undefined
LEASING DECISIONS IN MUSQUEAM PARK:
2 Data
2.1 Sources of Non-Survey Data
2.2 Description of Non-Survey
Data
3 Survey Methodology
3.1 Application Details
3.2 Sample Size and Methodology
3.3 Regression Analysis
3.4 Using the Data
4 Solutions
4.1 Previously Proposed Solutions
4.1.1 Discussion of
Solutions Proposed by Musqueam Park leaseholders
4.2 Policy Solutions Suggested
by this Project
5 Study Plan for Spring 2000
5.1 Preliminary Objectives (Winter
1999)
5.2 Goals for Spring 2000
6 Decision-Making Models in Musqueam Park
6.1 Original Leasing Decisions in Musqueam and
Salish Park
6.2 Market Premia in Leasing Musqueam and Salish
Park Lots
Appendix A
Survey A: Current Lessees
of Musqueam Park Property
Survey B: Non-Musqueam
Park Residents
Appendix B
Map
of Musqueam Park Subdivision
Map of Southlands and King Edward Regions
On June 8th, 1965, Musqueam Development Co. Ltd., developer of the subdivision, concluded a leasing agreement with the Government of Canada. Soon afterward, in 1966, Musqueam Development Co. Ltd. shareholders sold their interests in the leasing agreement to Block Brothers, the eventual developer. The subdivision totaled 75 households with basic services to be provided by the City of Vancouver under a contract with the Musqueam Indian band.
Leases were for 99-years with a clause allowing, after 30 years, for renegotiation of the rents to reflect the market value of adjacent properties. The Musqueam Indian Band’s agreement with the developer entailed certain considerations to be paid to the band until such time as the annual lease payments could be renegotiated. These considerations included guaranteed annual rental incomes (from the entire subdivision) and the establishment of a tax trust fund. Guaranteed rental incomes were:
· $23,422 /yr until 18 February, 1969
· $24,602 /yr for 10 years from 19 February, 1969
· $27,062 /yr for 10 years from 19 February, 1979
· $29,522 /yr until 23 June, 1995
During each of the three decades leading up to 1995, rents were adjusted slightly upwards, with increases totaling approximately 30%. These figures were based on calculations that lands values would increase by about 1% per annum, as had been the historical experience on Vancouver’s west side.[2] Renegotiation of annual lease payments was to be based on setting a fair rent at ?% of current land value?lt;A NAME="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id:ftn3" href="#_ftn3" title="">[3]. The guaranteed incomes implied an average household payment increasing from approximately $325/year to $400/year.
The tax trust fund was established in order to guarantee payment of property taxes to the City of Vancouver. This was considered a necessity due to the unique circumstances of the lease agreements that the Musqueam Indian Band would eventually hold with the public. Initial servicing of the subdivision was to be the responsibility of the City of Vancouver for which they would collect property tax from the leaseholders to cover costs. The City of Vancouver desired the tax trust fund as a guarantee that their tax revenue would be covered in the event of non-payment by one or more leaseholders. Under normal circumstances non-payment would lead to tax-sale of property owned by individual(s) in default. Since the properties in question are not owned by the leaseholders, the City of Vancouver would be without recourse to recover its costs. The purpose of the tax trust fund, then, was to provide a measure of revenue security to the City of Vancouver. (Upon expiry of the leases, the fund reverts to the Musqueam Indian Band.)
As the term of the lease progressed, property values in adjacent areas increased. The $400/year rent level became a very attractive feature to potential buyers as assessed values of the properties often reached $500,000 in the early 1990s. Eventually, the leasehold properties were changing hands for large sums equivalent to the prices paid for similar freehold lands in adjacent areas (i.e. north of S.W. Marine Drive, Southlands). Since the annual rents paid by owners of the leasing rights were tiny in comparison to the value of the properties, there was necessarily a large premium paid by new lessees for such a fantastic deal. This premium brought the price paid to acquire rights to leasehold properties into line with comparable freehold developments.
The illusion created by the high purchase prices ($450-600,000 in 1989/90)[4] for the right to lease properties in Musqueam Park led to a commonly held perception that the conditions around the leases would persist. Leaseholders in Musqueam Park felt that the $400 rent level would remain at similar levels throughout the term of their leases. Consideration of the re-evaluation clause in the lease agreements led to speculation that rents could increase by a ‘liberal?200-300%, based on 6% of the value of undeveloped Musqueam Park lots in 1995. Such an increase, were it to take place, was still considered to be a very good situation. Renting comparable freehold properties (which often rented for $2-3000/month) at a rate of $8-1200/year was undoubtedly a favorable situation.
Leaseholders in Musqueam Park treated their leaseholdings as if they were equity in the same sense that a freehold property would be. Leaseholders expected to be able to sell ‘their?property and homes for amounts comparable to the market prices for freehold properties. Sales of Musqueam Park lease rights promulgated this notion into the early 1990s. Ownership of lots and improvements in Musqueam Park rests with the Musqueam Indian Band. The Musqueam Indian Band also owns fixed improvements built by leaseholders. Leaseholders, instead of gaining ownership of the homes they built, were able to write off the costs involved in the improvements they made to the leasehold properties. Tax breaks meant that leaseholders did not actually have to pay anything (net) to make improvements to their properties.
The phrase ?% of current land value? became central to renegotiation of annual lease payments. In 1995, the Musqueam Indian Band issued notices stating that annual lease payments would increase to amounts of $28,000 to 38,000/year.[5] This value was based on 6% of the assessed value of Musqueam Park properties and their improvements. The Musqueam Park Leaseholders Association challenged the new lease payments in the first level of federal court, alleging that the new lease payments did not fit either the “fair rent?or the ?% of current land value?specifications stipulated by their lease agreements. The Musqueam Park Leaseholders Association was granted reprieve, with payments set October 10, 1997, at an average of $10,000 annually[6], but it proved to be temporary. The Musqueam Indian Band appealed this judicial decision in the Federal Court of Appeal and won an increase, not to the initial $38,000/year level, but to approximately $22,400/year on average. The Musqueam Park Leaseholders Association is currently appealing this latest decision.
This project is concerned with how lessees make decisions concerning leasing in Musqueam Park. What factors affect their decisions? How do policy changes with regard to the situation affect the decisions of lessees? What is their ultimate reason for choosing to lease property in Musqueam Park? These primary issues will be addressed in the course of this paper.
It should be noted that political concerns will not be addressed in this paper unless they bear direct relevance. Political concerns may be relevant with regard to the uncertainty created by governance issues (especially taxation, assessment, and representation).
Sales of leasing rights have been nil since the publicity surrounding Musqueam Park increased.
a) Government enforces legal rights of Musqueam Indian Band, requiring leaseholders to pay their new lease amounts and any back payments owed.
This scenario is the one taking shape at the moment in Musqueam Park. The Musqueam Indian Band will be provided with a more stable flow of lease payment income. There is the perception that the provincial government will uphold tenancy laws on First Nations land. This outcome would, in the immediate sense, be detrimental to the Musqueam leaseholders. Their lease payments would be substantially higher than expected. Higher lease payments imply opportunity costs for the leaseholders since they no longer have the same portion of their incomes to invest (i.e. foregoing investment income). However, the new lease amounts must be considered in light of the past sub-market level rents and opportunity benefits of having extra income to invest.
b) Musqueam Indian Band offers compromise acceptable to all Musqueam Park leaseholders, independent of government intervention.
The benefits would accrue to several groups, but mainly the Musqueam Park leaseholders. The solution would involve at the very least an accession of voting rights to the Musqueam Park leaseholders. These rights would allow Musqueam Park leaseholders to be represented in matters of taxation and other fiscal issues affecting the Musqueam Park subdivision. It would likely also include lower lease payments. By avoiding government intervention, taxes otherwise spent in mediating a solution would be available to spend on other public services. In this sense, the provincial and federal governments would gain.
The Musqueam Indian Band would gain in the sense that its flow of lease payment income would be more definite. Given these circumstances, the costs would be to the Musqueam Indian Band in the form of reduced lease payment income. There would be associated opportunity costs of not being able to appropriately invest the difference. The Musqueam Indian Band would lose some of its autonomy with regard to taxation and public service issues in Musqueam Park.
c)
Musqueam Indian Band offers compromise acceptable to all Musqueam Park
leaseholders, but only after government intervention.
As in b) above, but the government would make legal expenditures. Intervention would likely have to take the form of ad hoc legislation that may have serious political and legal repercussions in the future. If a precedent is set for ‘bailing out?leaseholders on First Nations land, leasehold groups throughout the country may take the opportunity to petition for assistance. This would inevitably lead to mounting hostility from First Nations groups.
d)
Government ‘bails out?leaseholders directly through financial assistance.
In this situation, the leaseholders would clearly gain, effectively bestowed with free payment of their leases by either the provincial or federal governments. The Musqueam Indian Band would have its flow of lease payment income stabilized. Drawbacks would be the expenditure of government revenue which could have been of more benefit elsewhere and the precedent set for other bailouts. In addition to direct expenditures, the government would be faced with foregone investment opportunities and unrest caused by turning away from more socially beneficial projects.
This project will focus on measuring
the costs and benefits accruing to the interested parties in the event
of this most probable situation. Actual
measurement of the financial costs and benefits will be straightforward. The
costs directly derived from judgements affecting the amount of lease payments
may be calculated directly. Since
a judgement may not be likely during the time this study is conducted,
a graphical schedule of potential costs and benefits will be constructed. The
cost to one party will be equally offset by the benefit to the other party. For
instance, an increase in lease payments will cost Musqueam Park leaseholders
an amount of the same magnitude as the extra revenue gained by the Musqueam
Indian Band. For simplicity’s
sake, financial costs and benefits will be viewed as a sum-zero system. Consider
a mathematical representation of the costs and benefits:
where,
Y = expected annual income to Musqueam Band derived from Musqueam Park lease payments
R = expected annual lease amount ($) paid by Musqueam Park leaseholders
?Y or ?R = change in income from lease payments or change in amount of lease payments paid by Musqueam Park leaseholders
r = interest rate
n = #years over which lease amount has been paid or lease income has been earned
Uncertainty requires the use of the expected values of annual lease payments and lease income. The expected values can be acquired by weighting potential lease amounts by the probabilities that they will be implemented in any given year. The expected value will be equal to the sum of the amounts multiplied by their respective probabilities. Exact measurement of the financial costs and benefits is not possible if the exact annual amounts are not known. In this case, the lease payment amounts will not be known until they are set by judicial decision. Even when set by the courts, there will always be a chance that the annual amounts may change from year to year. An approximation will be obtained using expected values constructed in the aforementioned manner and graphically depicted.
Measuring non-financial costs and benefits is more difficult. How does one measure the benefits of having representation in local government or the costs of losing some of the autonomy of one’s executive body? This is not necessarily a sum-zero system. Data may be collected on qualitative variables through survey questions asking respondents to place a dollar value on gaining or losing certain benefits. This project will include such questions to obtain data for:
· Representation of Musqueam Park leaseholders in matters of taxation
· Reduction of publicity surrounding Musqueam Park
· Location of home in Musqueam Park subdivision (for non-leaseholders)
The Vancouver City Archives are an excellent source for specific information relating to Musqueam Park. Detailed information about the initial proposal and development of the Musqueam Park subdivision is available. Concerns of City Council regarding taxation regimes, bylaw enforcement, and servicing agreements are available in detail. Valuable information in the form of proposals submitted to the Vancouver City Council by the Musqueam Indian Band and Musqueam Park Leaseholders Association is available. This is excellent background information and allows focused examination of specific facets of the Musqueam Park subdivision and surrounding circumstances.
Articles have been written by several individuals directly and indirectly involved in the current Musqueam Park situation. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay has written a fairly comprehensive background piece giving the history of the Musqueam Park dispute. Musqueam Backgrounder includes relatively unbiased analyses of considerations surrounding original purchasing agreements, negotiations between the Musqueam Indian Band and Musqueam Park leaseholders, and concerns of Musqueam Park leaseholders regarding past and present treatment of the current situation. A draft of the Writ of Summons filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Musqueam Park leaseholders provides a succinct listing of the grievances held by the leaseholders against the Crown and the Musqueam Indian Band.
Jonathan R. Kesselman and C.W. Albert provide a more independent summary of the experience of Musqueam Park leaseholders during the period 1991-1999.[9] Their discussion includes taxation and property value assessment procedures, accountability of the Musqueam Indian Band Council for expenditures, and local governance issues. Particularly useful is the detailed account of assessment procedures during the 1991-1999 period and their effects on assessed taxes.
Numerical estimates of property and improvement values are available at the British Columbia Assessment Authority office.[12] All data is available on microfiche for dates back to the creation of the British Columbia Assessment Authority.
Some numerical data is available from a private source.[13] This data includes listings of sale prices of leasing rights in the Musqueam Park subdivision for selected years. It also includes amortization tables for select loan amounts related generally to mortgages on Musqueam Park properties.
The assessment series for the Musqueam Park subdivision is available from the inception of the British Columbia Assessment Authority until the 1999 property tax assessment. For purposes of this project, assessment data was collected on all 75 households for the years 1985, 1987, 1989, and then yearly from 1991-1999. Assessments in the late 1980s were conducted on a bi-annual basis. Changes in ownership were also noted.
Data collected from the British Columbia Assessment Authority archives is in rough form and is in the process of being transferred into a spreadsheet database. Once this is complete, the data set will be available on this researcher’s web page.[15]
· Rent or purchase of Musqueam Park property and improvements under current conditions
· Rent or purchase of Musqueam Park property and improvements if converted to fee simple status (freehold).
· Rent or purchase of Musqueam Park property and improvements with adequate representation in local government with regard to taxation issues
· Annual payment to reduce publicity surrounding Musqueam Park dispute.
For further details of the contents of the surveys, see Appendix A.
Surveys will primarily be administered door-to-door. This method, while time consuming, offers potential respondents a chance to receive prompt answers to their questions and concerns. The researcher can assuage initial concerns of respondents. Surveys will be left with respondents for a period of several days (over a weekend) and retrieved by the researcher. Contact information for the researcher is provided so that respondents may ask for clarification of any points of confusion.
Internet application is an option, but may present difficulties. A guarantee of anonymity must be credible in order to maximize response. Offering an html version of the surveys would necessitate requiring respondents to identify themselves in some manner to prevent over sampling. Identification would be necessary to prevent respondents from making multiple submissions that may adversely affect statistical analysis of the responses. A choice will be offered to potential respondents, allowing them to choose their method of response, but based on clearly delineated criteria for levels of anonymity.
where,
e?e = sum of squared residuals
(n-k) = degrees of freedom
?*j= kth estimated slope coefficient
Survey B will have a sample size of at least 50 observations, 25 from the King Edward region and 25 from the Southlands region. The confidence interval for this sample at a 5% level of significance is:
with the same definitions as above.
· Offer a pre-payment option for remainder of lease terms
· Offer mix of lump-sum payment and continuing, but decreased, annual lease payments (for those who cannot afford entire pre-payment)
· Offer ballooning lease payments. This option is tailored for younger families who expect higher future income.
The Musqueam Indian Band Council has not proposed long-term solutions to the current dispute. It has offered temporary measures for the term of its ongoing legal dispute with Musqueam Park leaseholders. This abeyance consists of reducing lease payments to $10,000 per year while legal proceedings continue. This is a move to recover some portion of lease income which would be lost if Musqueam Park leaseholders do not make their prescribed payments during ongoing legal proceedings.
General solutions to issues of governance for leaseholds on reserve land have been suggested by members of the GVRD Board of Directors and the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee.[18] For the most part, these involved broad policy prescriptions but little analysis. Specifics as to implementation of policy prescriptions were generally lacking due to the fact that the agenda of GVRD municipalities is coordination of policy at this point in time.
The first option was to pre-pay leases for the remainder of their term. The attraction to the Musqueam Indian Band would be of receiving a guaranteed sum that could be disposed of in whatever manner desired. This might include investment, providing the potential for further income, or expenditures on public works to immediately improve the standard of living for residents of the Musqueam reserve. For Musqueam Park leaseholders, this option would be focused on households with an established labour income. The certainty of the pre-paid lease would allow steady-income households to finance the lump-sum prepayment through mortgage.
A mix of lump-sum payment and continuing smaller lease payments was the second option suggested. This would offer the Musqueam Indian Band a guaranteed sum, with the benefits noted above, and a guaranteed lease income for the remainder of the lease term. This option would be intended for households without the means to finance a full lease prepayment. Senior citizens with some savings and a limited income would likely tend towards this option.
The last option is ballooning lease payments throughout the remainder of the lease term. This would initially involve smaller lease payments which would gradually increase as the lease matures. The Musqueam Indian Band, by supporting this option, would be substituting current income for increased future income. Interest rate discounting would require future payments to increase substantially in order to provide the same benefits to the Musqueam Indian Band as receiving a lump sum now. This option would probably be chosen only by younger families with expectations of higher future labour income.
· Collection of property value assessment data for both Musqueam Park subdivision and nearby freehold properties (a sample from the King Edward and Southlands (Crown St., Wallace St., Holland St., and Olympic St.) regions)
· includes separate land and improvement assessment figures 1985-1999
· notes changes in ownership for individual properties
Property values are assessed as if the properties in question exist as fee simple, or freehold, land. Collecting property value information for the Musqueam Park development, along with survey data (to be collected next term) will allow detailed comparison of how potential purchasers would evaluate the properties if they were converted to freehold. In other words, the re-evaluation of opportunity costs for purchasing the properties and their potential as future assets can be examined.
· Revision of the Musqueam Leaseholders Survey
· 2 versions: for current leaseholders, not for current leaseholders
· delineate two situations: certainty and non-certainty
· adjust length by eliminating non-essential questions (better focus)
· determination of delivery and collection system
· Hypothetical modeling of purchasing decisions under certainty: (late December)
· property value components (raw land, improvements)
· opportunity cost of rental vs. pre-paid leasing / mortgaging
· Clear statement of a hypothesis concerning behaviour of renters/purchasers as predicted by the above model. (early January)
· Collection of market value data for the Musqueam Park subdivision and comparable freehold properties. Preferably this data will be for the same sample as that for which assessed value data was collected. This data will likely be available through real-estate agencies, although a specific source will need to be found. (mid-January)
· Application of surveys (late January)
· Data editing (late January ?early February)
· Transfer of data to spreadsheets
· Examination of data for inconsistencies
· Empirical testing of the prediction powers of the model.
· Preliminary regression analysis (late February)
· Do the market values of Musqueam Park properties follow the pattern predicted by the model?
· If yes, why? If not, why not?
· From the survey data, do potential lessees/mortgagees behave in the manner predicted by the decision equations?
· Why or why not?
· Empirical analysis of the survey data to determine what important factors affect movements in property values.
· Conclusions
and fine-tuning (March)
When Musqueam and Salish Park were developed and lots offered for lease in 1965, potential buyers needed to evaluate the situation. Salish Park lots were to be offered on the basis of paying in advance for a 99-year lease. Musqueam Park lots were offered at an annual lease amount (in most cases about $400) without the option to pay for a 99-year lease. In addition, the Musqueam Indian Band reserved the right (in the lease contract) to re-evaluate the annual lease amounts (on Musqueam Park) after a period of 30 years in order to bring them in line with property values in adjoining areas.
The market price paid by original purchasers of the leasing rights of Musqueam Park properties reflected the modest premium they were willing to pay in addition to the necessary stream of rent payments. At the time of the initial lease offerings property values in the Musqueam and Salish Park areas were average relative to non-Musqueam lands. The style of housing and neighbourhood layout had not yet been established as high profile, high-demand. The premium buyers were willing to pay, all things considered (rent, development costs) would have been relatively small.
Musqueam Park was developed into a fairly prestigious neighbourhood through the late 1970s and early 1980s and property prices climbed to reflect the change. The properties were an attractive package; large, fairly luxurious homes in a quiet setting close to downtown Vancouver, and extremely low annual rent. What was occurring was that, although annual rents remained constant, people were willing to pay a substantially increased premium for the rights to lease properties in Musqueam Park. This premium made up the gross share of the market price paid for these properties.
To get back to the original choice faced by potential lessees of either Musqueam Park or Salish Park lots, several calculations were involved (in theory, this is what they would have looked at in making their decisions). First, in considering the 99-year lease of a Salish Park lot, lessees would need to calculate the opportunity cost of paying out a sizeable lump sum. The opportunity cost would be in the form of forgone interest or other investment income. This cost, as with interest, is compounded by the prevailing interests rates during the years after which the sum was spent.
(1) Opportunity Cost = (Ir)n
where,
I = the initial sum paid (i.e. purchase price)
r = interest rate
n = number of years the sum remains invested in non-interest-bearing assets
(2) ?R + R? (1 + r)n
where,
R = annual lease amount ($)
r = interest rate
n = #years over which rent has been paid
? = summation from 1 to n
? = integral from 1 to n
We can say that ?R represents the total flow of rental payments and R? (1 + r)n is the compounded opportunity cost associated with those payments.
In making the choice between Musqueam Park and Salish Park, comparison must be made of the amount calculated in (2) and the total of the purchase sum, I, plus the amount calculated in (1). All else equal, lessees will be indifferent to their choice of either Musqueam Park or Salish Park properties. The comparison, in equation form, would look like:
(3) I + (Ir)n = ?R + R?(1 + r)n
This equation implies that, if the total of the initial purchase sum and opportunity costs for a Salish Park lot are equal to the sum of rental payments and associated opportunity costs of a Musqueam Park lot, lessees should be equally happy with a property from either area, all else equal.
However, comparison between the two development areas was not the sole consideration in leasing a property there. A comparison between the market price for leasing rights and (1) for Salish Park, (2) for Musqueam Park, is necessary. The decision to lease a lot is made according to the criterion:
(4) PS ? I + (Ir)n
(5) PM ? ?R + R? (1 + r)n
where,
PS and PM are the market prices to lease lots in Salish Park and Musqueam Park, respectively
These equations state that people will choose to purchase the rights to lease Musqueam Park or Salish Park lots if the market price of the leasing rights is equal to or less than the total future cost of the lots (rent or purchase price plus the opportunity costs), all else equal. As long as the market price is equal to the total future cost, lessees will be as well off if they purchase the leasing rights as if they invest their income instead. (This is assuming, of course, that they will be able to resell their leasing rights at a later date.) If the market price is less than the total future cost, lessees would benefit from leasing the property. They would gain the difference between the market price and the total future cost. Obviously, if the market price is greater than the total future cost, purchasing the leasing rights would be a money-losing prospect unless the rights could be re-sold with the same premium.
Alternatively, the decision equations can be expressed as:
(6) [I + (Ir)n] - PS ? 0
(7) [?R - R? (1 + r)n] - PM ? 0
As long as the result of the differences in (6) and (7) is zero or greater, potential lessees would be no worse of leasing a Musqueam or Salish Park lot than if they invested in interested-bearing assets a sum equal to PS or PM. The greater the positive difference, the more attractive leasing the properties would be.
Before discussion of possible premia over and above the total future costs of leasing the lots, there are several comments to make about (4) and (5). Note that the opportunity cost terms have a positive coefficient. This is to indicate that the market price must be reduced by the amount of the opportunity cost in order to reflect the loss of potential income. The forgone income represented by the opportunity cost is effectively a surcharge on the purchase of the leasing rights to the property. The actual market price, to be equated with the costs of leasing a lot in Salish or Musqueam Park, must be adjusted downward by the amount of this ‘surcharge? Otherwise, potential lessees would face a price effectively higher than the market price when leasing a lot.
Details of this ongoing project and information about the researcher may be found on the Internet at https://www.angelfire.com/bc/kelpsaladeconomics/project.html. For a copy of the final report (expected completion April 2000), please contact Derek Armstrong by phone at 221-1356, e-mail armstrong@excite.com, or by post at:
21032-91A ave
Langley, BC V1M 2C4
Thank-you for your participation!
Yes No
2. In which year did you take up residence in the Musqueam Park subdivision?
__________
3. What factors affected your decision to lease property in Musqueam Park subdivision?
$_________
6. What is the annual lease amount you now face?
$_________
7. Have you paid your lease assessments continuously since the lease was due for re-negotiation in 1995? If YES, continue to Question 8. If NO, please indicate the years since 1995 during which have you paid your lease assessment (If none, please mark 0).
Yes No
_____________________________________________________________________
8. Have you been fully able to pay your lease assessments since their re-negotiation in 1995? If YES, continue to Question 9. If NO, please briefly indicate why not.
9. What is the 1999 assessed value of the property you are leasing? (As assessed by the BC Assessment Authority)
$__________
10. What is the 1999 assessed value of your home? (main building and improvements)
$__________
11. If you secured a mortgage in order to finance your lease of property in the Musqueam Park subdivision, what was the original amount of your mortgage? If you did not secure a mortgage, please go to Question 12.
$__________
12. Suppose that the property that you lease is converted to fee simple status (freehold) under municipal jurisdiction in all matters of taxation and servicing. How much would you be willing to pay (lump sum) in order to purchase your property in the Musqueam Park subdivision?
$__________
13. Suppose that the property that you lease is converted to fee simple status (freehold) under municipal jurisdiction in all matters of taxation and servicing. How much would you be willing to pay annually in order to rent your property in the Musqueam Park subdivision?
$__________
14. How much would you be willing to pay per year in order to convert the property you lease in Musqueam Park to fee simple status? (Note: Amount for conversion to fee simple status only, not for purchase or rental of the property.)
$__________
15. What is the current market valuation (i.e. highest feasible sale price) of the leasing rights for your property? (Note: Please use objective estimates. Negative estimates are valid.)
$__________
$__________
17. How much would you be willing to pay per year to reduce the publicity surrounding Musqueam Park to an occasional non-controversial mention in local media?
$__________
18. Your annual lease payment will likely change depending on the outcome of continuing legal proceedings. Please rate the likelihood of each of the following outcomes, in percent.
(Example: Less than $5,000 10% chance)
Note that the total of your probabilities should not exceed 100%.
(Example: Less than $5,000 30%, Between $5,000 and 10,000 40%, Greater than $10,000 30%)
Annual Lease Payment set at:
Less than $10,000 _____%
Between $10,000 and 20,000 _____%
Between $20,000 and 25,000 _____%
Between $25,000 and 30,000 _____%
Greater than $30,000 _____%
Ownership of the properties and homes in the Musqueam Park subdivision rests with the Musqueam Indian Band. At the end of the lease term (in 2064), all properties and improvements revert to direct control of the Musqueam Indian Band.
The purpose of this survey is to help conduct a cost benefit analysis of certain policy actions. Survey data will also be used to construct consumer decision-making models to help better understand similar leasehold situations emerging in British Columbia.
Details of this ongoing project and information about the researcher may be found on the Internet at https://www.angelfire.com/bc/kelpsaladeconomics/project.html. For a copy of the final report (expected completion April 2000), please contact Derek Armstrong by phone at 221-1356, e-mail armstrong@excite.com, or by post at:
21032-91A ave
Langley, BC V1M 2C4
Thank-you for your participation!
Approximate Property size (ft2): __________
Approximate House size (ft2): __________
One or more parks nearby? Yes No
Adequate privacy? Yes No
2. Do you own the house and property where you reside?
Yes No
3. How much would you pay per year in order to rent a similar house and property in your neighbourhood?
$__________
4. How much would you pay (lump sum) in order to purchase a similar house and property in your neighbourhood?
$__________
5. How much would you pay per year in order to rent a house and property similar to your own, but located in Musqueam Park?
$__________
6. How much would you pay (lump sum) in order to purchase a house and property similar to your own, but located in Musqueam Park?
$__________
For Questions 7-9, imagine that you are leasing
a home and property in the Musqueam Park subdivision.
7. Suppose that the property that you lease is converted to fee simple status (freehold) under municipal jurisdiction in all matters of taxation and servicing. How much would you be willing to pay (lump sum) in order to purchase your property in the Musqueam Park subdivision?
8. How much would you be willing to pay per year in order to convert the property you lease in Musqueam Park to fee simple status? (Note: Amount for conversion to fee simple status only, not for purchase or rental of the property.)
$__________
9. How much would you be willing to pay per year to gain the right of democratic representation in Musqueam Park regarding matters of taxation?
$__________
Albert, C.W. and Jonathan R. Kesselman. The
Leaseholder Experience, 1991-1999. Musqueam Indian Band Taxation Advisory
Council, 25 February 1999. (unpublished)
British Columbia Supreme Court Document.
Writ of Summons, filed week of 8 Nov 1999 Members of Musqueam Park
Leaseholders Association vs. Queen, R. Nault, Musqueam Indian Band,
L. Fast, and unnamed individuals.
Findlay, Kerry-Lynne D. Musqueam
Backgrounder, 1 January 1999, (unpublished).
Greater Vancouver Regional District,
GVRD Electoral Areas?Interests in Lower Mainland Treaty Negotiations,
Agenda for public meeting 20 October 1999.
Kesselman, Jon. Impasse at Musqueam:
History and Economics of the Lease Dispute. In
Vancouver Sun, 19 March 1999, p.A13
McWhinney M.P., Ted, Office of. Parliamentary
Report, October 1999, p. 2 (1).
Ottawa to enforce rent ruling on
Musqueam leaseholders, National Post, 23 September 1999, p A11.
Musqueam Shakedown, National
Post, 2 November 1999.
Homes and goodwill may vanish in
B.C., National Post, 8 November 1999.
Feds call in Musqueam leases,
Vancouver Courier, 22 September 1999, p. 13.
The lease of our problems, Vancouver
Courier, 26 September 1999, Feature, pp. 1, 4-5.
Chief ignored his people, says Sparrow,
Vancouver Courier, 29 September 1999, p. 12.
Band votes to shut up Sparrow,
Vancouver Courier, 3 October 1999, p. 10.
City getting no respect in negotiation
process, Vancouver Courier, 7 October 1999.
Leaseholders tell Musqueam no deal;
band says evictions next, Vancouver Courier, 21 October 1999, p. 12.
No way, say leaseholders, Vancouver
Province, 24 October 1999.
73 Musqueam residents get eviction
notice, Vancouver Sun, 21 September 1999, p A1.
Musqueam Park residents threaten
lawsuit over evictions, Vancouver Sun, 22 September 1999, p. B3.
New Indian Affairs Minister Cannot
Keep Ignoring Musqueam, Vancouver Sun, 21 September 1999.
Musqueam-row minister on way to
B.C., Vancouver Sun, 24 September 1999, p A7.
About Time Musqueam Leases Were
Enforced, Vancouver Sun, 24 September 1999, Letters to the Editor.
Indian Affairs Minister Wades into
the Musqueam Lands Crisis, Vancouver Sun, 27 September 1999.
Nault refuses to be drawn into Musqueam
dispute, Vancouver Sun, 27 September 1999.
Ottawa say Musqueam rent strike
was last straw, Vancouver Sun, 29 September 1999, p B4.
Musqueam Leases are a Matter of
Law, Vancouver Sun, 1 October 1999, Letters to the Editor.
When Rights Collide: Why the Courts
Favour Indians, Vancouver Sun, 6 October 1999, pp A1, A8.
Chretien protest groups clash in
fight for attention, Vancouver Sun, 21 October 1999, pp. A1-2.
Musqueam leaseholders offered a
deal, Vancouver Sun, 22 October 1999, pp. A1-2.
Musqueam leaseholders spurn deal,
Vancouver Sun, 23 October 1999, pp. B5-6.
Band disappointed by leaseholders?
reaction, Vancouver Sun, 25 October 1999.
Short reprieve for Musqueam leaseholders,
Vancouver Sun, 25 October 1999, pp. A1, B4.
Musqueam leaseholders launch lawsuit, Vancouver Sun, 1 November 1999.
