Messages

1

Property Information / Re: McKellar Sale

« on: April 25, 2007, 05:57:54 PM »

Check this out!

The lot is listed on MLS for 399 000

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?PropertyID=5595513

MLS?: 492800000204100     
 

2

Property Information / Re: Severn properties

« on: April 24, 2007, 02:55:35 PM »

I can describe in details the one listed for $6,870.88. Couple of months ago I was looking for a cottage, which is apparently only 5 lots away from the tax sale property on Pioneer Road. It?s located on the intake of Macllean Lake. There are about 20-30 cottages on that intake (little bay). 4 or 5 cottages were for sale.  From the bay you can go to the Maclean Lake and then all the way to Glouchester Pool. The bridge you have to go under is about 8-9 feet high. The bay is very shallow 4-5 feet closer to the bridge and only 1-2 feet towards the end. It is OK to swim and put you boat only closer to the bridge, although the bottom is very soft and sqwashy under you feet.
  I visited the property in January, so I got all the info from the local resident. The guy lives at the last house on Pioneer road. The road, which is a private road, ends at his drive way. The guy? daughter, son-in-law and dog Hugo live there year around, so even in January when I visited the cottage for sale (next to his property) the road was ploughed. I would say that the bay ends at his house, then becomes a marsh. People who live there value their place for privacy and nature. They cannot swim, it?s too shallow and weedy for the boat. Their property is the last decent one on the row.  Needless to say, that the properties behind them are worthless. They don?t even look like waterfronts, 1 foot deep water completely covered with vegetations, and the lots itselves are very low and swampy.  The tax sale property is 4th from the house farther down. So there is no road to the property, you have to trespass 3 more lots to get to the tax sale one. And when you finally there you are in the middle of swamp.   It makes me wonder why this kind of property didn?t go for tax sale much earlier.

I will be happy if this info saves somebody?s time and money. This is a great forum, I learned a lot and I wanted to share my knowledge. Good luck to all.

Stan

3

Questions and Answers / Re: Vacant Possession

« on: March 22, 2007, 12:41:29 PM »

Check this out.

Ontario’s new Residential Tenancies Act takes effect January 31, 2007

Procedural Changes Adversely Impact Multi- Residential Landlords
The RTA also introduces procedural changes which will significantly increase the costs for landlords applying for eviction orders. Right now landlords can obtain “default” orders for both eviction and nonpayment of rent but the RTA scraps default orders and every landlord application must now go to a hearing, whether the tenant disputes it or not.
At the eviction hearing, the tenant will be permitted, without any notice to the landlord, to raise “any issue” the tenant wants to and the Board must hear the evidence and give relief to the tenant. Thus, “Trial by Ambush”, unheard of in any other legal process in Canada, is authorized by legislation. “Professional Tenants” will easily capitalize on this new process. Landlords may go into a hearing thinking they will get an eviction order and a judgment for arrears of rent and walk out of the hearing with a rent abatement order against them as well as a rent freeze. In addition, by sending everything to a hearing, delays in obtaining evictions are virtually guaranteed:
another windfall for professional tenants. Landlords will now have to carefully prepare in defending against any allegations that may be raised by a tenant at an eviction hearing. This means more preparation work and the landlord will have to ask for an adjournment if new issues are raised on the day of hearing and the landlord does not have evidence on hand to respond to them. All of this means more cost, more lost time and, in the case of adjournments, more lost rents.
New “Tenant-Friendly” Rules
1. The definition of “tenant” has been expanded to include a person claiming to be a “spouse” of the tenant. Landlords are forced into contractual relationships with strangers. This new right is only triggered at the end of a tenancy thereby depriving the landlord of the right to increase rent to “market” on turnover.
2. Where an evicted tenant has abandoned property in the rental unit, the tenant can apply to the Board claiming that the landlord improperly disposed of the property. Most such applications will greatly inflate the value and nature of items disposed of so it is imperative that landlords carefully document the disposition of tenants’ property.
3. Landlords must issue rent receipts to former tenants for up to a year after the former tenant has vacated the rented premises and a failure to comply with this rule exposes the landlord to $25,000 and $100,000 fines.
4. Landlords who apply for above guideline rent increases based on capital work are also exposed to liability for “any issue” the tenant wants to raise in response. If the Board believes the landlord has seriously breached maintenance obligations, a rent freeze will be imposed until such time as the landlord applies for and receives clearance that the maintenance issues have been corrected. Another example of legalized “trial by ambush.
Some Positive Changes
1. Afew crumbs were tossed to the landlord by the Government: for example, landlords will no longer have to pay 6% interest on last months rent (LMR) deposits. The interest rate, effective February 1, 2007, will be equal to rent increase guideline: 2.6%.
2. Landlords will now be able to get possession of a rental unit for a person who provides or will provide “care services” to the landlord or a member of the landlord’s immediate family.
3. An expedited eviction process is available in situations where it can be shown that the tenant is causing willful damage and/or using the premises in a manner inconsistent with that of a rental unit (ie. a marijuana grow-op). Such eviction orders can also contain a direction to the Sheriff to enforce the eviction in priority to all other eviction orders.

4

General / Re: Madoc Properties

« on: March 11, 2007, 10:05:51 PM »

50 acres were sold for around 15 000, another property for 60 000.

5

Property Information / Re: Madoc / Trent Hills info?

« on: February 27, 2007, 02:01:59 AM »

Parcel # 1   Minimum Tender Amount  $17,791.36  Assessment Roll #1236/000/025/16200/0000, Con 5 E Part Lot 4  RP21R15923 Parts 1 & 2, 14231 Highway 62.  2006 Assessment = 134,000 (83,750 Commercial, 50,250 Residential) 2006 Property Taxes $2,771.53.  1.07AC  233.16FR 200.00D Zoning = Commercial.  There is a Commercial structure and separate dwelling on the property – both appear to be tenant occupied.  This was previously a Gas Station. Tank still inground.

Parcel # 2   Minimum Tender Amount  $2,704.89  Assessment Roll #1236/000/025/04000/0000, Con 1 N Part Lot 12  2006 Assessment = 11,100  2006 Property Taxes $157.93  50.00AC Zoning = Rural, Vacant Land fronting on the unopen portion of a Road Allowance – a permit to build will not be issued.

6

Announcements / Re: Tillsonburg listings

« on: February 15, 2007, 08:34:08 PM »

Hi, I am not 100% sure, but this is what I’ve heard from people.

1.How much for property taxes the way it sits now? – Assessment value multiplies by 0.9-1.2% depending on municipality. Your property has a roll number. You can call MPAC  http://www.mpac.ca/  and ask .  Sometimes assessment value can be higher or lower the market value.  This happened on the waterfront lot in Parry Sound, the one which was sold for around 90 000. Assessment value was 275 000, way too high. When I asked municipality why they said that nobody fought back. If you think that assessment value is too high , you can appeal ( details on http://www.mpac.ca/)

2.How does the property get serviced?  Does the developer, or the Town, put the roads in?  Or do they work together?  -It depens on the situation.  Unless the municipality have had a plan already to service the properties, you have to approach them with the initiative. Sometimes municipality can pay some portion of the cost. You have to negotiate.  The best option for you to find out who bough remaining lots, contact the person and work together. Another option is to wait. If a developer bought these properties with intention to develop them in the nearest future, he will take care of all paper work, permits, and contactors. He will approach the municipality with proposal for services. He may even apply for zoning change (in case he wants to build semi-detached houses or condos instead of detached homes). Then servicing will be different.  If municipality decides to proceed with servicing, they will send you a letter, explaining when they plan to put services, and the approximate cost of servicing. If municipality are not going to put any money in it, they will ask you to confirm that you agree to pay you portion of servicing cost. 
3. Does the individual property owner contact the developer and pay them? – Don’t think so. First of all it is not an easy task, especially if your lot is somewhere in between. Second, I don’t think that municipality will agree for this. Even if you pay all serving cost, it has to be done through their process, approvals, tenders, permits, etc, unless the developer will take care of entire subdivision.
I would like to hear what other think about this situation.

7

Property Information / Re: McKellar Sale

« on: January 11, 2007, 03:52:06 PM »

I called municipality this morning. The highest bid is 90 001, the second high is 85 000

8

Property Information / Re: McKellar Sale

« on: January 08, 2007, 08:06:27 PM »

I have checked with health unit. They will not allow holding tank for newly developed properties. Also, the road frontage is only around 58 feet. I don't see how is it possible to fit a dryway and septic system (you may have a space for septic tank, but drain field will be a problem).
Better be save than sorry.

9

Property Information / Re: Central Frontenac

« on: November 30, 2006, 12:28:26 AM »

Hi,
There are more properties from tax sale on market.  I got Dignam December catalog yesterday. Very interesting.  Do you remember 3 lots  planted with Pine trees 1.23 ac, 164 front each? Minimum tender amount was around 4700, assessed value 7200. All three of them went for 5166 each. Now these lots are for sale for 14440, or 12996 if paid by cash.  I guess we missed some good deals. 

www.dignam.com

10

Property Information / Re: Minden Hills Properties

« on: November 30, 2006, 12:06:59 AM »

Hi,
The property is listed on MLS is the one from tax sale 100%. A still have a picture of the property on my camera. I just don't know how to attach the picture on this site. I can e-mail it to anyone who is interested.   

11

Questions and Answers / Re: Oro-medonte properties

« on: November 18, 2006, 08:52:51 PM »

Hi all,  I just want to let you know that I called treasurer department in Oro-Medonte Friday around noon. I was told that the owner of the property 'D' had approached the municipality with an intention to pay off taxes. It's a huge possibility that the  property will be redeemed before the tax sale. If someone goes on Monday, please, tell us know the results. Thanks.