The Heritage Park Pergola Dedication was in the Culver Citizen last week. The project was built by Easterday Construction Co., Inc. in the 90’s. It was commissioned by Richard Ford. I’ve discussed it here, here and here in the past.
One of the cool things about working in construction is the ability to drive around our area and see the projects that become history over time. Great Grandpa Easterday wasn’t the best about recording the early history of Easterday Construction… He was too busy running a business! But for those of us that remember, we see reminders of our beginnings as we look around Culver and throughout our region.
The Pony Barn remains adjacent to the Easterday Construction Co., Inc. office as a reminder of when the site was the Easterday beef farm at the edge of town. (Before the high school was built, neighborhood kids would ride their bikes to the north end of Slate Street and feed treats to the Grandpa Easterday’s Hereford Cattle in the field there.) The dedication marker on the elementary school gym is a reminder of a depression era project we completed, when we had a three digit phone number and our offices were in on the top floor of the State Exchange Bank Building (Now First Farmers Bank & Trust). Those that remember that history are disappearing. Only the 3rd and 4th generations of the Easterday Construction family remain and some of them have passed on. Those of us that are left still remain proud of the mark we have left in the history of Culver and surrounding communities.
The Pointe has been all over the news and social media lately due to the City of Plymouth deeming the property unsafe to occupy. This has forced the charitable community to jump to action to help the residents of the 16 units there. On top of the general low income housing shortage in Marshall County, there is the issue that this property was renting at the very low rate of $400 per month. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a subsidized housing site.
As has been described to me, the facility is a former nursing home, so the “units” are small rooms with half baths, i.e. a sink and toilet. They are set up with common (shared) men’s and women’s showers and a community kitchen. There has been some deferred maintenance that includes roof leaks leading to other damage. Pictures from the Pilot News indicate that there is some mold/mildew, but the level and danger from that would have to be professionally assessed.
The landlord is taking it on the chin for this. Again, I know none of the background, reasons for deferred maintenance, etc. But I do think the $400/month is an unworkable business model. So if all the work that is projected to be needed there is done, there’s no way it supports itself at that rental rate. Here are some numbers to start the conversation:
So lets total that up as if someone were to buy this this and puts it back the way it should. That comes to $626,000. I think this is probably a cheap number, but it’s a starting point for this discussion.
First pass: 20% down = $125,200 The remaining $580,800 financed per the above at 5% = $45,996 in loan payments, against fully rented 16 units x $400/month x 12 months = $76,800. Seems like a decent return of $30,804, but remember, right now, plunking that $626,000 into a government bond funds would pay in excess of 5%, or a yearly return of $31,300 with no risk.
But lets do a second pass the way a developer would look at this:
Now we’re at a loss of $28,706 despite some of those numbers being generously on the low side. Not including the time value of money, i.e. the $125,200 down payment would earn $6,350/yr at 5%. So looking at the first three numbers in the above list, it would take a rent increase of $173/unit to get to break even. Most banks won’t finance a break even project and most developers want to make some money and have some cushion for unforeseen things. And nowhere in there was any maintenance reserve savings for when the roof needs replaced again or whatever unforeseen problem comes up.
Granted, this is an extremely simplified analysis. It doesn’t take into account the benefits of depreciation, since those are only a benefit when there is profit. Likewise it doesn’t take into account any taxes on the theoretical income. It also doesn’t take into account any escalators for inflation. There would be a large spreadsheet that a commercial developer would run this through to make their analysis.
Minimum Rent to make this begin to work would need to be $700/month, when existing tenants say they are struggling with the current $400/month. Reality is more like $800 – $900 to get to comparable rates in Plymouth that make economic sense to cover the myriad of additional things that will come up in the renovation and the probably greater management, vacancy and bad debt costs that are likely. The significant age of the building warrants a large maintenance reserve.
But lets take a step back and do really, really rough math (because I don’t know their expenses) on existing conditions assuming with the initial investment of $126,000. Assume 20% down leaves $100,800 financed. Using the 5% interest rate number in the previous scenario, that’s $665/month = $7,980 per year.
This would give us a profit of $14,944/yr. There may be other expenses I haven’t put a number to and conversely there are those that would suggest the maintenance line items should be zeroed out, since maintenance has been less than needed. In any case, this is not a gold mine as it exists today.
This is the real life example of what I’ve said for years… I would rather have a leaky roof over my head than no roof at all. Some of these residents have been living that situation, but the City has (rightly) cited safety concerns that removed their leaky roof.
the $626,000 number is a low number for the renovation, but it’s an impossible number to duplicate that building. $626,000/9,840sf = $64/sf. New construction on a facility such as this would be in excess of $200/sf. It is also questionable that a new facility such as this would meet current zoning standards, though a variance might make it possible. Then there is the issue of where to put it. Even if built on the same site, rezoning would be required along with the variance. That would prompt the same NIMBY protests that Garden Court ran into with the two sites they considered for their project. Theoretically, Garden Court’s GC Horizons project should have been less objectionable as fully functioning apartments.
Plymouth as a community has some hard decisions to make regarding housing. Complaints are rampant about facilities like The Pointe, but solutions are few. As seen with The Pointe, just shutting down the problem facility without a viable alternative creates a different crisis. As seen with Garden Court’s GC Horizons project, those that step up with a solution are often disparaged. Mayor Listenberger is making efforts, but is getting a lot of pushback. It’s tough when there’s a cry to “Do Something!“, but it’s accompanied by a chorus of “But Not That!“… no matter what “that” is…
Some things never change… That’s just part of the cost of doing business…
This is a Culver follow up on the Burr Oak post, Strange Use of Funds, from last September. I still vacillate between amusement at the absurdity of that project and outrage at the wasted tax dollars.
In any case, my bemusement extends to Culver and the thinking that went into the crosswalk from the southwest corner to the northwest corner of intersection of S.R. 10 & S.R. 17 at the end of Lake Shore Drive. First, it’s an absurd place for a crosswalk. As with some of those pointed out in the Burr Oak post, there is no connecting walk on the north side. Second, there are no storm drains or even right-of-way swales, so the condition pictured to the right, is pretty normal when there is any rain at all. Third, in the best of conditions, as shown in the picture below, the corner remains muddy after a rain, the walk is below the road and the surrounding grass, and it runs directly into a gas line marker and part of a stone wall!
This was a Town of Culver project, but I assume this design falls squarely within INDOT requirements. Culver just wanted a sidewalk going west to accommodate Culver Academy students walking to the Family Dollar. This extra little feature was no doubt a INDOT requirement, costing several thousand dollars in engineering and construction. Money spent to solve an non-existent issue, while not fixing real issues, i.e. flooding and obstacles, that make this even less useful, if that’s even possible.
I often wonder if others see these things. For any of you that have looked at this and scratched your head, did you also notice the weird hump in the sidewalk just west of this intersection? The rest of the new walk pretty much follows the curb grade, except for the 20′ +/- section right there that rises up 4″-6″ and then back down for no discernible reason. I suspect someone kicked a grade stake and no one noticed until it was too late, but that’s just a theory. There could be many other explanations. It just looks weird though…
Keep your eyes open people. You never know what you’ll run across. Best to just be amused, because impotent outrage will just make you crazy.
Wealth Tax
August 19, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Personal, Politics, Rants
Community, government, Rants, taxes, Trends
There is an old adage regarding investing that when your stocks are down, you haven’t actually lost any money until you sell the stock. Because of this, the corollary has always been, that likewise, the gain is not realized until you sell the stock. Gains and Losses “on paper” don’t really matter, until they are realized when they are converted to cash or traded for other things. President Biden and now candidate Harris, along with some members of Congress are pushing a Wealth Tax, which would tax these paper gains.
As an example, if you bought 100 shares of Apple’s stock in 2010, it was 6 dollars a share. It cost $600 to make that purchase. It is now over $200 per share so your $600 investment is worth upwards of $20,000 or a 33 times as much as when you bought it. But that gain is on paper. You’re not able to use that value to purchase anything until you sell the stock, at which time you’ll take a $5,800 capital gains haircut.
The wealth tax proposal suggests that you should pay tax on that unrealized gain now. But how will the unrealized tax be determined? Apple’s stock’s all time high was $237, but its highest day end value was $234. And on August 5th with the short crash, it was at $207. Those numbers all are within the past month. With the constant fluctuation of stock prices, will there be an arbitrary day chosen? The all time high? An average of the past year? At a minimum, this seems like a record keeping nightmare. Record keeping is already a problem with the current capital gain tax where you have to keep documentation of a stock purchase price, transaction costs, and splits along the way… sometimes over decades. This is worse with a business or property where you have to track expenditures on improvements, depreciation and other things that affect value.
Another local example is what has happened to many families around Lake Maxinkuckee. Their ancestors owned a lake cottage which was bought decades ago. The property was passed down to descendants. Not all of these descendants were wealthy, but suddenly they were wealthy on paper because of the appreciation in lake property values. They were then forced to sell property that may have been in the family for generations because they couldn’t afford the real estate taxes on the appreciated value. The wealth tax could be another hit on unrealized generational wealth like that.
In a Kiplinger.com article, John Goralka posits this concept about estate planning, “The cash people receive from you is more cash than you have.” This translates to day to day things as well. Wealthy people don’t live like Scrooge McDuck, with a vault in the back of their home where they swim in gold coins. How much money do you think Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos have that they can access immediately? More than me, I’m sure, but as a percentage of their wealth, I would guess the percentage is smaller. Wealth is generally tied up in “things” and those things are working to help you create more wealth. Some of those things employ people who provide goods and services. It’s likely that a wealth tax would require forced liquidation of those things to pay the tax. That would result in less investment in those things so that cash that should be put to work in the economy is held back in anticipation of tax liabilities.
John Goralka’s article has made me think about my own situation. I own my home and currently have no plans to sell it. That value adds to my net worth, but it’s not money I can spend. But when I die, that home will be converted to cash to distribute to heirs. A smaller version of what Elon Musk has with Tesla and Jeff Bezos has with Amazon, but the concept is the same.
In our current DEI world, it has become de rigueur to bash successful people. Hard work, saving and investing are out of fashion. Along with the wealth tax, there are discussions about taxing 401(k)s and IRAs where people have saved too much or invested successfully. Envy of wealth has replaced the aspirational goal of becoming wealthy. Most wealth is the result of some risk. Most wealth remains at risk as it remains invested. No government has been good at playing Robin Hood. We should push back on this, as a tax on those creating wealth by a government that can’t live within its means won’t end well.
0 comments