News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 869     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.7K     0 

Stinson files for bankruptcy protection

I agree

I am also a suite owner at 1 King. I have not been part of the pool and have actually made a healthy cashflow over the past 3 years (although I certainly haven't made any money on the capital gains side of things). I hope this proposal gets voted through successfully as it is the only real option. This will be a fantastic property once we gain full control of it. I fully intend to participate in the hotel pool once evrything is settled.
 
What ever happened to the property tax issue? Were the units, rented as hotel rooms, classified as commercial?
 
Yeah the owners got pretty screwed on the property taxes; MPAC assessed the units as if they were separate condos - ie at $250,000 each or whatever - and then taxed them at the commercial rate. This might sound reasonable on first glance, however other hotels paying commercial property tax rates are not assessed at a total value anywhere near what $250,000 x 500 rooms would equal for 1KW, so they end up paying significantly lower tax overall. I think I recall reading somewhere that if you were to break down the price per room for comparable hotels it would be closer to $50,000 (although don't quote me on that).

Anyway, it's been dragging through the appeals process for what seems like forever, but it just might actually be somewhat close to being finished. Supposedly there's going to be a hearing this month sometime and everything just *may* be resolved. I'd be happy if tax bills were halved, although I'm hoping that it might be a little lower than that.
 
Yeah the owners got pretty screwed on the property taxes; MPAC assessed the units as if they were separate condos - ie at $250,000 each or whatever - and then taxed them at the commercial rate. This might sound reasonable on first glance, however other hotels paying commercial property tax rates are not assessed at a total value anywhere near what $250,000 x 500 rooms would equal for 1KW, so they end up paying significantly lower tax overall. I think I recall reading somewhere that if you were to break down the price per room for comparable hotels it would be closer to $50,000 (although don't quote me on that).

Actually existing hotels are assessed at their total value. It is just that the total value is a lot less when classified commercial. It is the impact of the taxes themselves that reduce the value. It is exactly the same with multi residential apartments, not to be mistaken with 'new multi residential' which is taxed the same as regular residential. In that case apartments are usually valued at $60,000 to $90,000 per unit which is consistent with actual market prices. These apartments, are equivalent to condos that sell for $160,000 to $260,000. The simple act of converting multi residential apartments to condos, increases their values. Even though the tax rate on residential is 1/3 the rate, the increase in assessment values offsets it. Usually the outcome is that city receives within 20% of what it did with the 3x higher 'multi residential' tax rate.



Worth reading........

There is a feedback loop here – value determines taxes and taxes determine value
http://www.longwoods.com/website/focuson/Focus76-01/feature.html


While one of the concerns raised by the committee was the loss of rental properties, Enright -Miller said Bogza was willing to enter into an agreement to maintain the current rental status for five years.

The issue of property taxes paid on the site was also raised, but director of development services Rod Bovay said the change between single-family dwelling and multi-residential tax rates for the property could be minimal
http://www.communitypress.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1183461
 
Actually existing hotels are assessed at their total value. It is just that the total value is a lot less when classified commercial. It is the impact of the taxes themselves that reduce the value. It is exactly the same with multi residential apartments, not to be mistaken with 'new multi residential' which is taxed the same as regular residential. In that case apartments are usually valued at $60,000 to $90,000 per unit which is consistent with actual market prices. These apartments, are equivalent to condos that sell for $160,000 to $260,000. The simple act of converting multi residential apartments to condos, increases their values. Even though the tax rate on residential is 1/3 the rate, the increase in assessment values offsets it. Usually the outcome is that city receives within 20% of what it did with the 3x higher 'multi residential' tax rate.

Oh, I know hotels are assessed at their total value...my point was just that there's no way (because of the fact that it's taxed commercially or for whatever reason) that the total value of a comparable 500-suite hotel would be $250,000 x 500. In our case, though, MPAC simply took the selling price (which, thanks to the problems 1KW's been having, is higher than the current value of the units) and taxed it commercially (not taking into account the fact that the selling price isn't actually a reasonable assessment of the value of the units partly due to the fact that they're being taxed commercially and partly for other reasons).

Anyway, last year (I think it was last year, at least) the government basically told MPAC to calculate property taxes for an operation like 1KW on an income basis, so that's what they've been going back and forth about all year, apparently. Fingers crossed that it actually gets resolved at some point.
 
Oh, I know hotels are assessed at their total value...my point was just that there's no way (because of the fact that it's taxed commercially or for whatever reason) that the total value of a comparable 500-suite hotel would be $250,000 x 500. In our case, though, MPAC simply took the selling price (which, thanks to the problems 1KW's been having, is higher than the current value of the units) and taxed it commercially (not taking into account the fact that the selling price isn't actually a reasonable assessment of the value of the units partly due to the fact that they're being taxed commercially and partly for other reasons).

Anyway, last year (I think it was last year, at least) the government basically told MPAC to calculate property taxes for an operation like 1KW on an income basis, so that's what they've been going back and forth about all year, apparently. Fingers crossed that it actually gets resolved at some point.

MPAC is not very sophisticated when it comes to these matters. Lets just hope that once owners in 1KW sell there unit(s) that MPAC does not re-assess.
 
Ontario Club `an orphan on Bay St.'
100-year-old organization tossed from 1 King W.; condo owners miffed at `insignificant' rent paid
February 13, 2009
TONY WONG
BUSINESS REPORTER
The historic Ontario Club, which celebrated its 100th birthday this week, is without a home as members find themselves once again searching for new headquarters.

The club's downtown Toronto occupancy at 1 King St. W. ends Feb. 28, Stephen Lautens, the club's chair of long-term planning, said in an interview yesterday.

"We were obviously a little surprised because we thought we filed a competitive bid to stay in the building," said Lautens. "As a result we have become something of an orphan on Bay Street."

After more than three decades at Commerce Court South, the club moved to 1 King St. W. in 2007, into a condo hotel project by developer Harry Stinson.

The club, which has 1,200 members according to its website, says it was stymied in finding a permanent arrangement because of a dispute between Stinson and his partner, theatre owner David Mirvish, which resulted in Stinson filing for bankruptcy.

"For the past two years we have sought a permanent arrangement at 1 King West in good faith, first with Stinson Hospitality, then with his Receiver in Bankruptcy, and the condominium corporation that owns the rest of the building," club chair Nugent Schneider wrote in a letter to members.

Founded in 1909, the club is one of the province's most prestigious, with its first permanent home inaugurated with a ribbon-cutting ceremony by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

The condo corporation that represents the residential units at 1 King made a successful bid last year to purchase the rest of the building – including premises on the 12th and 13th floors used by the Ontario Club – for just under $14 million.

The club was invited to make a proposal for "our continued presence at 1 King W. I regret to say that to our surprise our proposal was not accepted," the letter stated.

Mark Borkowski, a unit holder at 1 King W. and a former director, said the vacant premises would become banquet and meeting facilities.

"It's been a bone of contention for many owners because the club was paying an insignificant amount of rent with no benefit to the owners," said Borkowski. "We expect to see a significant upside to this in terms of revenue when they're gone."

Lautens said while the club did not pay significant rent, it brought in up to $400,000 annually in banquet revenue. The new bid would have seen the club – which charges $2,500 for entry plus annual dues of $2,095 – pay about $180,000 in annual rent for a 10-year lease plus banquet revenues, said Lautens.
 
It mystifies me why they keep quoting Mark Borkowski in these articles. Calling him a "former director" gives him credibility, but the reason he's a "former" director is because he was kicked off of the board by the other directors. There's not a chance in hell he'd ever be voted back on. His comments in this article seem reasonable, but some of the stuff he posts on the owners' google group is just ridiculous.
 
Lofty visions: The return of Harry Stinson
http://www.thestar.com/article/674478

Toronto's failed condo king is rising from the ashes and betting millions the time is right to introduce trendy living to Steeltown
Jul 31, 2009 04:30 AM

TONY WONG
BUSINESS REPORTER
Hamilton–Harry Stinson stands underneath a massive sign stencilled on brick, bearing his name.

"When they first told me about this place, I thought they were joking," Stinson says. "This is pretty weird. Even the street has my name on it."

Stinson's latest project is a former elementary school in downtown Hamilton. Built in 1895, the elegant building is historically designated. And, as fate would have it, it has his name on it.

Stinson doesn't know if the founder of the school, Ebenezer Stinson, is any relation. The Hamilton school board closed the school in March. With the help of private investors, he paid $1.05 million for the building in a deal that closed in June.

Toronto's once visionary condo king is now the would-be condo king of Steeltown, an industrial city that is the eighth largest in Canada.

The Stinson School project is Harry Stinson's chance to rise from the ashes.

After the Star first revealed in 2007 that Stinson had placed his landmark 1 King West hotel and condominium in receivership, things started to unravel pretty quickly.

After a bruising and controversial court battle with theatre impresario and former partner David Mirvish, Stinson relocated to Hamilton last year. He had considered Miami, Montreal and New York.

But in Hamilton he spotted a void. And it seems he is getting some Hamiltonians to buy into his vision.

"Harry's bought a positive new set of eyes to the city, he's got people excited," says Bob Bratina, the councillor for downtown Hamilton. "I think sometimes we suffer from a lack of self-esteem, that we sometimes need someone who sees value in things you might overlook."

No one has personified the fortunes of the Toronto condo market more than Stinson. He was pushing loft living in Toronto before most people knew that living in an industrial building with concrete floors could be cool. He was the first to build a condo hotel in Toronto.

As he charges through the school, scurrying from boiler room to classroom, Stinson cracks a distinctly Dickensian image. He fits in with the Gothic bones of the school, a kind of Tim Burton doll come to life. The excitable developer is pushing the envelope in his new hometown.

For one thing, no one has sold lofts in Hamilton for $600,000. That's the price for the penthouse. But smaller units will start at $250,000. That's still a good bit of change for a city where you can get a century-old home on a big lot for under $300,000.

He envisions 70 lofts and townhomes on the 1.5-acre lot that houses two 30,000-square-foot buildings.

"It's not the price," insists Stinson. "It's the lack of having something unique that people can move to. Most people think Hamilton is still this grimy industrial town. But there is also a huge industry of people in technology and health-care services and in academia."

Stinson admits that, as in Toronto, his ideas have been met with some skepticism.

His name has been associated with failure as much as success. His first idea for building in Hamilton, taking over the Royal Connaught Hotel and turning it into condos, failed to find financing during the credit crunch last year.

"There are always the naysayers, guys who say (Jim) Balsillie will never get a hockey team or Stinson will never build," says Bratina.

"But really, it's great to see people who appreciate what we have. There aren't a lot of guys like Harry who have the experience of developing in tight urban settings. We have urban sprawl because it's a lot easier to buy a farm and put up a subdivision."

Hamilton's downtown is more known for cheque-cashing centres and Tim Hortons' outlets than for trendy boutiques and restaurants. The city wants to change that image.

When Ron Marini, Hamilton's director of downtown and community renewal, lived in the city's core during the 1970s, he remembers "shoulder to shoulder" traffic during lunchtime.

Over the years, the core started to hollow. Manufacturing began to decline, affecting employment in the city. Meanwhile, suburban sprawl became the norm. "It became something of a ghost town," Marini says.

"We don't see intensification as a problem. We see it as an opportunity. Our biggest challenge is to make people feel comfortable walking and living downtown again."

That was the refrain in Toronto when Stinson started the Candy Factory Lofts on Queen St. in the early 1990s. It started a loft revolution that Toronto Life magazine declared one of the "10 moments that profoundly changed life in Toronto."

Hamilton today isn't so different than Toronto 20 years ago, Stinson says.

Some investors in Hamilton have been wary of Stinson's reputation. But the biggest knock against him has been that his reach has often seemed to exceed his grasp. Stinson is also marketing another project, the Hamilton Grand, a 177-suite condo hotel downtown. But nothing is quite as symbolic as the Stinson School.

So far, he seems to at least have the approval of his neighbours. When he mows the vast lawn outside the school, they will frequently come up to him to talk.

"I think he's doing a good thing," says former Torontonian Elizabeth Court, who lives across the street from the school.

Court, whose children used to go to the school, says the area could use some gentrification. She has had her car stolen from her driveway and has found knives on her porch.

Toronto, Court says, may not need Stinson. "But Hamilton sure does."
 

Back
Top