Arkona 2013 - FYI

[LarasDad]

From the Council meeting notes March 2011:

A disclaimer by the Municipality was included in the tender package which  stated ?that
the land has been used for fuel storage and may, despite municipal remediation efforts,
be unsuitable for certain uses. Interested parties must exercise their own  due
diligence. The Municipality makes no representations concerning the condition of the
land or land?s fitness for any purpose. The Municipality contracted Golder Associates
for environmental monitoring on the removal of underground storage tanks.?

This info did not appear in the Gazette listing, then or now - and they wonder why they didn't get any bids !

[David1010]

I've been interested in this aspect of property sales for awhile, because of some my own experiences.  Others here have also commented on similar questionable township behaviour with respect to contaminated land.

Came across this commentary on a law firm's website: http://www.mccarthy.ca/article_detail.aspx?id=1640

I regularly scan the realtor.ca site looking for a future cottaging/country home possibility, and in those listings, "as-is, where-is" has become a standard phrase in almost every listing.  Makes me always pause to wonder what they're hiding.

[Dave2]

I regularly scan the realtor.ca site looking for a future cottaging/country home possibility, and in those listings, "as-is, where-is" has become a standard phrase in almost every listing.  Makes me always pause to wonder what they're hiding.

Dave:

To some degree I think you are looking at apples and oranges here. 

The McCarthy case referenced is one where there were known underground fuel tanks and industrial / commercial zoning.  Personally I would never buy that type of land without a full phase 2 including boreholes to test for contamination. 

I have commented before I do not buy this type of land at tax sales.  too risky.

A full legal including execution search and on site physical search  (no you cannot look at aerial photographs and see everything. ) will help you a lot. 
Most country land and vacation land should have a lower level of risk particularly with a good title search. 

My final comment is about realtors.  For most country land I deal direct.  I find that almost all realtors do; is put it on MLS,  direct buyer to do his own due diligence similar to your experience and and not even accompany buyer to the property. 

For this they want up to 10% commission.  Maybe I am biased but for that commission price I will do it myself.  Yes it takes time and costs money,
and I am not as smart as others on this board, but eventually I seem to get what I want. 

[Frank]

I regularly scan the realtor.ca site looking for a future cottaging/country home possibility, and in those listings, "as-is, where-is" has become a standard phrase in almost every listing.  Makes me always pause to wonder what they're hiding.

Dave:

 Personally I would never buy that type of land without a full phase 2 including boreholes to test for contamination. 

Dave, Dave or anyone else:

If you need a phase 2 done....send me a message and we can take at look at your best options to determine what contamination if any is present, and how best to remediate.   

[David1010]

(for the purposes of discussion only)

Dave2 - all your points are well taken.

I don't think its really apples and oranges, more like a suspect grapefruit.  I take the article as support of your position of hands off, or if you're going to go there, do the full course.

Looking at this particular township statement, they're being up front with what they know, if only just a little bit late in the process.  They've stated that it was used for fuel storage, that a cleanup was done, and may or may not have been successful.  They've provided the company's name, so that a buyer can get a report. Not that different from the decision case.  (has anyone seen the tender package mentioned in the meeting minutes?)

The legal decision, to me, speaks about the failure of the buyer to do their due diligence in the situation.  It's like buying a used car, taking the seller's word for its fitness, he watched his mechanic work on the car, so...

The buyer should have paid for the phase 2 study, and as you say with deep soil samples, the works.   The buyer should have then either walked away, or had an agreement that spelled out responsibilities.

I find the whole as-is where-is approach, questionable.  Particularly were townships tax sales are concerned, as they're effectively writing the contract in their favour, there is no negotiating.  There is less than 14 days to get a Phase 2 study done, like that will ever happen.  Certainly won't be able to do it before the sale, trespassing and all.

Now, I'm not positive on these details, but when doing a Phase 1 study, the mere mention of a gas station triggers a Phase 1 Enhanced study, an on site inspection.   If anything suspect is found, a Phase 2 is recommend.  Could also be wrong on this as well, if the Phase 2 is done and finds something, a clean up is required.  Didn't get the impression that the clean up was optional.  It's just a question of who will pay for it.

Even on regular properties there could be problems, and an as-is clause could be a disaster.  While researching the various aspects of fuel tanks, I also found a lot of information related to home heating oil tanks.  I used to think in terms of the oil tank in the basement corner, but a lot were apparently outside the house, above and below ground.  That was news to me, as I grew up in the city, I'd never seen a tank except in a basement.  Now I spot them all the time in realtor photos.  There is an environmental law about replacement cycles for aged tanks.  I'm guessing next to none of the tanks up north have been changed.

As for agents, I'm always horrified when they post 1 picture of a house, from the road, and you can see their side-view mirror in the photo.  Gees at least try and earn your commission.  Been doing this for about 8 months, so I still need to at least talk with an agent, if only to understand some of the procedures.

Frank - Thanks.  Who knows, my wife really fell in love with that property up north, well more the dream, than it. I may be revisiting it someday.

[ErnestBidder]

Folks, if anyone is paying more than 4% commission, you are being hosed. As already said, there's no work involved, and, really, a listing agent usually sells the property, so why pay more than 2.5%? That's all they'd get if it's split between 2 agents. Years ago, I called a "friend" to list an industrial building, and he had the nerve to say "10%", 5% each for he & his buddy from the office who tagged along. End of listing, end of friendship, and the new listing agent, a total stranger until I found him, sold it, for 4%, at 2 am, riding around with a self-employed snow-plow operator. Good agents are really good, and you have to search them out. BTW, I found that agent by calling every RE office in the area, and asking each broker "which salesperson in your office is a go-gettem, really hard worker?". He was a pleasure to know.