Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt
02-01-2015, 09:33 AM,
#21
RE: Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt
Hi inanear,

Thanks for posting at VanPeak. I just want to ensure that you are aware I have absolutely no connection to the Watermark development. I’ve been looking at this development solely as an outsider.

Now, when you write about “bankruptcy news” are you referring to Wakefield Construction? The thing is I have no idea of the company’s depth of involvement in Watermark other than it being chosen to be its “Construction Manager”. If it has failed to pay any of the subcontractors who were involved in project, I have no idea what steps those individuals could/would take to ensure future payment other than listing themselves as a creditor with the bankruptcy trustee.

The thing is Wakefield isn’t the Watermark developer so I don’t know if subcontractors could legally put a lien on the development. A realtor would be able to check to see if any liens have been placed against the project; in fact, I believe that is something always or should be checked before purchasing property. I think such a check is necessary to obtain a mortgage.

If your heart is set on the Watermark, ianear, I might seek out legal advice regardless to determine what subcontractors can or cannot do in situations where the ‘Construction Manager’ has gone into bankruptcy. If you're thinking of being a future owner, it is much better to spend a small fee now then to face an unfortunate situation later. Wishing you the best.

(If anyone reading this thread can answer inanear's question, please don't hesitate to reply)
Reply
03-28-2015, 12:36 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-28-2015, 08:11 PM by Skook.)
#22
RE: Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt
I need help with a mystery...

Yes, I’m still kicking, in case you wondered. I’m juggling a number of future VP posts – all in different stages of completion – and hopefully I’ll begin posting soon. One of those potential posts is a Watermark update; however, I’ve run into a “snag” and that “snag” is a mystery in need of a solution.

About a month ago, I was updating a Gibson development spreadsheet and one thing led to another: I got to thinking about condo assessments on the Sunshine Coast (were they going up or down given the poor state of sales in 2014?) and this in turn got me to thinking about BC Assessment’s new e-valueBC ™ website (does it give condo assessment info?). I made a half-hearted attempt to find condo info when the site first went live, got no results with what I typed in and figured it was a no-go. Now, I decided to take another stab at it and began to play with different address configurations and guess what? Yes, condo assessment info is accessible for the most part on the site, but only if you type in the address like this...

Unit-Street City (e.g. 10-123 Pretty St Anytown BC)

Type the unit number then a hyphen and then the street address, but there can be no space on either side of the hyphen. The site’s search bar features ‘auto-complete’ and will begin offering possibilities as you type in the address. When you see want you want, click on it and the property assessment will appear.

I immediately thought of Watermark when I realized I could get condo assessments. You see except for the large front units directly facing the water many unit listings and sales have seen dropping in value over the last six months – so would the assessments reflect this? I will have to leave it up to you to discover the answer to that question.

I started my assessment search with Phase 1 – 5665 Teredo St. I soon realized that if I clicked on the “+” besides “Show more” directly below the property image I would find the ‘Sales History (in the last 3 years)’ and I could verify my own spreadsheet sales data. With Phase 1, all my sales data was spot on...except for one unit which had me scratching my head. According to my MLS sales data, the unit sold in the spring of “x” year, but e-valueBC™ showed the unit selling in the fall – a full six months later. Since that happened to only one unit, I highlighted it and carried on. I did note that from late-2012 to now, that the MLS and e-valueBC™ sale prices differ and assume this results from dropping the HST and going through the two year PST reversion transition period. This tax transition has had to have been a nightmare for everyone concerned: developer, resellers, RE agents and buyers.

Now that “snag” I mention above – it’s with Phase 2. You see there are nine (9) units “sold” from 2012 to 2014 with no corresponding sales info at e-valueBC™. To rule out error on my part, I went back to the three primary sources I use for MLS sales data and looked up each unit again and these units were indeed reported sold. There was one other anomaly – a Phase 2 unit I reported sold at 'such & such' date actually sold one year later according to e-valueBC™, hmmm. But, what of these nine – should they actually be considered as “sold” now?

Is there a logical reason why BC Assessment would not acknowledge an MLS sale report? I thought maybe there are different rules for foreign ownership but according to what I’ve read foreign owners are issued assessment notices and pay property taxes. Or, would sales be recorded differently if someone bought multiple units at the same time? That wouldn’t make sense though, would it?

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why nine sales that occurred over a three year span not show up as sold with BC Assessment? Honestly, I have no idea why this would be. Can anyone shed light on this mystery?
Reply
03-29-2015, 06:23 AM,
#23
RE: Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt
There is that arrangement where the title is held by a company, the only asset of which is the property, the company can be sold but the property's title doesn't change. Is that possibly why BC assessment is unaware?

Good to hear you're doing well, Skook.
Reply
03-29-2015, 05:34 PM,
#24
RE: Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt
(03-29-2015, 06:23 AM)alexcanuck2.0 Wrote: There is that arrangement where the title is held by a company, the only asset of which is the property, the company can be sold but the property's title doesn't change. Is that possibly why BC assessment is unaware?

Good to hear you're doing well, Skook.

Nothing to add except to say that I'm also glad Skook is doing well.
Reply
03-29-2015, 08:36 PM,
#25
RE: Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt
(02-01-2015, 09:33 AM)Skook Wrote: Hi inanear,

Thanks for posting at VanPeak. I just want to ensure that you are aware I have absolutely no connection to the Watermark development. I’ve been looking at this development solely as an outsider.

Now, when you write about “bankruptcy news” are you referring to Wakefield Construction? The thing is I have no idea of the company’s depth of involvement in Watermark other than it being chosen to be its “Construction Manager”. If it has failed to pay any of the subcontractors who were involved in project, I have no idea what steps those individuals could/would take to ensure future payment other than listing themselves as a creditor with the bankruptcy trustee.

The thing is Wakefield isn’t the Watermark developer so I don’t know if subcontractors could legally put a lien on the development. A realtor would be able to check to see if any liens have been placed against the project; in fact, I believe that is something always or should be checked before purchasing property. I think such a check is necessary to obtain a mortgage.

If your heart is set on the Watermark, ianear, I might seek out legal advice regardless to determine what subcontractors can or cannot do in situations where the ‘Construction Manager’ has gone into bankruptcy. If you're thinking of being a future owner, it is much better to spend a small fee now then to face an unfortunate situation later. Wishing you the best.

(If anyone reading this thread can answer inanear's question, please don't hesitate to reply)

Glad to find out you are "still kicking" and you will soon be posting more comments.
Now to the legal advice we got: the advise was that the sub-contractors could not put a lien against the Watermark project even with Wakefield Construction having their bankruptcy troubles. It is like you said, "the company’s (Wakefield's) depth of involvement in Watermark other than it being chosen to be its (the Watermark's)“Construction Manager...”. Seemingly the contract the developer had with the Construction Manager, Wakefield, was rather limited to various conditions, jobs etc. One of the services Wakefield Construction performed was the scheduling which sub contractor would be working (let's say on the forth floor of Phase 2) during a particular time period.
The developer, Pacific Spirit Properties (Sechelt) Limited Partnership, had the rest of the contract sewn up pretty well such that any financial difficulties the Construction Manager might fall into could not pass on to involve the Watermark.
Not being a lawyer, I cannot repeat the legal ins and outs, but it comes down to the Watermark seemingly is free of any such difficulties.
Reply
03-31-2015, 09:27 AM,
#26
RE: Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt
Update: As I mentioned in my March 28th post, I used three sources to verify the sold data on those 9 units. Now, one potential source I didn’t double check was the Watermark website, itself. Duh – what can I say except that I find development websites not often up-to-date so I tend to forget about them. That being said, according to the developer, the sale of one of those nine “sold” units must have fallen through since it is indicated as available on the Watermark Phase 2 floorplan. The other eight are indicated as “sold” on the floorplans, but as I mentioned on the 28th have no “sold” info on e-valueBC.

Now, I would like to respond to the above three previous members’ posts.

alexcanuck2.0: A company holding the condo title might be one answer for sure (BTW, I know absolutely nothing about this type of arrangement), although it may not cover all of those eight “sold” condos. I base that on what has happened to a few within a year after they were “sold”: two were relisted for substantially more, and one was listed for rent; but, then again, I guess a company could do that, too, right? With a couple, I think there is a very good chance the sales fell through which has happened in the past at Watermark. Well, all I can say is that this is all very strange. I guess the only way to know what is behind the missing “sold” info at e-valueBC is to call them and ask why – anyone game?

I noticed below the assessment info on the e-valueBC site you can click on “Incorrect property data? Update here.” Clicking takes you to a page with five different questionnaires depending on your residential type. I opened the ‘Residential (House) Questionnaire’ and the ‘Residential Strata Questionnaire’ and neither offers an option to inform BC Assessment the property has in fact been sold and when it sold. I think that tells you something right there, don’t you? As in, BC Assessment doesn’t expect this to be an issue and that they rely on a dependable source for this information. Curiouser and curiouser!

JimmyWW: Thanks, Jimmy.

inanear: I appreciate the update on the Watermark/Wakefield question. Thanks for passing the information on.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sechelt Development - The Wharf Place Skook 21 49,573 12-18-2015, 10:17 PM
Last Post: Skook
  Gibsons Development - Island Vista Skook 11 27,202 12-18-2015, 02:09 PM
Last Post: Skook
  Gibsons Development - Blue Heron Village Skook 6 26,121 12-18-2015, 01:25 PM
Last Post: Skook
  Gibsons Development - Soames Place Skook 7 26,025 12-09-2015, 11:27 AM
Last Post: Skook
  Gibsons Development - Vista Ridge at Grantham's Skook 0 4,843 12-06-2015, 11:59 AM
Last Post: Skook
  Sechelt Development - Edgewater at Porpoise Bay Skook 4 24,995 09-05-2015, 11:23 AM
Last Post: Skook
  Sechelt Development - Trail Bay Estates Skook 11 31,592 09-04-2015, 12:54 PM
Last Post: Skook
  Sechelt Development - Seawatch at the Shores Skook 5 28,307 05-13-2015, 03:40 PM
Last Post: colharpnick
  Pender Harbour Development - The Painted Boat Skook 5 24,442 04-23-2015, 12:33 PM
Last Post: Skook
  Sechelt Development - Silverstone Heights Skook 7 36,594 12-14-2014, 05:37 PM
Last Post: Skook

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Vancouver Peak | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication