Development Rumours

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Regardless of the cap, we often hear fear mongering about property taxes forcing seniors out of their homes but I've yet to see much evidence of this actually happening. While I'm sure there may be some isolated incidents it isn't reasonable to presume that seniors en masse have an affordability crisis that differs from that of the working class especially when the average Canadian man aged 25-34 makes less than the average man over 65 (source).

While I don't think we should explicitly incentivize seniors to leave their homes we also should not incentivize (subsidize) them to stay via property tax breaks. If people want to stay in their family homes well past retirement that is fine but it isn't as common as it once was to own only a single home in one's lifetime, and I think people are more amenable to downsizing as they age. I've seen several examples of this in my own life recently. I think this is why it's important we build a healthy mix of housing options with both rental and ownership opportunities – give seniors downsizing options that are aspirational and desirable.

I don't understand why you are characterizing the cap system as though it only applies to seniors, though. I just did a quick search, as I mentioned in my post above that I must not understand how it works, and I didn't. If a person buys a house, they are taxed at uncapped value... for one year. After that, they are taxed at capped value for subsequent years. So unless the 25-34 year old in your example above buys a different house every year, then they are taxed the same as anybody who has owned their home for more than a year. I also don't see any language that mentions the age of the purchaser/homeowner.

I'm finding some of the takes here a little confusing, TBH.

CAP Eligibility
CAP eligibility requirements are set by the Nova Scotia Assessment Act and cannot be amended by PVSC. Eligible properties are:

At least 50% owned by a Nova Scotia resident.
Residential property with less than four dwelling units or vacant resource property. For the CAP, residential properties include manufactured homes, manufactured home parks, cooperative housing, and the residential or resource portions of a commercial farm.
Occupied by the owner, if the property is a condominium.
Owned for at least a year, or ownership remained within the family.
The CAP is removed for the year following the sale of a property, unless it was purchased from a family member (spouse, child, grandchild, great grandchild, parent, grandparent or sibling). If eligibility criteria are met, the calculation of the new owner’s CAP will begin the next year.

For example: if a property was purchased in June of 2023 by a non-family member, the taxable assessed value of the property would be calculated without CAP in January of 2024. As a result, the new owner's taxable assessment could be higher than the previous owner's. In January of 2025, the new owner's assessment would be calculated with CAP, if all other eligibility criteria were met.

Commercial properties, new construction, non-owner-occupied condominiums, properties that have been purchased from a non-family member within the last year, and properties that are majority owned by out-of-province residents are not eligible for the CAP.

Source

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sorry, I must have missed this aspect of the current cap system. So not all homes in a particular area are capped equally? Is this a recent change?

I was under the impression that cap values for a particular area were determined by whatever formula they use and it was applied to all homes in that area. It sounds like you are saying that if a home is sold, that the new owner is taxed at an uncapped value. Is that true?

Obviously I'm not a municipal tax expert, just want to know the truth.

https://www.pvsc.ca/understand-your-assessment/capped-assessment-program

The CAP is removed for the year following the sale of a property, unless it was purchased from a family member (spouse, child, grandchild, great grandchild, parent, grandparent or sibling). If eligibility criteria are met, the calculation of the new owner’s CAP will begin the next year.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sorry, I must have missed this aspect of the current cap system. So not all homes in a particular area are capped equally? Is this a recent change?

When a property is sold, it is assessed anew at the start of the next assessment year at market value (as that term is defined in the Assessment Act). That assessment will be in effect for the first full assessment/taxation year and the municipality will calculate the taxes due based on that value.

Assuming the owner qualifies for the CAP (and the vast majority of residential property owners do), they will benefit from it in each ensuing year thereafter, and the assessment notice for each year will show two values: the market-value assessment and the taxable assessment, which (as the name suggests) will be the amount upon which taxes for the year in question will be based. For that first capped year, the taxable assessment will be the prior year's market value assessment plus a percentage prescribed by the province, pegged to the CPI (for 2026 it's 2.6%). In ensuing years, it will be the prior year's capped value plus the new prescribed percentage increase.

So, all properties in the province which qualify for the cap will see their taxable assessment values increase the next year (assuming the market in their area has in fact increased; it doesn't always) by whatever the prescribed percentage is.

I was under the impression that cap values for a particular area were determined by whatever formula they use and it was applied to all homes in that area. It sounds like you are saying that if a home is sold, that the new owner is taxed at an uncapped value. Is that true?.

Yes, the new owner is taxed at an uncapped value - but only for the first year of ownership.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't understand why you are characterizing the cap system as though it only applies to seniors, though. I just did a quick search, as I mentioned in my post above that I must not understand how it works, and I didn't. If a person buys a house, they are taxed at uncapped value... for one year. After that, they are taxed at capped value for subsequent years. So unless the 25-34 year old in your example above buys a different house every year, then they are taxed the same as anybody who has owned their home for more than a year. I also don't see any language that mentions the age of the purchaser/homeowner.

It clearly doesn't apply only to seniors, but seniors who've been in their houses for any significant time illustrate the inequity of the system most glaringly.

For example, I've been in my house since before inception of the CAP. Currently, the gap between my market-value assessment and my taxable assessment is more than $400K (which sounds obscene, because it is).

Imagine that there's a house next door which is identical to mine in every way, including its market-value assessment. But then it's purchased by a new owner. That owner will then pay taxes based on the market-value assessment (plus the prescribed CAP percentage in following years). but the market value which is the basis for their capped assessment by definition includes the $400K difference between that and my capped value, while I continue to make out like a bandit.

My neighbor will be carrying my freight - heavy freight - for the privilege of living in an identical house. That can't be justified.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't understand why you are characterizing the cap system as though it only applies to seniors, though. I just did a quick search, as I mentioned in my post above that I must not understand how it works, and I didn't. If a person buys a house, they are taxed at uncapped value... for one year. After that, they are taxed at capped value for subsequent years. So unless the 25-34 year old in your example above buys a different house every year, then they are taxed the same as anybody who has owned their home for more than a year. I also don't see any language that mentions the age of the purchaser/homeowner.

I'm finding some of the takes here a little confusing, TBH.



Source

They are not taxed the same though. The cap is the annual adjustment based on CPI. The longer tenure you have in your home, the less you pay compared to someone else (generally speaking).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OliverD

They are not taxed the same though. The cap is the annual adjustment based on CPI. The longer tenure you have in your home, the less you pay compared to someone else (generally speaking).

The idea of growing the cap based on inflation doesn't really matter much though when the wider property market is spiking and properties with a newer cap may be taxed at a radically higher rate. It sounds like "I'm paying my share which grows with inflation" but actually it ends up being well below the real growth in spending. If HRM's balooning spending were fixed there'd still be a disparity, it's just that the more aggressively capped properties would drop even farther below inflation or their bills would start to go negative while less capped properties would have more modest tax increases.

Even a lot of seniors are hurt by this system. For example, if you are 70, you can't maintain your big house anymore, and you need to downsize to a condo, you are hit with max property taxes at that point. It's similar to a classic rent control trap that disincentivizes moving.

It's best characterized, I think, as a system that broadly benefits some portion of society, skewed wealthy and older, of which only a very small segment would experience true hardship without it. We can debate whether having to go from a $2M house to a $1M house is a hardship, but even if we agree it is, it's still a small number of people.

[Keith P.]

I think a good argument can be made that ALL properties should be capped in some way with only new builds or extensively renovated properties being subject to the insanity of current-day market values.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think a good argument can be made that ALL properties should be capped in some way with only new builds or extensively renovated properties being subject to the insanity of current-day market values.

But that could disincentivize new construction, and cause values of existing properties to rise even more quickly. And as someone123 points out, it disincentives moving.

[Colin May]

Our Taxable Assessment is just 40.5% of Assessed Value....which shows how stupid/unfair it is. Next door it is 44.7%....and across the street it is 44% and up the hill a large property at 43%......ludicrous.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thanks all for your input. This clears some things up, and IMHO indicates that this imperfect system does need an upgrade. Everybody should be paying reasonable, affordable taxes, and the same rules should apply to all owner-inhabited properties. Sounds simple enough, eh?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by icetea93

It appears the airport site is no longer an option and the investment group is now looking at other sites around HRM

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...ound-pitch-for-halifax-stadium-9.7212996

Well, that was much ado about nothing!

Thanks for the update. Didn't want this relevant development rumour info to get lost in all of the talk about property taxes.

[connect2source]

Several homes on the south side of Kent St, just west of Barrington are being demolished. Any idea of what's planned for these lots? Apologies if this has been addressed somewhere else, could only find the demo permits. I rather liked this group of buildings and they seemed in pretty decent condition.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/5222+Ke..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Several homes on the south side of Kent St, just west of Barrington are being demolished. Any idea of what's planned for these lots? Apologies if this has been addressed somewhere else, could only find the demo permits. I rather liked this group of buildings and they seemed in pretty decent condition.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/5222+Ke..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Those three, plus the apartment building to the west are owned by the same numbered company, with directors who own Tempo Renovations and JNF Investments. Zoned HR-1. Sooo I would say there will be some sort of mid-rise development. Probably nothing wild - just basic redevelopment.

[someone123]

The development around that area isn't a complete trainwreck but it's fairly haphazard. The level of heritage protection in such a historic area has been quite weak, to the point that it's already very compromised compared to what would have been possible in the 80s or 90s. It's too bad that some of the nice older building stock is being torn down in a place that already has so many mediocre, somewhat low density and run-down small-ish apartment buildings and holes.

Even some nicer gentrified parts have seen some ill-conceived do-overs like one of the Victorian (or maybe older) duplexes on Church Street getting a generic stripping down, with a five-sided dormer getting replaced by a generic modern interpretation of a dormer, etc.

[Keith P.]

Just to add to the loss-of-heritage discussion, I see that Dalhousie is preparing to demolish several Victorian-era houses-cum-offices/residences on Henry St to make space for a new residence structure to be built.

[someone123]

The policies in these areas seem to have been driven by height limits for a long time but I don't think the outcome from that has been very good. It would be better for the area for Dalhousie to have a smaller footprint with taller buildings. Nothing crazy, but maybe 8-12 floors instead of 4-6. I think it's similar around that southern Barrington area. Narrow towers that could fit on the footprint of a small apartment block would be much more attractive than squat boxes. It is way better to have a 12 storey point tower for a neighbour than a squat 6 storey box.

There also doesn't seem to be much fine-grained registration or protection of heritage buildings unless they are really exceptional. I remember a debate about an apartment building on Inglis and it was denied status because it was only from the 1880s or something similar. Maybe the problem was that some councillors were about that age at the time so they had a hard time seeing it as old.

[connect2source]

Thanks for the info re: the Kent Street demos. I fully agree that some gems in that area have been lost in recent years including many along Barringtion and yes, a shame to see the continued loss of more. Hope a few can be spared moving forward but as mentioned, the cohesiveness and continuity of heritage structures in that area is now long gone.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I remember a debate about an apartment building on Inglis and it was denied status because it was only from the 1880s or something similar. Maybe the problem was that some councillors were about that age at the time so they had a hard time seeing it as old.

You lost me there. Are you saying that some councillors were 100+ years old at the time?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Thanks for the info re: the Kent Street demos. I fully agree that some gems in that area have been lost in recent years including many along Barringtion and yes, a shame to see the continued loss of more. Hope a few can be spared moving forward but as mentioned, the cohesiveness and continuity of heritage structures in that area is now long gone.

There really has never seemed to be much rhyme or reason to “heritage preservation” around here. It’s always been that the business case rules, and heritage preservation happens pretty much at the discretion of the owner. There haven’t been any notable changes except for some half-hearted attempts at creating heritage districts’ but otherwise we now have a housing crisis that makes it all that much easier and justifiable to replace heritage buildings with multi-units. If you oppose it you’re just a NIMBY who doesn’t want to have affordable housing for our young people. Convenient, and it works.

[MastClimberPro]

These three houses on Sullivan are down. Are they going to be bundled with the vacant lot on Kaye for a larger development?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6615549,-..._ep=EgoyMDI2MDYwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D