• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Dark Store Theory - Big Box Vs Assessors & Communities

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, please understand that my comments only pertain to tax assessment in North Carolina. Other states and counties might do things differently.
 
Assuming that the dark store theory is bunk in cases of a new building where the site and property characteristics are suitable for an investor, this discussion does bring up an interesting question-if project costs on a new building are $10,000,000 and the lease is at market, yet the value is $15,000,000, the $5,000,000 entrepreneurial profit is typically in excess of the minimum EI required by most developers, but in some cases it is a sign of demand for these nationally-leased properties in this market. I have discussed value enhancement for leased properties in the past, and that could be asserted here as well, but it is also a highest and best use issue where that is partially reflected in the most likely user/ purchaser of this type of property and consequently, baked into the land value. For ad valorem purposes, I wonder if it would be appropriate to value at any above $11,500,000 (based on 15% EI)? Not arguing either way, just thinking out loud.

So they do, with a 20 year "bye" on property taxes. Year 19, they announce they are packing it in and moving back across the line where taxes were cheaper.
There is a relevant point here. Municipalities are bending over backwards to get these $10 million plus investments on big box stores, presumably a much greater investment on the GM plant that you mentioned. Planners build these models where they offer significant incentives to get these investments moving in their municipality, and the developers/companies tout what a large investment that they are bringing in, on top of jobs. But the assumptions made by planners is that they will get significant payback after the incentives dry up, and that is precisely when companies either move, as you mention, or they file assessment appeals based on theories of this type with the motivation of getting the assessment lowered significantly from what is presumably near the physically depreciated cost. Or they indicate how poorly they are performing and essentially threaten to move/ close down, which results in a new wave of incentives.
 
......... they were defeated on the basis that they presented no evidence that the assessor had not valued it correctly by the method that they- the assessors- were required to use. It is not the appraiser's job to determine whether or not the assessor used correct procedure. In fact, he likely wasn't even aware of that as a requirement of law.

You are correct. It was not the appraiser's job to determine whether or not the assessor used the right procedure. That was the job of the lawyers and their experts to discredit the county's value. The appraiser's job was to provide an opinion of what the "true value" of the property should have been if it had been valued correctly. Because the appraiser did not analyze the potential effect on value of the deed restrictions in his report, the PTC didn't give it much consideration vs. the county's appraisal. As a side note, assessors are not bound by one particular method to value a property. Some counties utilize a variation of the cost approach to value commercial and industrial properties, but if their appraisers have the expertise and the information available, they can use any other approach or methodology to determine the value a property. Believe it or not, tax appraisers actually have to abide by USPAP standards too (those pertaining to mass appraisal) if they are members of the IAAO or if they adopt that requirement in their Schedule of Values.
 
Or they can live within their means, like everyone else.

"Living within their means, like everyone else", means cutting police, fire, and rescue services for the residents of the municipality. This does not include schools, as they are typically funded on a county level, at least in NC. This is a decision that residents in a particular community will have to make at the ballot box when they vote for their local representatives.
 
The police just stuck me with a $200 buck no passing zone ticket. They will have to work a little harder to make their pay. There are many communities in NE Ohio that have voluntary fire departments. Works well.

There is a vicious cycle from unions to politicians to taxpayers.
 
No BEV.* No excess EI.

It is a leased fee value where the national credit tenant is leveraging the strength of its balance sheet as a corporate strategy with access to Wall Street monies. Walgreens is the poster child of this product. The lease takes on the characteristics of a corporate bond when the term of the lease approaches economic perpetuity, so these properties actively sell using 0% vacancy. Guaranteed by the parent as a bonded absolute lease (which terms protect the landlord more than the typical NNN lease), they are priced to sell at a very low capitalization rate. Not only are the buildings insured to be rebuilt to be brought back to operation (so no insurance gap), but even the income stream can be guaranteed. The investor/landlord does nothing but receive an auto-deposit check. Nevertheless, it is still a lease with a gigantic negative leasehold. You see $35/sf rents for 60 years including options, sold to investors at a face cap rate of 5.5% or so, for a price of $637/sf. In weak, often mid-west regions, it may be priced at a 6.0% or 6.5% cap rate while having a fairly similar rent rate. What is being bought and sold is the tenant's risk/lease terms and regional location all of which are factored into the capitalization rate. No different than a US government leased building, you are confident they're not going to skip town or fold up. The national corporation that does these sales-leasebacks receives a large net cash increase on their balance sheet as it is far in excess of the construction cost. They then use these monies to expand new locations. It's a lease used as a corporate strategy. If Warren Buffet or Oprah was to rent your house for double its market rent for 20 years, you know they're good for the money and an enforceable lease, so thus, the leasehold would be excessive and real value. Same here. (Conversely, if the local seller does a sale-leaseback but at a far below market rent rate for their business, this is a positive leasehold resulting in a lower sale price.)
.
The Assessor's task, though, is to determine equivalent fee simple. Here is where the fight starts. The Assessors struggle to determine this. Some Assessors use a cost approach of a normal retail building -- others Assessors have used the sale prices (described above). While Walgreens is easily an extreme, it is challenging to determine if other national credit tenants are following the same strategy or if they and their build-to-suit developers are setting a lease rate based on a market return on and off the land and building.

The buildings are functional as they do get occupied by 2nd generation tenants at 2nd generation physically depreciated market rental rates. The tax agents use 2nd generation buildings, 2nd generation buildings from inferior neighborhoods, vacant distressed buildings, and then argue this is the fee simple equivalent. Deed restrictions, they're not going to economically -- key word -- become effective until the tenant vacates the building. If a 40 year lease, then the affect of the deed restriction would be discounted to present value as minimal.

* The BEV argument opens a new can of worms and the argument falls apart. There is an active and a wide market of buyers from national portfolios to the little old lady who retires out of an actively-managed risky real estate portfolio for a passive less risky asset. These buyers all willingly pay the market 5.5%-6.0% cap rate of face rent. If you're to attempt to partition this income stream for BEV, the BEV discount rate is much higher, the duration is shorter. There is nothing transferable, being partitioned, or functioning separately, attributes of business value. it becomes counting the number of angels on a pinhead. There is no evidence of BEV occurring in the market, analytically or in actuality. When a Blockbuster goes bankrupt, they having followed a similar corporate strategy, then the investor takes a "haircut" off the leased fee value and the real property gets re-priced by the market to fee equivalent market rents and terms.
 
Leasedfee said, "The Assessors struggle to determine this."

Not really. Corporate interests have their motive (return to their stockholders), but the Assessor's position is more like Administrative Law. The game is pretty well fixed from the Assessor, Board of Equalization, to Tax Court. Their bias is to maintain a system to raise revenue. If Big Box gets a break, the burden is shifted onto the local voting citizens. The only fortunate thing about the system is "Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do" so eventually the local citizens do pick up the bill, just like big sexual harassment lawsuits or class action lawsuits.
 
WOW, I love reading the CG stuff. You guys are good. My hats off to you. So lets say I am a local/state representative and I read this thread. It appears that Geopolitical BS, competition with other municipalities/states is the problem. Tax assessor's are left with the mess to fix. So if I switch up the business, the NFL comes to mind. They pretty much don't buy anything. They get the Tax payers to buy and lease the land to the panthers, The panthers build the facility with seat purchasers by the wealthy citizens. Then the citizens hope and pray the team doesn't leave town for a bigger market and new stadium.

So we turned to Big box retail. - Different animal all together. Lowes and Home Depot compete with each other. They vary a little on who they cater to. IMHO Home Depot leans toward home building/remodeling contractors and Lowes focuses more on Home owners. Both trade with all parties.

So I side with business on the tax issue. Since they may or may not have shareholders they still are in business to make money. It makes sense to close or move a store location. Municipal planners know this and should plan on spending the tax revenues from commercial/industrial properties in a different more short term manner. Securing a 20-30 year bond on infrastructure based in large part from tax revenue generated by commercial property is dangerous and foolhardy. They may have to spend some money on infrastructure for the business/industry, but to spend that revenue on other areas not essential to the business/industry you have attracted is crazy.

What a mess we create for ourselves. Just my thoughts on an early Monday morning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top