out of line to me. Being a developer is of no advantage or consequence, the same process would play out for a homeowner or farmer -- leave nothing on the table.
FMV is determined independently of the parties in an Expropriation. Buyback clauses usually favor the old owner -- they don't repay damages or improvement awards gained in the initial sale - they get those back free along with another allowance for legal, LTT and moving expenses. A wild-ass increase in value is unlikely as the benefit of being on a rail line is already baked into the prices of these places. The flipside may be more likely -- the properties become less desirable.Developer's claim asks Bradford for almost $5M for land, damages
Town expropriated about 3.5 hectares from Line 6 property to make way for roundabout and realignment as part of new arterial road
As for right to buyback, MX says they can buy it back in two years at the new fair market value (that MX determines again). WTF. If MX really wants to take ownership for two years, the current owner should be able to buy it back by handing MX a cheque for the FMV of the house at the time they sold it minus the LTT they have to pay, moving expenses, etc. That would be roughly a zero sum game for the current owners. Still a pain in the ass but not financially devastating.
That all makes sense if they are knocking down your house. In this case, it's a kick in the nuts as there is a good chance your house is resold in 2-3 years in the same condition it is now for a lot more than ++++++. Still seems strange that they are expropriating for possible damage in the future.
It makes perfect sense. Govt doesn’t want to be a landlord when they don’t have to. Their payments for rent / displacement could be 2 years…when’s the last time you saw a major project finish on time?
I wonder if they would consider a good repurchase clause in the contract. You can have my house for $x + expenses. I get first right of refusal when you decide to sell for $x-100k. $x invested covers my rent for the length of the project (no matter how long it is). It looks like the houses are about $1.5M. Rent is about $3k. The math almost works (depending on +++++, return on investment and tax rate). The real win (or rather avoidance of kick in the nuts) for the homeowner comes when they buy it back at the end and get a 2.5M house for 1.4.
Agreed.
I doubt the houses will be feasible after a couple of years being boarded up/vacant, even if construction does zero damage... Assuming no squatters try to move in and trash the place. Assuming no tweakers steal all the copper trashing the place. Two+ years of demolition by neglect with respect to weather and rodent penetration will be enough to potentially destroy the home.
I think they are expropriating to mitigate cost and risk during construction. The deal for an expropriated owner to get their house back if it's still standing will undoubtedly be better than if you or I wanted the place.
Here are real numbers from metrolinx expropriation. Market value (determined by metrolinx on a date determined by metrolinx) plus 5% inconvenience bonus. No moving expenses, no ltt on new house, etc. A swift kick in the balls.
|
|
|
|
|
