37 responses so far ↓

• 1 jesse // Nov 19, 2010 at 7:15 pm

  You probably don’t want to know what sort of discount they’re asking for.

• 2 Bananarama // Nov 19, 2010 at 7:37 pm

  Vancouver, I am disappoint. These properties are spectacular, and the sales have been unduly affected by negative public discourse.

  If I could afford one, I’d be living there now.

• 3 Mo // Nov 19, 2010 at 7:58 pm

  what about the UBC pro who states that the city will lose $160 million land costs… no matter what happens.

• 4 Victor // Nov 19, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  CBC quotes ” The terms of the deal remain under wraps, but Penny Ballem, the city manager, says ultimately the arrangement will be good for taxpayers because the city now effectively owns all the unsold condos and the retail space in the development on the shore of False Creek.”
  What? Isn’t this the Gang that complained about the NPA’s in-camera meetings regarding the OV? And now Vision has them incessantly.
  It is outrageous to keep this information secret from the taxpayer who is funding these amateurs. Oh how the Vancouver taxpayer is going to pay for this Mayor and his sidekicks follies.

• 5 Mo // Nov 19, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  City likely to lose $160m value of Millennium land

  Read more: http://bit.ly/9KecuZ

• 6 Glissando Remmy // Nov 19, 2010 at 11:33 pm

  The Thought of The Day

  “TODAY, Nov. 19th, 2010 was the WORLD TOILET DAY! What a great day to make this announcement on the possible bloc sale of the Olympic Village…to select Investors! DOWN THE DRAIN IT GOES.”

  Anyway you look at it, the end result of this Vision Vancouver exercise, Penny Ballem & Gregor Robertson lead financial fiasco is plain and simple, in layman words, public larceny, the result of 100% pure, organic incompetence.

  This condition could have been avoided if the City of Vancouver would not have gotten involved in it. Full stop.

  But how can one put some sense into a bunch of arrogant, ego maniacal group of Bozos?
  This project will go to the dogs. At discount prices. If one thinks that the average Joe will have a shot at a piece of the pie, at the ‘day old’ prices you are really naive.

  This how the West was Won!

  I haven’t seen so much background corruption and foreign political interference and influence complemented with a complete lack of fair analysis and media coverage since the Cold War era.
  Aaah, the good times!

  What’s interesting is the fact that Aquilini INC. and the rest of the InvestSHARKS are circling the wounded White Whale, harpoons IN HANDS, ready for action while the City Hall Fisherman are playing cards in the Bucket cabin.

  Los Piratas Del Norte…
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGjrc8MKnc

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 7 Norman // Nov 20, 2010 at 10:51 am

  I have had a look at the condos for sale , and I cannot understand where the money went. Yes, they were built when labour and material costs were high, but the developer knew that going in, so why the cost overrun? Anyway, compared to what is available for similar prices today, these units are WAY overpriced. They will only sell if they are discounted, and I really think that’s the way to go.

• 8 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm

  The decision was made by this council in February 2009 to have the city finance the completion of this project.

  What further will we lose besides the $160 mil. value of the land? There must already be some round-about estimate of that if Mr. “Everything-Is-Going-To-Be-Alright” Rennie has a plan sitting on his desk that includes price reductions.

  Although an exaggeration, my friend put it very succinctly recently: even third world immigrants with few assets or experience made money in Vancouver real estate ownership. Our city government on the other hand loses millions on prime land.

  Who does this council go to for real estate advice? None have any any background in land use. Gregor’s house is owned by a corporation, I’m guessing to exploit the Smith Manoeuvre but other than that??

  Which councillor would you chat with for tips on something as simple as buying a condo? Cuz, that’s what’s for sale.

• 9 Higgins // Nov 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm

  Is there no accountability? Vision, The Mayor, Ballem and their Hollyhock sponsors SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY FROM THIS!
  It’s their own doing, it was the deal done under their watch and with their approval. There MUST be consequences and I am saying legal consequences. These punks should never be allowed to sniff political or government office. Wait, could we vote on a Penny Ballem salary increase by the end of this year, just in time for the holidays? What’s a few $ thousands more in a $ hundred of millions bucket? A drop. LOL

• 10 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:56 am

  We have a cold snap in our fair-weather city. On the Bulablog, the political seasons is well underway. However, we can wait for the warming trend and the political the fog to clear. The pace at which cities build outlasts us all.

  That’s the time frame that the “smart” money is thinking. As “Urbanismo” pointed out some time ago, there is some good-lookin’ real estate on the SEFC.

  Frances has done a great job of simplifying our reading with the posts above… large, difficult project… inflated construction costs (35%)… complicated worst-case scenarios..1,108-unit development… 252 units mix of low-income and market-rate rental… developer turned additional 119 units to rental… roughly 260 units sold… eight-blocks, 25-buildings…

  File this: the OV will remain a signature site for a century or more.

  What has the “new” paradigm to offer? That spectacular Community Centre building would have been built on piers over the False Creek waters a-la-McBarge… one of two sites at expo ’86 that caught this writer’s imagination at the time. The other was the wedge-shaped GM pavilion that the Community Centre clearly recalls.

  That would leave all 8 blocks for buildings. The human-scaled brand of Olympic Village urbanism that we presented at a Plan Talk in February 2004 would have netted 300 buildings (albeit of human-scale size) and 1500 units many of them of a far superior quality to what we see in the OV double-loaded corridor conditions.

  Yes. A higher yield with the human-scale building type.

  Furthermore, for each building would have a private garden in the rear (size 5 x 10.5 m) and a public front door yard.

  Costs of upkeep? NIL. No strata fees. No gardening. No private swimming pools. As a hedge against market downturns, does the idea of turning 25 big problems into 300 smaller ones make sense? I think it does.

  Furthermore, this incremental urbanism is not only more robust that the slender tower and the not-so-slender slab, it is also a “paradigm” for the next phase of intensification in our neighbourhoods.

  Which would we rather have in our midst? These behemoths, or the neighbourhood scale alternative to high density?

• 11 Bill // Nov 21, 2010 at 11:45 am

  “File this: the OV will remain a signature site for a century or more.”

  Of course it will but it doesn’t mean the city isn’t going to take a big haircut. Look at Canary Wharf in London. The Richmanns were visionary but it didn’t stop them from losing a big piece of the family fortune.

• 12 Mo // Nov 21, 2010 at 3:18 pm

  @Higgins Citizen’s Class Action agains the City officials and politicians for Incompetence!

• 13 Tessa // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:17 pm

  “If I could afford one, I’d be living there now.”

  I think that’s the problem. Virtually nobody can afford them, and thus it’s inevitable that this housing is going to be subsidized by city taxpayers for people who don’t need subsidies in the slightest. It’s an unsustainable style of luxury urbanism that will result in all lower to lower-middle income people being pushed out of Vancouver.

  I would happily live in the buildings, too, as would many. That doesn’t mean it was built as a viable, sustainable or smart project.

  Let’s remember the other aspects of sustainability. It’s not just environmental sustainability, but social and economic sustainability, too.

• 14 Michael Geller // Nov 21, 2010 at 4:58 pm

  One of the commentators on my blog suggests that if the city decides to rent some of the condo units it will be liable for HST, perhaps on the whole building. That’s a lot of money. Perhaps some tax accountants can comment on this.

• 15 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:22 pm

  For the condos, it’s not that no one can afford them. It’s that no one is willing to pay that price, especially when you have Yaletown nearby for 20% less.

  Regarding the “affordable” housing portion costs, the city says on average it was $436,500 per unit, not including the land value. That’s crazy.

  The city has effectively privatized the profits and socialized the risks.

  File this: bye-bye property endowment fund for the units to sell with a 30% to 40% markdown. So what of that good-lookin’ real estate on the SEFC?

• 16 Michael Geller // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:27 pm

  Regardless of the HST treatment, instead of renting units, I think the city should explore creative financing programs to encourage sales. These might include shared ownership and shared equity programs that could increase market interest. While these programs work best when there is an expectation of an increase in values over time, given that this is the first phase of an emerging new community, this may not be an unreasonable expectation.

  In some instances, ‘rent to own’ programs might be preferable to conventional rentals. This could apply to the 119 Millennium rental units. And of course, it might even apply to the city’s 126 rental units, and dare I again say it….the 126 social housing units. Such programs might allow for more affordable ownership and a broader social and income mix.

  Of course, there will have to be some significant price reductions to get the sales program underway. However, with creativity, re-branding (I think it’s time to change the name from Millennium Water), completion of the landscaping and other beautification measures, combined with an open mind and thoughtful actions, the city should be able to minimize its losses.

  To get a sense of just how much money could be recovered from an effective sale of the condos, rental units and retail space, it may be worth taking another look at Rob Macdonald’s assessment in his October 16th Vancouver Sun Op-Ed.

  His numbers indicate that the loan could be repaid, and another $40 million might be paid towards the outstanding $171 million land payment. I am told these numbers may not be unduly optimistic.

  Given that the city has already spent most of the $171 million it expected from the remaining land payment on the new shoreline works, roads and services parks, community centre and daycare, it is important to get back as much money as possible. Otherwise, expect to see a further reduction in our bond rating. My fingers are crossed.

• 17 Mo // Nov 21, 2010 at 5:36 pm

  is this true: “City likely to lose $160m value of Millennium land” No matter what the scenario is going forth?? Francis can you clarify this as i think this a very crucial piece of the puzzle of how much tax payers will lose!

• 18 gasp // Nov 21, 2010 at 6:19 pm

  @16 Michael Geller notes:

  Given that the city has already spent most of the $171 million it expected from the remaining land payment on the new shoreline works, roads and services parks, community centre and daycare. . .

  THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS and a BIG part of the problem. City Council acted as speculators when they decided to spend this money before it was received – expecially $36 Million on a community centre before a community even exists there!

  There are other areas of this City that have been waiting many years for a community centre, only to be told that the population of the area doesn’t justify it (eg., Shaughnessy and Arbutus Ridge have 20,000 to 25,000 people already there, but they’re told to wait. . . forever). Yet in this case, City Council had Olympic fever, and spent the whole unearned bundle on this one community – in anticipation of it’s future growth.

  Well, IMO if people can afford these overpriced Olympic condos, they can afford to go join a private club – they don’t need a taxpayer funded community centre that was never approved by taxpayers as part of any Capital spending plan.

  City Council was grossly negligent when they approved all this extra spending before they received the payment for the land. So now the taxpayers are out this money as well.

• 19 Frances Bula // Nov 21, 2010 at 6:49 pm

  @Mo. We don’t know anything for sure at this point, but it certainly is possible that the city will not recover the $171 million still owing for the land. That’s one scenario various people have mentioned as a likelihood, even if the city manages to get enough money from the condos to pay back the $500-something owing on the loan — hard to keep track of this moving number because of interest costs. (Millennium bought for $193 million originally, then added another small chunk of land for $7 million, for a $200 million total. They put in a down payment of $29 million originally.)

• 20 Michael Geller // Nov 21, 2010 at 7:06 pm

  GASP, to be fair, from the onset this was always going to be a complete community with a full array of amenities, etc. In the case of Coal Harbour and the North Shore of False Creek, the city was able to get the private developers to fund most of the new services and amenities, although the city did fund the community centre(s) and school(s).

  What is worth noting however, is that the original plans included even more community facilities than what were actually built. As we have been repeatedly told, Sullivan’s administration cut back on both the amount of social housing and community amenities, including daycare, and was severely criticized for this.

  What is unfortunate is that the city did ‘gold plate’ much of the SEFC infrastructure after the Millennium bid was received, with the expectation that it would be receiving a lot more money for the land than initially expected. Furthermore, given the international attention coming from the Olympics, and the expensive construction climate during which the works were built, all of these components went over budget.

  One only has to look at the elaborate walkway system, pedestrian/cycling bridge, street furniture, environmental enhancements including the new island, parks, public art (although I must say, I hate the birds!), etc. and the very expensive community centre (although I do hope the yellowish water that I saw in the urinals and toilets has been fixed) to see that no expense was spared.

  Now we need to recover the money spent on this ‘infrastructure’ from the next phases of the development…yes, the Olympic Village is only the first phase of a much larger SEFC development.

  Hopefully, the city will carefully consider the timing and appropriate development program for the next phases, and how best to manage the project so as to minimize its financial exposure and maximize revenues. If the city is to be the developer, and I think it could be for a number of reasons, my initial suggestion is that the project be undertaken by a new independent corporate entity, somewhat removed from the day to day politics of City Hall. It should be led by an experienced real estate developer, with a qualified Board of Directors including outside experts This is the model followed by the UBC Properties Trust and the SFU Community Trust with generally good success. The city’s role must be restricted to that of land developer, and not get into the business of developing any of the housing or commercial areas.

  Ironically, the city did start off SEFC in a different way than it finished. Many have forgotten that Stanley Kwok was the first project manager, and he was very concerned with the financial consequences. However, as one of theoriginal project architects recently reminded me, it was not long before Stanley was gone, and city staff took over. While the Real Estate group were concerned about the financial aspects of the project, the planning department and sustainability office and others started to have their way. Their desire? To ensure that this would one day be the greenest neighbourhood in the world, worthy of international acclaim.

  Unfortunately, a bit too much emphasis was put on the environmental and social sustainability, and not enough was put on financial sustainability. But that’s a story for another day.

• 21 Joe Just Joe // Nov 21, 2010 at 10:09 pm

  If there is a tax lawyer around maybe they could answer this question for me.
  If Millennium Water had sold all the empty condos just before the HST kicked in, to a holding company say (MW2) they would’ve triggered GST on those sales, but couldn’t they have avoided the extra cost of the HST? Whenever (MW2) were to have sold those units now to an end user there wouldn’t be any tax as the unit’s are no longer new. Is there something missing here or would that not have been a huge loophole that could’ve saved purchasers some money. Of course Millenium Water might not of had the money to pay that GST so perhaps that is the reason it wasn’t done.

• 22 Michael Geller // Nov 22, 2010 at 8:07 am

  JJJ, this is an intriguing proposition. However, I suspect that it was not considered since in addition to having to come up with the 5% GST payment for all of the units above a certain price threshold, the Property Transfer Tax of almost 2% would have applied as well. 7% on approximately $500 million of condos is a lot of money! Although, as you cleverly point out, a similar amount might have been ‘saved’, if someone had the foresight, and money to do this.

  While it is always worthwhile to review what has happened in the past, in this case, I am now interested in how to best move forward. Hence the question about the tax treatment of any condos that are rented out.

  By the way, there is an interesting aside on the matter of tax treatment of real estate…. in this case Property Tax.

  Let’s say we have a 600 square foot unit that is not strata-titled and rented at $2.40 a square foot. As a rental unit, it might be worth say 4200,000 to $240,000. However, as a strata-titled condo, the same unit might be worth $420,000. The difference is important when it comes to the BC Assessment and Property Tax calculations.

  However, if there is a covenant on title that the condo unit must be rented for say 10 years, then BC Assessment will value the unit at the lower amount during the time the covenant is in place.

  This is why I think it might be worthwhile to strata title Millennium’s 119 rental units now, even though they may be kept as rental for 5 years or 10 years. (The shorter the period, the more they will be worth to a potential purchaser.) The city has the power to do this, and it’s one way to add tens of millions of dollars in value to this rental building.

  If I am wrong, I hope one of the better informed Fabula readers will let me know.

• 23 Michael Geller // Nov 22, 2010 at 8:08 am

  that should read, as a rental unit it might be worth $200,000 to $240,000…

• 24 Michael Geller // Nov 22, 2010 at 8:37 am

  One more thing…someone posted this comment on my blog at 2:34 this morning. I think it is worth sharing, especially since it is something I generally agree with.

  “Renting out the units is a deemed sale in the eyes of CRA and definitely triggers the payment of HST. Also, selling condos that have been lived in, at a later date , diminishes their value in the eyes of buyers. No homeowner wants to brag to friends that they just bought a condo that was rented out.

  I suspect the city is in denial. As long as they can delay the inevitable of lowering prices, they can beat their chests proud that they have not lost any money.

  They can wait 2 years to sell these units but what if prices are 10% lower in 2 years time? They just kissed $80 million goodbye for no good reason.

  The city has lost $150 million on this transaction and the sooner they accept this fact,the better off everyone will be.

  Greed got them into this mess and stupidity will only make it worse.

  It is a nice project in an up and coming area that some day will be very nice. Make the appropriate adjustments to the price and sell the project out.

  If these units were price at market, people would be lined up, as they are across the street at the Wall project.”

  My expectation is that the city will lower the condo prices, and this needs to be done. However, I am concerned about the prospect of renting units out.

  While 480 completed condominiums is unprecedented in Vancouver, given the project’s profile, the overall market in Vancouver, and the international markets, I agree there will be a strong market for the units at the right price, especially if some creative financing programs can be offered for some units. Therefore the city should be very cautious about renting units…they can, and should all be sold.

• 25 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 22, 2010 at 9:00 am

  Michael, is the distinction you are making between strata-title buildings with our without rental restrictions, and buildings owned entirely by one entity and put on the rental market?

• 26 Morven // Nov 22, 2010 at 10:12 am

  It seems to me that we would be better served if our elected representatives, instead of hand wringing, would set out for general discussion and for the taxpayers, just what would an auction strategy for Millenium and what is the upset price.

  We might thus have an idea of just what the risks are for the taxpayer. So far, a lot of good suggestions but nothing concrete (no pun intended).
  -3o-

• 27 Bill McCreery // Nov 22, 2010 at 10:30 am

  Maybe it’s time to bring Stanley Kwok back in, or someone with his qualifications and, then give him unfettered control. The City is now a full fledged developer and IMHO that is the last thing they should be.

• 28 Westender1 // Nov 22, 2010 at 10:45 am

  Perhaps Morven, our civic administration could also share with us the assets that we the shareholders now have an interest in as a result of the settlement with Millenium.

• 29 Michael Geller // Nov 22, 2010 at 10:48 am

  No Lewis. Not at all. I’m talking about two scenarios.

  1. Millennium owned a 119 unit rental building. The city allowed this to be built with bonused density. It has been renting up over the past 6 months. While Millennium did not start to market it, I know that some realtors were looking at how it might be sold to a single investor.

  I’m suggesting the city should strata title this building before sale, on the understanding that it will operate as rental for say 5 years, but units could be sold afterwards. (A covenant could be put on title to this effect.) Stratification of this building will add 10′s of millions of dollars in value when sold to another party.

  2. Rennie, Ballem, and Raymond Louie have all spoken about renting some of the condo units, to get some warm bodies into the project, and reduce the number of units for sale in the immediate future. I’m concerned about this since it could reduce the value of the units when eventually brought to market, and require the city to pay the HST in advance of any sales to third parties.

  Instead of renting, some of these units might be sold by lowering the price now. Furthermore consideration might be given to creative financing programs such as shared equity and shared homeownership.

  There are many variations on these types of programs. One might have the city sell a $600,0000 unit for $500,000 and place a $100,000 mortgage on title…the interest bearing mortgage would be paid off only when the unit is sold While such a program works best when units increase in value, I think this is a reasonable expectation here.

  In the case of a shared equity or shared ownership model, a purchaser might buy a portion of a unit, and rent the other half. The city, or another entity would own the balance of the unit. Over time, the purchaser would increase their ownership through a process that is sometimes called ‘staircasing’….over time they climb the stairs to full ownership.

  Such programs may not be appropriate or necessary for the very high priced units. But they could work for those under a million dollars (those are the cheaper ones!)

  These are just thoughts…they are frought with issues that need to be worked through. But all I am saying is that there are alternatives to heavily discounting units, selling them in bulk or blocks, or renting them out.

• 30 Morven // Nov 22, 2010 at 11:37 am

  Further thoughts.

  Can we (Vancouver) learn from the financial crises of the past 36 months?

  I hope so.

  When the markets were roiled by cascading financial crises, economists and regulatory analysts came up with new forms of auction design.

  Why?

  For one, there are often products that both sellers and buyers consider imperfect and the question arises of just how they should be sold, when multiple rounds of auctions are not feasible.

  Result? The economists developed the theory of product mix auctions, designed to be used by, particularly, banks, when disposing of toxic assets.

  We have to assume that our elected representatives will look at all the options for disposal of Millenium assets not just the politically correct options and learn from the recent global experience in auction design.

  Wishful thinking?
  -30-

• 31 TD // Nov 22, 2010 at 12:17 pm

  480 CONDOS FOR SALE? No problem.
  LOTTERY! It’s been A gambling OPERATION from the beginning anyway. Sell $100 tickets across Canada not Overseas and not for discounted prices. It’s fair, you’ll get your money back, raise some money for some real good causes as well.

• 32 Michael Geller // Nov 22, 2010 at 1:06 pm

  Morven, while real estate auctions are regularly used in Australia and New Zealand, they generally have only been used in our market as a disposition process of last resort. I too agree that there can be a place for them, and that they can be effective. However, you’ll have a hard time convincing Bob Rennie that this is the way to go, (perhaps for obvious reasons), and many others will be biased against this approach.

  A form of auction (ie Request for Proposals) might be considered for the rental building and retail space, given the difficulty in establishing value. However, my personal view is that I would only consider an auction of the condo units if the other approaches discussed above were to fail.

• 33 landlord // Nov 22, 2010 at 1:38 pm

  I have this mental picture of Morven trying to explain the theory of product mix auctions to, well pick a Councillor. One or two might get as far as “toxic assets” but that would probably be the end of the meeting.

  Michael’s anonymous insomniac correspondent writes: : “The city has lost $150 million on this transaction and the sooner they accept this fact,the better off everyone will be.”

  Everyone except those Councillors who will have to run on their record of having lost $150 Million which could have gone to, oh, I don’t know, getting the homeless off the street or making Vancouver the greenest city in the universe, or a better benefits package in the CUPE contract or, well you get the idea.

  They’re all clearly in panic mode at the moment, looking at having to campaign with that around their necks in a very few months. It’s not like there’s a lot of good news in the pipeline, no more special projects for pet interest groups, no more ribbon-cuttings, probably tax increases and layoffs. So vote for me and get more of the same. I almost feel sorry for them.

• 34 Morven // Nov 22, 2010 at 2:53 pm

  @Michael Geller and @Landlord

  I can see the difficulty of making a cogent discussion of product mix auctions.

  That said, there is more than one type of auction and a lot of academic effort has been applied to designing auction strategies and types to deal with the detritus of the financial melt down.

  My point is that it is prudent for our elected representatives to look at all the strategies, structures and processes available to them. If they do not, they may be failing in their duty of care and duty of trust. Further, the misplaced financial incentives that have got us in to this mess in the first place, are no solution and relying on the simple mantras of real estate salespeople is not the only solution.

  This is a market failure we are dealing with and we should be looking at a process that deals with the liabilities not just the assets.

  Just a perplexed taxpayer.
  -30-

• 35 Bill McCreery // Nov 22, 2010 at 10:51 pm

  @ landlord 33.
  “…lost $150 Million…”. That, I suspect, is the least taxpayers are exposed to in this project. In addition to the “getting the homeless off the street [laudable but, mismanaged] or making Vancouver the greenest city in the universe [same], or a better benefits package in the CUPE contract [the current package is one of the reasons why all those CUPE jobs were lost last year and more to come in December] or…….”.

  The other overlooked taxpayer funded financial elephant is the STIR giveaway. Based on 2,000 STIR units over the 2 year programme the City is losing another +/-$158,000,000 = 158 million dollars!

  So, do the arithmetic: OV, $150M min. + STIR, $158M + $40M, 09 + $20M, 10 = $368M and counting and there are others other would include on this list. That is a tiny bit more than Penny Ballem’s “drop in the” taxpayers’ “bucket”.

• 36 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 23, 2010 at 12:14 am

  “These are just thoughts…they are fraught with issues that need to be worked through. But all I am saying is that there are alternatives to heavily discounting units, selling them in bulk or blocks, or renting them out.”

  Geller 29

  Michael, I have been pondering whether or not “tenure” is a defining characteristic for “building type”. Your insights are making me shy away from that. At some point in time someone came up with the notion of a 25-year mortgage—and if I am understanding your line of thought—in order to hedge against this new brand of uncertainty, we need to plumb new lines in finance.

  Finance, not building type, is the primary issue we are facing.

  Building an Olympic Athletes Village in a prime location in one of the leading capitals of the Pacific Rim should not be an undertaking that ends in a fire sale—regardless the condition of the present day markets.

• 37 Jason Gordon // Nov 23, 2010 at 2:33 pm

  Great idea to strata-title the rental building Michael.

  Mr. Villegas..in the abstract I agree with your point re tenure, but in fact a retail home purchaser or single unit investor will pay a way higher price or multiple of earnings potential than a wholesale rental building investor.

Leave a Comment