Jump to content

      












Photo

[Metchosin/Beecher Bay FN] Spirit Bay | Mixed-use | Approved


  • Please log in to reply
213 replies to this topic

#61 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 15 September 2013 - 10:01 PM

What peril? Either you think it's a good deal, or you don't. I'm not sure there is peril.


You (conveniently?) cut off the subsequent qualifying clause. It's risky compared to a traditional freehold. There also doesn't appear to be any discount compared to similar developments, or so I gathered from skimming the rest of the thread). So unless it offers something that no other development does (I can almost hear the marketing person on this thread salivating), I see no point in purchasing. So again I ask, quite genuinely, what motivates someone to make this purchase, in this market? Please and thanks.

#62 Kim pirate

Kim pirate
  • Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:40 AM

I predict it sells well.


There's an abundance of yahoos...:banana:

#63 Kim pirate

Kim pirate
  • Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:54 AM

Campground/mobile home park - I guess thats the same thing in your mind. I don't know anyone who camps year round and "pre-paid up to a year in advance". Its a mobile home park, not a campground.

Depreciating asset - my newspaper article indicates values start to fall after 19 years, not 50 as you say. Thats good to know after 19 years later the property I could buy there is worth less than what I paid for. Or I could buy at Silver Spray around the corner for the same price and my property will be worth MORE, probably by at least 20%. Tell me why anyone would want to purchase a depreciating asset when housing prices have consistently long term gone up over the past 50-60 years in Victoria. You are not offering any discounts to buy on leased land where you own nothing but the house it sits on.

As for getting a legal and mortgage professional on board to answer question - you are the developer or developers representative, that is your responsibility to get someone on board



I fully concord with your statements. Way to go.:judge:

#64 Kim pirate

Kim pirate
  • Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:13 AM

I have informed myself as have our lawyers. We are very clear on the status of the title, the 99 year lease and the financial/lending implications. thank you.
Spirit Bay will issue an Information Statement which will follow, in most respects, a Disclosure Statement. We have been advised by the Superintendent of Real Estate that due to the fact they have no jurisdiction over First Nations lands, they will not review a disclosure statement. Our Information Statement will be reviewed by Buyers lawyers who will in turn, advise prospective buyers of all the legal ramifications.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A normal Canadian developer, building on Crown Land, has to hold the PROSPECTUS from the Real Estate Council, which is a strong enforcement document to protect the PUBLIC interest.
In the Spirit Bay development, as you stated, the Council has no jurisdiction. The Spirits will be free. Thanks for being transparent this time.:farmer:

#65 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:18 AM

I find it rather interesting when a VV member only posts in one topic in a rather adversarial manner.

Anyway, there have been 99 year first nation's lease real estate developments that have been successful in the past, and maybe this one will be too. It's not something I would be keen on buying into, but as a second or third property this may appeal to some people.

#66 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:25 AM

I have no idea which newspaper article you are referencing when you speak about depreciating assets. A simple google search verifies my information - check Richards Buell Sutton, a legal firm specializing in First Nations Land Leases.

I am delighted to hear that you wish to live at Silver Spray.


I posted the article in this forum, I suggest you go back and read it. Since you state 50 years, where is your proof. Don't tell us to Google it

I don't wish to live at Silver Spray either, but in my opinion they are offering a lot more for the same price. From what I can tell you aren't offering any discount for a depreciating asset.

Those are pretty disgusting pictures. I assume if someone purchases there that all land outside the development will be kept pristine. I won't have to drive thru a junk yard to get to my waterfront property. There won't be unkept or drunk natives around, etc. If someone buys there I expect the developer to deal with all of these issues long after the purchase

Now, please answer my questions instead of just glazing over them. You started this thread

#67 Kim pirate

Kim pirate
  • Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:32 AM

1 - Will you please name the financial Institutions that you refer to? No. When the decision about which financial institution will be undertaking financing and/or mortgage provision we will release the information.
2 - Density averages are meaningless. This is a mixed use development with densities varying widely. There will be large to small lot single family housing in some areas, some others will lend themselves to townhomes and areas that are already cleared will lend themselves to a Town Center.
3 - We recognize trees as a natural amenity which add value to the properties - not something to clear and be rid of. The lands are very mixed and not all highly covered. If you go to the site you will see the crew at work right now clearing the substantial mess left behind and taking great care to move around the established trees. All significant trees are being tagged - some for retention while other that may be unhealthy or precarious will be removed. Building while retaining trees is more difficult but not impossible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This answer is as foggy as Beecher Bay was yesterday.
Pl.try to be clear and objective.Avoid misrepresentation.:whyme:
1- Housing density is the relation between the built land area, and the total land area, expressed in mathematical form, normally percent %
It has nothing to do with typology.(house types).(get informed):teacher:
2- The lands are 100% covered by old trees.(as shown in your photos)
How would they build without cutting the trees ? That's why the density coefficient is so important to show the physical occupation (devastation)....
3- The mess you talk about, was the paradise for approx. 160 free Spirits,...now gone with the fog of this development $.:farmer:

#68 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,298 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:50 AM

^ Please try and be respectful.

As for the development as a whole I am fairly sure no one is being forced to buy it and the development risk lies with the developer. If they think people will buy in they will build it.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#69 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 09:59 AM

There won't be unkept or drunk natives around, etc. If someone buys there I expect the developer to deal with all of these issues long after the purchase


There are drunks around the Juliet every night, I hear them every time I work late in my office. Should the developer be patrolling every night in perpetuity?

I take it now you are suggesting this project is risky because it happens to be on native land. Like the risk you take when visiting the McDonald's on Pat Bay Highway at Mt. Newton.

I see your angle now.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#70 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,226 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 01:19 PM

Moderation note

The moderators of this forum would like to remind everyone that participants on VV have worked hard to foster an environment conducive to respectful, high-level debate, and we, as the moderators, do our best to ensure all discussions are held to an equitable standard.

Participants of this discussion may find themselves on opposite sides of the fence but that does not imply that an adversarial tone or vindictive behaviour is necessary or appropriate to get a point across. Please moderate yourself prior to posting a comment and converse as though you were not behind a pseudonym.

In an effort to maintain the integrity of this discussion and keep this debate civil, we are hereby reminding all participants that the moderation team can and will step in to moderate posts that are deemed unnecessarily combative or those that are meant to bait contributors with opposing views. Strong opinions are one thing, but unnecessarily argumentative or disrespectful conduct may result in moderation which, if it comes to that, is at the discretion of any moderating staff member.

As this discussion moves forward please remember to be helpful, respect the opinions of others and refrain from treating participants in a rude or abrasive manner.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#71 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 03:47 PM

There are drunks around the Juliet every night, I hear them every time I work late in my office. Should the developer be patrolling every night in perpetuity?

I take it now you are suggesting this project is risky because it happens to be on native land. Like the risk you take when visiting the McDonald's on Pat Bay Highway at Mt. Newton.

I see your angle now.


My first part of the argument was that the land in and around is a disgusting mess proof of which is the pictures posted a few days ago. My overall point is that if I am correct the local municipality has no legal jurisdiction on an indian reserve. If my neighbour wants to park 10 cars and start dismantling them on his front yard I can call my municipality and its dealt with quickly. Same thing if there are drunks, call the Police and its dealt with. What happens on this development? No one cared in the past, why should I expect them to care later on

My specific point is that it has been an eyesore before, and what guarantees is the developer making to ensure the area around it on the reserve doesn't revert back to its previous condition. For the top dollar they are asking, anyone should expect some guarantees.

In a municipality, if the job isn't getting done, we vote to change our council. I don't think I can vote to change things on an Indian Reserve if there are problems. They could tell me to shut up and you can't do a thing about it.

That's my point/angle. I will wait for Norma to deal with these concerns one by one in full detail.

#72 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,226 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:02 PM

This will be no different than what happens in a multi-unit residential building. The City of Victoria won't do anything for you if your neighbour piles a whole bunch of junk out in the hallway. But where the City doesn't have jurisdiction a private body does and your neighbour can be either fined by the strata (if he's an owner) or evicted (if he's a renter). Either way a reputable building management company will promptly deal with a problem. I think in the case of Beecher Bay we can be assured that any such issues will be dealt with according to the terms buyers will be required to accept.

As for situations requiring the presence of police, they have full jurisdiction over native reserves and will respond to calls just as they would anywhere else. When you call all they're interested in is your civic address, particularly out in that area which is covered entirely by the RCMP.
  • AndrewReeve likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#73 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:17 PM

This will be no different than what happens in a multi-unit residential building. The City of Victoria won't do anything for you if your neighbour piles a whole bunch of junk out in the hallway. But where the City doesn't have jurisdiction a private body does and your neighbour can be either fined by the strata (if he's an owner) or evicted (if he's a renter). Either way a reputable building management company will promptly deal with a problem. I think in the case of Beecher Bay we can be assured that any such issues will be dealt with according to the terms buyers will be required to accept.

As for situations requiring the presence of police, they have full jurisdiction over native reserves and will respond to calls just as they would anywhere else. When you call all they're interested in is your civic address, particularly out in that area which is covered entirely by the RCMP.


I get your point Mike, but I don't believe this development will take up the entire Reserve. What about the areas around the development on the Reserve? The strata will have no control over that. My point is no one has cared in the past, so why should they now

#74 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 65,226 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:26 PM

Ah, I see what you're saying. I wonder if the developer will have some form of an agreement with the reserve to maintain the appearance of properties, or perhaps there will be enough of a visual buffer between the development and the rest of the reserve to mitigate these concerns?

Darlenet8 might want to weigh in on this.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#75 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:35 PM

I get your point Mike, but I don't believe this development will take up the entire Reserve. What about the areas around the development on the Reserve? The strata will have no control over that. My point is no one has cared in the past, so why should they now


Take a drive through Lekwammen Dr., the Songhees Retirement Park. Then take a roll up Cooper Lane on the same reserve. The all co-exist quite well.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#76 vandervalk

vandervalk
  • Member
  • 263 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 05:26 PM

Its a mobile home park, not a campground.


"Mobile Home Park" is a misnomer, for if that was the case then moving their "mobile" homes wouldn't have been an issue.

This term bugs me. Every "mobile" home I see is firmly put into the ground and has little to know chance of being mobile.
Real Estate, Landscape and Family Photographer
http://www.vandervalk.ca

#77 Barra

Barra
  • Member
  • 592 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 06:35 PM

I'm taken aback by the vitriol expressed by a couple of the commenters on this thread. They are intimating that the developer is unfamiliar with the basics of financing and zoning. They may not be aware that David Butterfield and his associates have a solid track record of successful developments in Victoria (Shoal Point and Harbourside hotel and condos) and in Mexico. He made significant progress with a development proposal for a village concept at Bamberton (subsequently turned down by the regional government). The responses provided by Darlene Tait have been clear and to the point. The commenter sneers with the notion that she "refuses" to provide an average density. It is described as being a mixed use development, with varying lot coverage and building types. They can no more provide an average density than you could provide the average density for Fernwood, or for Sooke. Density is always determined on a site-specific basis.
  • AndrewReeve likes this
Pieta VanDyke

#78 darlenet8

darlenet8
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 06:59 PM

Boy - take a few hours off... I think the positions of Concorde and Kim Pirate are pretty clear and I won't bother reiterating all the points I made before because people who are actually looking for answers will have read them. I will address a couple of new points however:
The state of 'tidiness' of the lands: All buyers will be part of a Homeowners Association which will govern the state of the lands, the landscaping, home exteriors etc. just like any strata would. The kind of people who would dismantle 10 cars in their yard won't buy there. As to the mess shown in the pictures, yup - it's a mess left behind by the campers and is in the process of being cleaned by a team of 14 people full-time. I will post periodic pictures as we progress.
The Scianew First Nation has had its struggles over the years. I have to keep remembering that they were not even legally acknowledged until the 70's (they were minors until 1972 when we were taking their children from them). They currently have strong leadership and are fully committed to the future well-being of the Band and their children and grandchildren. They recently took greater control by becoming one of the early signatories to the First Nations Land Management Act so the Indian Act provisions relating to land management do not apply here.
For me, this represents a real opportunity to live in a beautiful spot, in a human-scale development (vs. car-centric) and to work alongside the Scianew FIrst Nation as they better their future.

#79 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 10,757 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 07:21 PM

Is the development surrounded by reserve lands or is there access from public lands?

I'm thinking back to when Predator Ridge was hosting a "skins" game and the natives threatened to blockade the road to the development which ran through their land.

What happens down the road when band leadership changes and they don't think they are getting a big enough piece of the pie?
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#80 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:03 PM

Is the development surrounded by reserve lands or is there access from public lands?

I'm thinking back to when Predator Ridge was hosting a "skins" game and the natives threatened to blockade the road to the development which ran through their land.

What happens down the road when band leadership changes and they don't think they are getting a big enough piece of the pie?


What do you mean by "when"? At least phrase it as "if" if you want to be so ignorant.

Why do so many on here think natives break contracts around land developments? Natives have hundreds or thousands of of deals all across this country involving their lands, and 99% of them or more work fine. Probably a much higher percentage of working deals than non-native landowners have free of lawsuits with developers.
  • AndrewReeve likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users