119 replies to this topic

[Barrett r Blackwood]

Mr. Fugger, you do not seem to understand what was going on in the NRG v. Kimpton case or the flow of events surrounding it.

To start with, I think it needs to be pointed out that the NRG could never have purchased the Cornerstone if it had not been for Mr. Kimpton. In order to facilitate the deal Mr. Kimpton took a house as down payment for the NRG’s purchase of the Cornerstone Property. In addition, he took back a mortgage on the property. The NRG was afraid of public criticism in selling the house as it been donated to them. With respect to the mortgage, the NRG was simply not able to obtain mortgage financing. If it had not been for Mr. Kimpton, the NRG could not have purchased the property at all.

In the NRG case, the NRG had failed to pay the GST associated with the purchase of the property. They received bad advice from their lawyer that the NRG was not responsible for the GST associated with the sale. At the end of the mortgage, Mr. Kimtpon insisted on payment of the GST.

In the meantime, based on the incorrect advice of the lawyer, the NRG pushed ahead with an application to have the Court discharge the mortgage.

Mr. Kimpton had advised the NRG throughout the term of the mortgage of the need to pay the GST. At the conclusion of the mortgage, Mr. Kimpton insisted that the GST be paid.

In the midst of the proceedings, Mr. Kimpton obtained a Ruling from Revenue Canada confirming the NRG’s responsibility for the GST. As soon as the Ruling was issued, Revenue Canada insisted that the GST be paid. Mr. Kimpton paid these monies on behalf of the NRG..

Eventually, under the supervision of the Court, the NRG paid Mr. Kimpton the outstanding monies on the mortgage plus interest as well as the GST plus interest and penalties.

The decision you cite and read is simply, an application by Mr. Kimpton for costs for which he was awarded $2000.00.

The proceedings were really a big waste of time by the NRG and / or their lawyer. 99% of people in this country know the GST is paid by the purchaser.

How is it that you come to the position that Mr. Kimpton lost this application when, in fact, he was awarded $2000.00 for his time?

[Barra]

This.

Jesus, Bob - what is your point here?

OK - you're smarter than I am, or maybe just spend more time Googling. I was trying to say that the guy presents well, but may be misleading us. Thats why I placed the questions to him.

[Barrett r Blackwood]

I agree with Bob Fugger on one thing fo sho.

PAUL BROWN 4 mayor!

[Barrett r Blackwood]

I dont think Mr. Kimpton is misleading us.
He is what he claims to be.

[D.Devlin]

Mr. Fugger A "poison pen" doesn't enhance your credibility and lack of civility deafens ears. "Kudos to Kimpton" for elevating the discussion, and extending civility in good faith! D.Devlin

[Barra]

I dont think Mr. Kimpton is misleading us.
He is what he claims to be.

OK, Barrett, since you seem to be speaking for Mr. Kimpton, could you answer my question?

What exactly did he do for the Vancouver Port Authority, and why did he leave that position?

[Bob Fugger]

Jesus, Bob - what is your point here?

OK - you're smarter than I am, or maybe just spend more time Googling. I was trying to say that the guy presents well, but may be misleading us. Thats why I placed the questions to him.

All I as suggesting was that there is information out there online about him - like the NRG suit. Which unlike was Barrett was suggesting, gives me enough information for me to decide.

You seem to be taking a lot of issue with me tonight. What gives?

[Barrett r Blackwood]

I can assure any readers that Robin Kimpton running for city council has most certianly elevated the discussion on rental housing in Victoria as is expected. If you care to question this ,than you should attend the Burnside candidates meet on Nov. 14th. at which housing is to be a main topic, and / or contact me for a tour of Hotel 760 and meet the many people who live and work here / many of whom are former homless from our streets.
D. Devlins use of the words " poison pen " was, I feel , fair
With regards to Mr. Kimptons employment history I will allow him to speak for him self.

[RobinKimpton]

The question was asked, what did I do as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary at the Vancouver Port Corporation.

As General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, I was responsible for the legal affairs of the Corporation and the administrative conduct of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

As General Counsel responsible for the legal affairs of the Corporation, I headed a department of 1 to 3 lawyers amd a budget for outside counsel of some $250,000 dealing with a wide variety of matters from human rights complaints to significant land leasing and construction projects.

Examples are as follows:

- The Joan Meister human right complaint re the main street over pass
- Construction and renovation of Ballentyne cruise ship facility
- Construction contracts for the container cranes at Roberts Bank
- Long term leases of foreshore land in Burrard such a Neptune Terminals / Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
- Legal / Policing Issues for the Port of Vancouver Police
- Briefs and interactions both legal and political with the multitude of municipalites surrounding the port.
- administering and leading briefs and submission through Canada Ports Corporation, Transport Canada and Treasury Board in Ottawa

As stated these are simply examples. The Port of Vancouver is historically the second biggest port in North America on a tonnage basis.
I am informed that it is the second biggest land owner (not licensee) in the Province with ownership and administrative control over Burrard Inlet foreshore lands and surface from Point Atkinson to Point Roberts.

At the same time, it is relatively innocuous to the general public. It is in a strategic position vis a vis the several municipalities which surround it. As a federal crown corporation, it is not subject to municipal regulation, however, the politics require a delicate administration.

There is a subtle but significant difference to a Port Corporation and a Port Authority. Please note it is more than 10 plus years since I dealt with this but a Port Corporation is a relatively independent entity. As with any corporation it has the legal status of a person. It has ownership of the land it holds on behalf of the Federal Govenrment its principal share holder. A Port Authority, on the other hand, is simply an arm of Transport Canada taking its direction from Transport Canada. This results in a significant difference in jurisdiction and proceedures as they relate to Ottawa and the municipality.

As Corporate Secretary, I was responsible for the administrative affairs of the Board of Directors including the contracts of the Corporation and the Corporate Seal. On an administrative level, the Corporate Secretary conducts all administrative aspects of the Board of Directors meeting, and minutes of meetings in conjunction with the Chairman of the Board and Port Manager / President.

I left the Vancouver Port Corporation because the Chairman of the Board of Directors changed and three of heads of departments were changed. In my opinion, it was an example of politics reaching down into staff and is unfortunate but there is a history of this at the Port.

[Barra]

Thanks for answering my question.

[BarrettRBlackwood]

The all candidate meeting on Wed. the 9th. was very productive.
A lot of discussion about housing in Victoria.
A subject that I am very passionate about.

[RobinKimpton]

Robin Kimpton
on
Amalgamation

As previously stated, it is my intention to post some of my policies and state my positions on the election issues.

There is a great deal of discussion at all candidates meetings surrounding infrastructure developments and how the City of Victoria should approach these developments.

The following are some of my thoughts.

These projects may be broken down into those which are, for the most part, internal to the City of Victoria and those which have a regional connotation or implications.

With respect to those which are internal to the City of Victoria, we must measure those and rank them against their role in the City’s functions and the City’s budget. I suggest we focus on those which represent health and safety issues first against those which might be categorized as quality of life issues.

With respect to those which have overriding regional implications, a different analysis should apply. Examples of these include light rapid transit and sewage treatment. I suggest these projects need to be considered in a regional context or, in other words, amalgamation. I am for amalgamating Victoria and the surrounding municipalities. Any one of which is simply too small a tax base to fund some of these large infrastructure developments. Extending this thinking, it is expensive and cumbersome to maintain all of the gaggle of municipal governments and associated infrastructure, Efficiency are certain to be obtain in amalgamation. Why would we build a light rapid transportation system to benefit those moving to and from Victoria to outlining communities without participation of those outlying communities?

On the matter of light rapid transit, it is questionable if even after amalgamation, the region can support a rail based light rapid transit system. I am of the view that the best match for the regions public transportation needs is a high speed articulated bus system attacking the Colwood crawl and the Sidney snarl. This high speed articulated bus system would be coordinated with local buses feeding into and out of the high speed system.

Coming back to the issue of amalgamation, the current system of several individual municipal governments, all with differing positions on the regional issues leaves the senior levels of governments confused not knowing which municipality to support or how. Amalgamation permits the region to speak with one voice to the senior levels. One voice is the effective way to communicate with the senior levels of government.

Amalgamation is inevitable. The cost and duplication of the several municipal governments, efficiency of one municipal government for the region and the ability to effectively communicate with senior levels of government point, all point to amalgamation.

[Holden West]

Kimpton was on CBC talking about why his Yates St. and Cook St. properties remain shuttered. He said any time he talks to the City about a solution they ignore him--won't even speak to him.

This could be because:

a) The City's "clean hands" policy forbids them from entering into discussions with anyone with outstanding tickets, bylaw infractions and legal issues.

b) The City is saying we're not here to help you organize and plan the future of your properties--come back when you have a firm proposal on paper.

Or it could be another reason altogether. I suspect the City went all-in on the Travellers Inn properties and isn't in the market for partnering on new properties, especially ones that are condemned.

[RobinKimpton]

Robin Kimpton
on
Affordable Housing
and
Densification

As we all know, Victoria has a limited land base being surrounded by water and other municipalities. It therefore goes without saying that we must increase density to accommodate any increase in population.


The two major components cost of housing is the cost of land and the cost of construction.


With a limited land base, the cost of land has always kept the cost of housing in Victoria as one of the most expensive in the country. At the same time, Victoria's economy is service based, now largely tourism based, with entry level or lower income level jobs.


The City has focused that density increase over the last 10 years in Vic West and the Downtown core including James Bay. There is and has been in certain circumstances a significant backlash to these densities and there impact on transportation, congestion, views and the general ambience of the neighbourhood.


Where do we go from here in order to accommodate the increasing population which is inevitable in the face of the maturing boomer generation. (We still are the mildest and sunniest City in Canada). How may we move forward with affordable character based architecture and housing?


If elected, I would advocate for the “in fill” developments and stratification of our existing housing. What am I talking about?


Much of the housing in the older districts of Victoria are, at least, 100 years old built on rubble foundations of lath and plaster frame construction. In the meantime, the family unit and life styles have changed considerably in that 100 year period. The large family unit is largely and thing of the past. Young people today do not remember wash boards, wringer washing machines, dial phones on the wall or cabinet T. V.s. At the same time, some us who are long in the tooth, now struggle with how to answer the phone. The family unit is smaller, the pace of life is infinitely faster and compact.


I am suggesting we look at these old homes in a different way. I am suggesting that we take them and through our zoning procedures revitalize them. We permit these large grand houses with tasteful character architecture to be renovated into strata titled units of modern design. The stratification or in fill process proportions the land base from the single family designation into 2, 3 or 4 units, thereby proportioning the cost of the land by one half, one third or one quarter as the case maybe.


I have experienced this process in Vancouver and for the most part the architecture is not only retained but enhanced. In addition, to the enhanced architecture, the neighbourhood, particularly in a lower cost neighbourhood is improved and gentrified. This technique of densification and gentrification has spread throughout Vancouver neighbourhoods over the last 30 years. In many, many instances, you can not tell the renovated / rejuvenated project from the original house.


There is a punch for those in ownership of these properties because along with this zoning will go a increase in land values but the beauty is that the per unit land value goes down.


As a closing note, around 60% of Victoria housing is rental accommodation and yet we still have a historically tight rental market. I would entertain discussion as to whether or not as part of this zoning would require these stratified properties should be restrained into the rental market for a period of time. This would have to be determined by you the citizen as well as the market place.

[jklymak]

I am suggesting we look at these old homes in a different way. I am suggesting that we take them and through our zoning procedures revitalize them. We permit these large grand houses with tasteful character architecture to be renovated into strata titled units of modern design. The stratification or in fill process proportions the land base from the single family designation into 2, 3 or 4 units, thereby proportioning the cost of the land by one half, one third or one quarter as the case maybe.

Fairfield and Fernwood are full of this style of densification already, aren't they?

[Mike K.]

I would guess that while some larger character homes are used as rooming houses (every room is used as a bedroom), on paper the properties remain single family dwellings and should City Hall receive a complaint tenants will be ordered out and the owner will be forced to create legalized suites or rent out an entire home to one "family" (be it friends or whatnot).

[Barrett r Blackwood]

While the rezoning of a large character house is the prefered way to house more people affordably, the policies of the past where the city uses its position to put people on the street is not the answer.
Come on people-lets think out side the box on housing- we need to reach out and work together with the land owners and private sector interests and quit going with the status quo

[Barra]

I would guess that while some larger character homes are used as rooming houses (every room is used as a bedroom), on paper the properties remain single family dwellings and should City Hall receive a complaint tenants will be ordered out and the owner will be forced to create legalized suites or rent out an entire home to one "family" (be it friends or whatnot).

The city's definition of 'rooming house' limits the number of rooms to 4 (unless it has changed in recent years). In James Bay there used to be 5 or 6 rooming houses, which provided affordable housing to the tenants. Now there are only 2. The others have either been "stratified" (to use Robin Kimpton's phrasing) in to condos or whatever, or they have been demolished.

[Mike K.]

Thanks, Barra.

You know, this brings up a good question: just how many "rooming houses" are accessible to renters throughout the city? I bet the number would surprise us if we included both legalized and illegal multi-tenant digs.

[RobinKimpton]

Robin Kimpton
on
the City's purchase the Two Travellers
or,
What was Council Smoking?

What was Council smoking when it purchase these two Travellers' properties?


The Capital Expenditures


The City purchased two Travellers properties in 2010.


It paid approximately $6 million dollars (from our Emergency funds) for both properties. So far it has managed to house some 35 adults on social assistance at 710 Queens. Using this number as the numerator that is $171,428.00 per unit. All the while the private sector was purchasing these properties for approximately $50,000 per unit.


But wait, hold on, there are still a large capital budgets to be spent for the renovation of both properties yet to come!


Operating Economics


On the cost side, the opportunity cost of money (this is high risk money) would be in the order of 8% on a property like this. 8% money would result in mortgage payments or the opportunity cost of money to you the tax payer of approximately $480,000 per year or $40,000 per month. The City by its own publication lists an operating budget of $500,000 per annum or another $41,666 per month. In addition, of course, the City would not pay taxes to itself. The taxes on a property like that would be about $60,000 per year, lost to you. The total annual operating budget comes in then at $87,666 per month.


How does that measure up then against the revenue side?


As stated above, there are 35 units or 35 guests / tenants at 710 Queens Avenue. All are probably on social assistance paying approximately their $600 per month social assistance allowance. Lets see now, 35 times $600 equals $21,000.


$87,666 is greater than $21,000 by $66,666 per MONTH!!! or $799,999 per YEAR.


Thats our money folks and we are losing it fast.


Dean argues that portions of these capital expenditures were received from senior levels of government but it is still our money.


Operating Realities


We are currently in a precarious world wide financial crisis. Economies all over are holding there breath. Electorate, we are meeting throughout the City express major concern about their personal finances. But no the City Council charges ahead undeterred.


The City's economy is now for the most part based on government and tourism. B. C. Ferries has announced the lowest ridership in 20 years this past summer. We suggest there is plenty of capacity in the private sector to accommodate this housing without the City wading in. We took over Blanshard Manor (760 Queens) on December 24, 2010. At the time it had some 20 guests. We advertised throughout the winter including several discussions with VIHA, Pacifica Housing etc. We peaked at approximately 45 guests. We have 85 units. We could have absorbed 710's entire occupancy and still had units to spare. We suggest there are many Travellers with capacity.


Had it not been for this Council, we would still have our $6,000,000.


What were they smoking at Council?


The only thing I can see they were smoking was our money.