Here’s my more complete story in the Globe on what transpired today (and the days leading up to it) related to the Olympic village moving into receivership.
But these 700 words have a hard time capturing everything that has been happening in this incredibly complex deal. (A sample of how badly it’s going to be mangled: As Penny Ballem explained some of the complexities for the umpteenth time to a roomful of reporters late this afternoon, one wanted to know: “But does the city own the village now?” Um, yes, in a word.)
As you can see in my story, the two sides have been bargaining for a few weeks on what it would take to simply have Millennium bow out. The keys plus $3 million, plus $10 million, plus $25 million or plus $60 million from them. Those were some of the numbers being batted around.
Key for you, the taxpayers, is to understand that it will be crucial to find out at some point how much money the city actually gets from Millennium, in addition to taking control of the physical asset. That additional money is what will make the difference in how much of a loss, if any, local taxpayers end up having to cover.
City people seemed to be quite pleased with whatever bargain they ended up striking at the 11th hour with Millennium. While I might normally be tempted to discount that and be wary of any claims that they had done well, those who are close to Millennium were dismayed at how much the developer brothers ended up handing over.
There are so many possible questions to this latest turn of the plot that I can’t think of where to start answering. So how about this? Ask me anything you want and I will answer to the best of my knowledge. And perhaps others can weigh in too.
57 responses so far ↓
1 mezzanine // Nov 17, 2010 at 10:38 pm
What happens now?
2 Joe Just Joe // Nov 17, 2010 at 10:50 pm
What is the cities plan at this point? Take it to market themselves or bulk sell it to another developer/consortium?
If the city does sell it directly will they continue using Rennie or is the exclusivity contract now nulled?
3 Tiktaalik // Nov 17, 2010 at 11:09 pm
My guess is that nothing really changes.
4 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 17, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Hey Frances,
So is the city getting hard cash, assets or a blend of the two? In your Sept. 30 Globe story, you wrote that “Vancouver is taking aggressive action to secure the corporate and personal assets worldwide of the Olympic village’s private developer…”
If they are taking Malek bros’ assets, does that include the rezoned STIR property at 1215 Bidwell being marketed as the “Alexandra at English Bay” where the heritage building Maxine’s currently stands?
From what I’ve heard, Brent Toderian supposedly is making a decision regarding the development permit for 1215 Bidwell tomorrow. But at this point, in light of what’s gone on, is a bank even going to put up the cash?
5 mary // Nov 18, 2010 at 6:41 am
Why did the city not allow the Rennie marketing campaign to proceed?
6 Frances Bula // Nov 18, 2010 at 7:57 am
@ Mary. Because they wanted Millennium to come up with enough other assets to cover the losses that would follow if the new lower sales price was put in place. Millennium wasn’t willing to do that, so Millennium, from my understanding, actually then started resisting the lower sales prices. I’m sure what you’ll see is that the Rennie marketing plan will now go ahead under the receiver.
7 Frances Bula // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:03 am
@Think. I would think it’s all assets that now have to be converted into cash. Millennium pledged a list of assets as security before they got their loan from the city. Then they also committed to several million more (more than the $25 million that was their last offer earlier in the week, I’m assuming) to walk away from the project without lawsuits. It will be up to the receiver to convert all of that into cash for the city. Penny said the city wants assets that have some equity in them. (Presumably not properties like Evelyn Drive that are mortgaged to the hilt.) Is the Bidwell property one of those? I don’t know. Yes, it puts the city in a compromised position, having to make a decison on a piece of property where the city has an interest in the profits.
8 Frances Bula // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:06 am
@ JJJ. I’m surprised you don’t know already. You’re usually better informed than me. I keep hearing two scenarios from various people around this. One is bulk sale to another developer/consortium here. The other is that they go ahead with the Rennie plan, sell some of the condos at lowered prices and rent out others, because it’s just too hard to sell 480 expensive units all at once. It’s like trying to sell a quarter of Kerrisdale in one week. Renting some of those high-end condos out will help put bodies in the village (which will help bring the retail in) and reduce the number that have to be sold immediately. You lose some money — a condo, once rented, will never bring in the same price as a brand new one — but you weigh that against how long you’d have to hold it empty before it sells.
9 Michael Geller // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:24 am
Mary, while the Olympic Village situation is very complex, and it is easy to misunderstand what is really happening, and what might happen, I will offer a few thoughts.
The city did not allow the Rennie Marketing campaign to proceed because if the units were sold at the lower prices being proposed, Millennium would not receive enough money from the sales proceeds to pay off the city’s loan and outstanding land payment. For this reason, the city wanted the developer to put up additional equity to secure the loan and land payment. The developer was not prepared to do this.
Now, some might ask why would the developer and Rennie even propose a sales program that would not generate enough money to pay off the loans…and expect the city to accept it (as lender). One explanation is that not all the units would be sold at the lower prices. Rather, the reduced prices would be used to resurrect the sales program, and start to create ‘momentum’ in the sales.
We may now see the city do the same thing…lower prices to get the sales underway, and then increase prices as there is more interest and confidence in the project.
However, there are other options. The city could sell some of the units as a block to another developer, who would then undertake their sale. While this might not seem like a viable way to recover the costs, since the units would be sold ‘wholesale’ rather than ‘retail’, it might be worthwhile exploring whether there is a buyer in Shanghai willing to buy a block of units at prices much higher than what a local developer might pay.
This might be even less palatable from a political point of view than selling the social housing units, but it might be worth exploring. When I met with senior planning officials in Shanghai in June, there was considerable interest in these units.
I do not expect the city to sell all the units. Rather, they may well chose to rent some of them, until market conditions improve. This will have pros and cons. One of the pros is that it might help populate the community, and reduce the ‘ghost town’ feeling. And indeed, it could well be that in time the units will sell for considerably more than in the immediate future.
However, while I do not know all the numbers, the market rents that might be achieved will not cover the financing costs, strata fees and property taxes for these apartments…especially the more expensive apartments. Indeed, in some cases the rents may only cover 1/3 to 1/2 of the costs, (and this assumes that the city has a very attractive borrowing rate.) The city will also be losing property taxes from the community, and potentially upset some of the people who have already bought, since they did not expect to be living in a predominantly ‘rental’ community.
Furthermore, one should not underestimate the challenges of renting these units at acceptable rent levels. My understanding is that not all of the Millennium rental units currently available for rent are leased, and we now have another 126 city owned rental units coming to market.
Should these be sold? Of course they should be, so that we can offset some of our losses. Some may ask why they would they sell when the expensive condos have not? Because they could be sold at $600 a foot, while other units are priced at twice this price. But that’s another story.
I expect that the receiver, in consultation with the city and presumably Rennie will start ‘crunching the numbers’ to determine which units should be sold, and which should be rented. My advice? Seek outside advice from UDI members (developers, appraisers, real estate consultants, etc.) who don’t have direct conflicts of interest, to ensure that the decisions are fiscally sound, rather than just politically sound. There is a difference.
As for the security that the city is getting as part of the agreement with Millennium, while there are some confidential commerial considerations that must be respected, as taxpayers we will hopefully soon be told whether the city will be receiving the Alexandra project at Bidwell and Davie, and the Evelyn Drive project in West Vancouver as part of the compensation package.
Finally (for now) who is to blame for this unfortunate situation?
It is wrong to blame any one political regime. Bad decisions were made by Larry Campbell’s government, Sam Sullivan’s government, Gregor Robertson’s government, and the developer. It was a chain of unfortunate events.
I just hope the next decisions do not add more links to this very costly chain.
10 Michael Geller // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:32 am
PS…just saw that Frances answered some of the earlier questions while I was writing…
also, we should not forget that the city is getting back not only the condos, but also the retail space and rental units. Decisions will need to be made regarding the future of this property. Some of these rental units could be ‘stratified as condos, and sold in the future to lower the potential losses. Just a thought.
11 spartikus // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:56 am
Has it ever been discovered who, exactly, overturned the results of the original bid competition (which Millennium came in third)?
Or is it still a mystery?
12 landlord // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:56 am
Sell them to China? Along with the coal, the LPG, the trees, the fertilizer, the politicians and one day the water. O Canada.
The City had to borrow the $750 Million they “loaned” to Millenium. If you held that note, wouldn’t you be thinking about calling it in? What are the odds that Vancouver taxpayers are going to acquiesce as taxes jump and services are cancelled in order to prop up the bottom line of some bank? Is handing the City budget over to the Collections Department of a lender’s consortium the kind of social change the electorate had in mind?
Even if 500 millionaires from somewhere moved in tomorrow, the bungling on this file sets a new record for Vancouver’s legendarily foolish Councils.
Off topic: page A2 of today’s Vancouver Sun, Jeff Lee article on receivership – left side of page hot-looking male model selling eyeglasses, right side of page Mayor Robertson (not looking happy), wearing the same glasses, selling something else entirely. Somebody in Editorial has a sense of humour.
13 WTF // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:57 am
TWO POINTS
1) Maleks too big to fail – privatise the profits and let the taxpayer pay the bills. Everyone points out what good guys they are … DON’T CARE. When my father lost his shirt in 1981 developing/speculating in RE no one bailed him out and he’s a pillar in the community.
2) Anyone in city hall who signed off on this fiasco with MY checkbook should never, NEVER be allowed near the public purse again. Why is it most of the Olympic athletes I know and have supported live like university students and yet UBC/SFU couldn’t build a few more dorms that could have been converted to student housing post the Olympics.
PS I liked hosting the Olympics, I think some of the other infrastructure was much needed eg. Canada Line, Whistler highway.
14 Morley // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:03 am
Fill them full of social housing?
15 Morry // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:18 am
I still have a gut feeling that there was “fishy deals” in this whole mess from the git-go. Someone needs to follow the money trail back to when the deal was announced.
16 What's In A Name // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:22 am
There seems to be some muddy water here about what company is actually in receivership. The whole of Millennium is not in receivership. The Malek’s themselves are not in receivership. Millennium Water is in receivership and that’s it. None of us knows exactly what security was offered on this loan bus I suspect it doesn’t run the gamete of Millennium/Malek’s assets. Unless anyone here has a copy of the court order – which will become public record as soon as it’s entered.
Under this court appointed receivership the City and E&Y would have asked the court to appoint very specific rights and directions. Much will be learned from reading this order once it’s out there.
Francis please post this order once someone gets their hands on it. It will tell us A LOT about what the plan is to be.
The City is being smart here. I suspect they will ask the court for backing on any major decisions they make under this receivership. It’s a nice way for them to wash their decisions.
17 MB // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:29 am
@ landlord: “The City had to borrow the $750 Million they “loaned” to Millenium. If you held that note, wouldn’t you be thinking about calling it in? ”
If this was an ordinary family having trouble making some mortgage payments it would’ve been called in months ago.
But the fish are bigger, w-a-a-a-y bigger. Negotiati0ns ensue.
18 landlord // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
The legal question is this: does Millenium owe the City $170 Million dollars for the City land they bought with loans guaranteed by the City which has now foreclosed on its own mortgage and seized City land so that they own it again. Or still.
If they bankrupt Millenium, how do they recover our “investment”? Who would buy a property from them knowing the rules could change at any time on the whim of Mr. Robertson and the people advising him? Or be tied up in the courts?
That’s what prospective buyers will be asking Mr. Rennie. I’d love to hear his answer.
19 Dan Cooper // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:36 am
Thank you to Frances and M. Geller for your explanations.
And putting aside completely who, when and where the blame lies for the current situation, best wishes to those trying to work it out. I suspect there is no perfect solution at this point.
20 What's In A Name // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:37 am
There is no point in bankrupting Millenium Water (let’s all be clear about what company we’re talking about here). A Court Appointed Receivership is the best avenue here. In a bankruptcy creditors are re-aligned and you may not be in first position any longer and there is a lot more work to be done in a bankruptcy. Your Trustee fees would be through the roof. As the Court Appointed Receiver you remain in first position without the mountain of work required in a bankruptcy.
Clearly the City needed some guidance here. Appointing a receiver gives them that someone while gaining the advantage of distancing themselves from decisions (“E&Y told us to do it”)
I can tell you though that any receiver worth their weight is going to advise the City to drop the price. Get what you can and get the hell out.
21 Morry // Nov 18, 2010 at 10:27 am
So is it time to pickup some great deals? And who gets to be first in line for “discounted” properties? Why does with deep pockets as usual… the rich getting richer while taxpayers keep getting it up the …
22 rf // Nov 18, 2010 at 11:56 am
Hey Morry!? Explain to me what the difference is between “the rich” and “taxpayers”!!!!?
The top 50% of taxpayers pay over 85% of total taxes.
The only thing “rich” is suggesting that the bottom quarter of income earners are actual “taxpayers”
From the Fraser Institute:
Who Pays Taxes?
The top three deciles represent the 30 percent of families with the highest incomes. In 2000, families with incomes in the top 30 percent (those earning $63,209 or more) earned 59.4 percent of total income but paid 65.7 percent of all taxes. Families in the lowest three deciles, on the other hand, earned 8.1 percent of all income but paid 4.3 percent of all taxes.
23 spartikus // Nov 18, 2010 at 12:48 pm
The top 50% of taxpayers pay over 85% of total taxes.
And the top 10% pay 52% of the total tax bill! Or so was reported in the Globe and Mail in 2005.
Of course it’s just income tax, and not other taxes like the GST.
And there’s probably some confusion b/w taxpayers and taxfilers…
But to digest it all down – the rich pay more as a share because they have so much more.
I also think the “taxpayer” referred to above is the “municipal property taxpayer of Vancouver”.
The question that should be asked is “can the average Vancouverite realistically purchase a place in the Olympic Village”?
I don’t know the answer.
24 Tiktaalik // Nov 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm
The average Vancouverite can’t buy a place in Vancouver, let alone in the Olympic village.
25 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm
@spartikus @Tiktaalik please define “place”.
If it’s a house, then no. If it’s a condo, yes if you have the downpayment.
26 spartikus // Nov 18, 2010 at 1:44 pm
According to this site, the average price of a unit at the Olympic village is $441,200.
According to the 2006 Census, median family income for Vancouver is $64,007.
27 rf // Nov 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Sparty….please tell me you are not suggesting that low income pay more in GST/HST than high income/net worth people do?
And lest we not forget about GST/HST rebate cheques to those same low income earners.
And for Vancouverites who own $1-$2mil homes, (ie. most of them) if you can’t afford to pay the taxes, that’s their fault. They should be counting their lucky starts that the business community is over-subsidizing taxes in the first place.
It’s not much different than buying a Porsche SUV and then complaining that gas prices keep going up.
28 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 18, 2010 at 2:45 pm
$441,200 can be bought at that salary with about a 22% downpayment give or take. But to the first time homebuyer with only 5%, that would be a no.
29 Tiktaalik // Nov 18, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Alright so we gotta rephrase that you can buy a house in Vancouver, but only if you have a partner that you can share accommodations with and your parents are willing to throw in about 100k. Sounds doable right?
30 spartikus // Nov 18, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Sparty….please tell me you are not suggesting that low income pay more in GST/HST than high income/net worth people do?
No. I am saying the Fraser Institute spin is very misleading. The idea the wealthy are hard done by in this country because there are those who are too poor to pay income taxes is, er, a bit, you know, silly.
It’s not much different than buying a Porsche SUV and then complaining that gas prices keep going up.
I’m not sure what point is being made. Most Vancouverites, myself included, purchased their properties “way back when” – those mythical days when prices were merely “high”. Heaven help those not in the market right now. And those poor chumps do exist, rf. Some are poor, some are merely young.
I am not an expert on all this, but it seems to me the true root of all of this is Millennium overbid. They rolled the dice and it came up snake eyes.
Anyway, back over to the experts…
31 Morry // Nov 18, 2010 at 4:07 pm
My point was that at the proposed wholesale sale of OV properties to an off-shore buyer at 50cents on the $ prices means even more hosing of taxpayers. An even easy 20% return or more on investments. Leaves our children and others out of the game.
32 rf // Nov 18, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I know I didn’t say, (nor do I believe the Fraser Institute did), that the high income were hard done by. The point was more “I hate it when it’s suggested that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share”. The stats suggest that they certainly do.
“Heaven help those not in the market right now. And those poor chumps do exist, rf. Some are poor, some are merely young.” –
- some are chumps like me. Not poor and trying to keep it that way by not paying $1.5mil for a something that will be worth $1mil 5 years from now. kudos to those who own and have made a windfall gain. It just drives me nuts when the people living in a $1-$2mil house cry poverty when it comes to paying their taxes.
Can’t pay the taxes, move somewhere cheaper or borrow against your equity to pay it.
“House poor” is a choice.
I couldnt’ agree more on the Millennium bid part.
What I find fascinating is that, if I recall correctly, the Millennium bid was $91 million more than the next highest bid for the land.
That would suggest that the most the city would have got from another bid, for the land, was $100million.
So lets say the city comes up $91 million short at the end of this whole thing.
The $91 million is money the city would not have got anywhere else for the sale of the land.
So if they end up getting paid back on the loans and only get $100million for the land…..how is that really a $91 million loss?
33 Sean // Nov 18, 2010 at 5:35 pm
@rf #32
“The $91 million is money the city would not have got anywhere else for the sale of the land. ”
Very interesting point!
34 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 18, 2010 at 6:30 pm
@Tiktaalik you forgot to add, “and if your money is not dependent on the local economy”.
Has anyone paid attention to the unemployment number for the past couple of years? We’re not doing so well here. We’ve gone from 4.4% in Nov. ’08 where it has mostly been in the years prior, to 7.4% this month where we have mostly been hovering around for the past two years.
And unemployment affects everything having to do with housing, from rental vacancies to housing prices. We can trim around the hedges like the housing-supply-and-demanders love to go on about how rents won’t increase when a magical vacancy percentage is met; or the eco-dense-sustain-a-densibles who think putting your family in a 20 x 16 foot room is doing your part to save the planet.
But Morry is right, it is foreign investment buying up OV, it is foreign investment buying up West Van and East Van SFHs pricing you and your kids out of the market, it is foreign investment that will be buying up those STIR towers that the original developers will be turning over for a handsome profit despite the city having caved on amenities and levies in exchange for the density, and it is foreign investment behind absentee landlords.
Here’s what no one is asking. If you work in the private sector, why isn’t your salary going up?
35 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Sorry, just noticed to clarify, meant Vancouver West side SFHs – not West Van the city.
36 Chris Keam // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“The point was more “I hate it when it’s suggested that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share”. The stats suggest that they certainly do.”
If only there were some sort of pithy quote regarding statistics….
No matter, let’s look at reality instead. The wealthy get their money’s worth from taxes and then some. Here’s some examples of how taxes and government are designed with the rich in mind:
Public education. It’s much harder to keep expensive factories running when the people actually on the floor can’t read. No industry, absolutely no wealth for anyone. For the desperately poor, they’d simply trade one form of poverty for another. For the wealthy, it’s a much bigger deal.
Border security. If you’re poor, you don’t need airports, or Customs, or huge chunks of flat, usable land paved over for runways and buildings. All these these things are designed to allow wealthy and middle class people the luxury of burning fossil fuels to go to faraway places. For the poor, chances are their imported consumer goods arrived by ship. No wealthy people, no need for the incredibly expensive charade that is Airport Security Theatre. Poor people barely travel beyond the confines of a single zone bus fare, let alone across oceans. Rich people make those kinds of trips on a regular basis.
Public Health. Disease can’t distinguish between rich and poor. It takes a lot of money to keep poor people healthy. For the rich, it’s clearly in their best interest to subsidize public health so they can have workers to employ and the opportunity to move beyond gated, disinfected enclaves. And that’s not even considering all the poor people who do us the favour of dying young from lung disease while propping up the stock of cigarette manufacturers. Know any poor people with RJ Reynolds in their portfolio? Me neither.
Law enforcement. If you’re poor, you have little need for traffic cops, or the jaws of life, or all the other expensive accoutrements of the modern automobile-centric transportation system. Imagine the law and order benefits we’d have were it not for the vast amounts of money and time we spend making sure this money-sucking road network runs with some semblance of smoothness. If it were all buses and trolleys, we could put cops to work policing our neighbourhoods where we need them.
Natural resources. Rich people have stuff. Lots of it. Most of it comes from raw materials that are ostensibly the birthright of one and all. But this finite resource is hardly apportioned fairly, whether it’s oil, or minerals, or wood, or even the water and air we breathe. Rare is the poor person who can escape to the country when the smog alert says stay indoors and our local beaches close due to coliform spikes. The areas we keep pristine are essentially playgrounds for those who have the means to have a house sit empty for most of the year, or the cash and credit rating to stay at some wilderness lodge.
As for the consumption of the resources themselves, the rich with their lovely, lovely stuff aren’t screwing poor people there. It’s their children of our children who’ll get the shaft. The progeny of the wealthy will be able to access the expensive solutions that must come when our energy-dense oil and coal runs out. The poor will suffer the cold and dark and curse the profligate generations of wealthy resource spendthrifts that preceded them.
Finally of course, there’s the very obvious fact that there are plenty of places in the world where taxes are low or non-existent. Yet our wealthy aren’t flocking there… and their wealthy are pulling up stakes and looking to buy in good old expensive Vancouver, among other places. One can only assume they consider the taxes they’ll pay a fair trade-off for the benefits they bring.
So, yay, for the rich. They’re winners. That’s cool. Some are born to it. Some steal it. Some get it through brains and hard work. So it goes.
But please rich people, don’t bitch about the taxes. It’s unseemly, ungrateful, and frankly not in your best interests.
37 condohype // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:16 pm
This post, written in 2009, is wonderfully apropos tonight:
http://condohype.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/live-the-taxpayer-lifestyle/
Full disclosure: I wrote the post. Yes, narcissism is a problem for me.
Great reporting, Frances. I moved away from B.C. some time ago but it’s been a pleasure to follow the coverage from afar. I sure do miss seeing the Olympic Village from my old condo window. Oh, wait, I’m sorry: It’s Millennium Water now. I’ve gotta get that straight.
All the best,
CH
38 William Wallace // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:17 pm
I have little to no kind thoughts for the Maleks. About the best that can be said of them – as a former colleague put it – is that they’re poker players. They saw from the start, as very few others apparently did – or still do – that this whole venture was a hugh chance for a developer to score big with little to no risk on his part. As the development agreement left title in the City’s hands until after the completion of construction, obtaining outside financing was always going to be virtually impossible without the City, in essence, co-signing the loan – and thereby assuming the risk. The wonder is why Sam Sullivan and company didn’t see this when they issued the RFP back in 2006.
As for the Maleks, their hand would have likely turned up a very handsome winner – with only about 3% capitilization on their part – had not the credit markets imploded in Sept ’08. It is only because of that – external – event that the ensuing mess exists. Giving credit where credit is due, they DID get the thing built in spite of everything but one has to wonder if they had it to do over again…
39 Morven // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Before we get too wrapped up in the unfolding drama, just imagine the reverse situation and see if it matches any evidence (all good strategists test a contrarian position for insight)
Disaster may well await the city of Vancouver but we should be equally alert to the idea that a type of international sting operation is in the works. Why? International real estate investment is a serious game played by some very sophisticated players.
It is in their interest to foster the idea that a financial Armageddon awaits the poor taxpayers of Vancouver and for a modest sum, they will take the project off the hands of the aforesaid taxpayers. And after the poor taxpayers have incurred all the risks and they get all the benefits.
I might well be wrong but it has happened before in Vancouver and may well happen again.
Beware the geeks bearing gifts
-30-
40 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Good analysis, Michael. It is easy to overlook the complexity of delivering this kind of project to the market place, much less do it in trying times.
41 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 18, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Condohype! Hoocoodanode?
It’s good to hear from you. Loved your posts and miss your blog. Unfortunately I caught on to it just as you were closing it up sadly. Hope you’re doing well and still writing in some capacity.
42 Victor // Nov 18, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Frances, thanks for this great precis of a difficult situation.
Curious to know how much the City actually did achieve in their negotiations.
Do you know if other assets were “attached” to the City’s taking over the Maleks outstanding debt?
i.e The Evelyn in West Vancouver and the Bidwell/Davie project in the West End?
Or are these properties not implicated in this bankruptcy?
43 Glissando Remmy // Nov 18, 2010 at 11:59 pm
The Thought of The Past Two Years
“I Told You So!”
When I wrote this I was in a sad mood given the circumstances. I see some are suggesting a firesale. Sure! Why not sponsor/ subsidize a bunch of offshore Millionaires with Tax Payers Money?
Nobody seems to point into the right direction though. If the Gregor/ Penny/ Vision Incontinent Trio would not have dragged us into this terrible deal we would not care much about who’s selling what to whom and for how much now, would we?
Apparently this funny Trio are on a different Peeing Schedule than the rest of us here in Vancouver.
Anyway don’t worry, by the time I finished it I was back!
Those Vision scoundrels, I knew they are not going to disappoint…
I dedicate the following ‘Roundel’ to all the Bozos that supported and voted for Vision Vancouver in the past, even more to those who think they are going to do it again…this, is for you!
THE VANCLOWNSTERS
‘The Vancracker’ is coming to town,
Vision Ballet is in rehearsal,
Their Master is The Clown,
Chariots of Fools are Universal.
The Lady of Sorrow is down,
She wishes for a Reversal,
Their Master is The Clown,
Chariots of Fools are Universal.
Puffin ‘n Clucking they Frown,
A total Chicken Dispersal,
‘VANSTUPID’ should be a Noun,
Double crossed – Transversal.
Their Master is The Clown.
…
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
44 City has Failed Us // Nov 19, 2010 at 1:09 am
Millennium should not be able to walk away – they – the borrower- should be in receivership not simply Millennium Water. If the city had done its due diligence it would have secured all available assets when they stepped in as the lender. Why not let it play out and simply sue for the shortfall and the end of the day. And why are we (the City) saying nice things about the Maleks – they are taking money directly from my children. This is disgusting. Why would Gregor care about the cost to our children – he’ll be heading back to Cortez/San Fransisco/the Farm in a few years.
45 mary // Nov 19, 2010 at 7:16 am
with all due respect Michael, you haven’t really answered the question. You have provided some simple explanations which we all could have put together, but as you said, we don’t the numbers and we don’t know what options were put to the Maleks.
Do you eally think that Rennie did not propose what you suggest in terms of lower initial prices then raising them as the market improved? Why would the City not go for that with Millenium as a partner?
46 Dan Cooper // Nov 19, 2010 at 9:11 am
Quoth ChFU, “Why not let it play out and simply sue for the shortfall and the end of the day.”
Suing is expensive, often costing more than you would potentially win. The other guys can sue you back. And, in any case the outcome is always uncertain, and depends in part on the views and emotions of the judge you draw.
47 rf // Nov 19, 2010 at 9:54 am
Chris, is there a definition for “left of communism/socialism/marxism”?
That kind of diatribe has got to be part of the mantra for it.
You refer to ‘the rich’ as if they are all the same. It’s not much different than saying ‘gay people’ are all the same.
The spectrum is a more than a little wider than that kind of narrow minded babble.
To even think that you can sum of that state of civilization and wealth in 200 words is a level of arrogance I haven’t seen out of you…until now.
48 West End Gal // Nov 19, 2010 at 10:07 am
Aaaah, Glissy is back!
Thanks for the “Vanclownsters”, it was a delight.
49 West End Gal // Nov 19, 2010 at 10:11 am
Re. to ‘City has failed us’ above… Absolutely right, they are doing business with piggy bank monies. ..the Maleks, the Ballems, the Robertsons. Phew!
50 Chris Keam // Nov 19, 2010 at 10:33 am
Ah RF, must I quote you back to yourself?
You said:
“The point was more “I hate it when it’s suggested that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share”. The stats suggest that they certainly do.”
All I did was take your ball and run with it. Too bad it was an interception for a touchdown. Now pick the grass out of your helmet and suck it up or I’ll be forced to go for a two-point conversion.
51 rf // Nov 19, 2010 at 11:11 am
Oh I forgot, Chris, they don’t charge any additional taxes on plane tickets, oil, gas, luxury cars etc….
I, deliberately, did not say that the wealthy pay “more” than their fair share. I think they pay their fair share. I did not bitch about taxes.
I bitched about people like you who think that other people are an endless trough for how you think the world should be, like you have some sort of moral high ground and monopoly on wisdom.
You are trying to make a point that they don’t their fair share.
And you made it with a bunch of left of left rhetoric.
52 Chris Keam // Nov 19, 2010 at 11:31 am
There was no rhetoric. Just a series of examples of the millions and millions of dollars that go toward programs that are of enormous benefit to wealthy people. Note that I never suggested they don’t pay their fair share either. Just that they get excellent value for the share they do provide, and whingers who are down to their last million don’t elicit much sympathy from me.
“Oh I forgot, Chris, they don’t charge any additional taxes on plane tickets, oil, gas, luxury cars etc….”
Everybody pays the same tax for the same products. Be thankful you don’t live in Finland.
http://www.globalmotors.net/finnish-millionaire-gets-111888-euro-speeding-ticket/
53 Bill // Nov 19, 2010 at 3:10 pm
@rf
I think they prefer the term “Progressive” to “socialist/communist/marxist” since the latter has a 100 year history of failure. Same product, just a new name.
54 Chris Keam // Nov 19, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Not that I ever indicated support for any particular brand of political system in my comments Bill, but I’ll bet the Quakers would like to point to their centuries of successful living and have a quiet word with you about the success or failure of communal approaches to society.
I could also point out that most of the time human beings have been on earth we’ve lived communally, but no doubt you’d somehow construe that to mean I want to live in a cave and eat mastodon.
I might mention that nowhere did I advocate for any form of wealth redistribution, but merely offered an alternative to RF’s narrative of the Wealth Man’s Burden, but why bother?
55 Creek'er // Nov 19, 2010 at 4:19 pm
As far as the Tax Act is concerned, those who certainly pay their fair share are income earners (i.e. income from office or employment) …particularly those at the higher end of the income scale.
Those who earn income from business or property pay much less, proportionally, as do those who earn capital from investments…even leaving aside the numerous loopholes for deductions, exceptions, losses and preferential treatment of tax shelter investment strategies under those categories. Not to mention the modern trust…
The middle and upper middle class pay the lion’s share of taxes as they are income earners. The truly rich, the owners and investors, pay much less proportionally.
As Chris pointed out, the top quintile of income earners receives the most government services (in dollars per capita in Canada).
We have a progressive tax system, but we should not conflate it as being an undue burden on those of great means.
56 John S. // Nov 20, 2010 at 7:33 am
Don’t people realize that the so-called “assets” the city is getting from the developers are themselves ALL mortgaged. Folks should understand that other people will be paid first if the assets are sold. Also it doesn’t appear that the assets are worth more then $60 mill. That is just not much cash. How is it this small-ish City of ours has come to be on the hook for this staggering sum? Why did we not avoid the fate of Montreal, when we knew what could happen? this is a disaster for Vancouver! Why is no one being held accountable?
57 Jason king // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:58 pm
1) I don’t think we should turn this into a “class warfare” debate. ALL taxpayers are being affected by this….by moving this off that topic at hand and trying to turn it into “damn the rich” you lose focus on dealing with the issue at hand
2) While I hate the current council/mayor I hope that all of us can put politics aside and focus on ensuring the current administration does whatevers in the best interest of the taxpayers. Regardless of how we got in the mess we’re in we should focus on the best way to get us out of it and leave the finger pointing until after we have a solution.
3) Frances please keep providing us with updates, and I appreciate any insight from “experts” that you can provide….we should all be encouraging the city to put any political wrangling, finger pointing or idealogical driven decisions aside and simply do whatever is in the cities financial best interest
Leave a Comment