Latest news with #Residential
Business Wire
a day ago
- Business
- Business Wire
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Provides Q2 2025 Results and Updates Full Year 2025 Outlook
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (NYSE: AVB) (the 'Company') reported Earnings per Share – diluted ('EPS'), Funds from Operations attributable to common stockholders - diluted ('FFO') per share and Core FFO per share (as defined in this release) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024 as detailed below. The following table compares the Company's actual results for EPS, FFO per share and Core FFO per share for the three months ended June 30, 2025 to its results for the prior year period: The following table compares the Company's actual results for EPS, FFO per share and Core FFO per share for the three months ended June 30, 2025 to its April 2025 outlook: Q2 2025 Results Compared to April 2025 Outlook Per Share EPS FFO Core FFO Projected per share (1) $ 1.83 $ 2.74 $ 2.77 Same Store Residential NOI (2) 0.07 0.07 0.07 Other Stabilized NOI (0.01 ) (0.01 ) (0.01 ) Overhead & other (0.01 ) (0.01 ) (0.01 ) Non-core items (3) 0.01 0.01 — Real estate gains, depreciation expense & other (0.01 ) — — Q2 2025 per share reported results $ 1.88 $ 2.80 $ 2.82 (1) The mid-point of the Company's April 2025 outlook. (2) Consists of favorable revenue of $0.02 and operating expenses of $0.05. Approximately $0.02 of the operating expense benefit is timing related and expected to be incurred in Q3. (3) For detail of non-core items, see Definitions and Reconciliations, table 3. Expand The following table compares the Company's actual results for EPS, FFO per share and Core FFO per share for the six months ended June 30, 2025 to its results for the prior year period: Same Store Operating Results for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2025 Compared to the Prior Year Period Same Store Residential revenue increased $19,966,000, or 3.0%, to $689,100,000. Same Store Residential operating expenses increased $7,388,000, or 3.6%, to $211,920,000 and Same Store Residential NOI increased $12,578,000, or 2.7%, to $477,180,000. Same Store Operating Results for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2025 Compared to the Prior Year Period Same Store Residential revenue increased $39,892,000, or 3.0%, to $1,371,215,000. Same Store Residential operating expenses increased $15,522,000, or 3.8%, to $423,130,000 and Same Store Residential NOI increased $24,370,000, or 2.6%, to $948,085,000. Development Activity During the three and six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company completed the development of Avalon Princeton on Harrison, located in Princeton, NJ. Avalon Princeton on Harrison contains 200 apartment homes and was constructed for a Total Capital Cost of $79,000,000. During the three months ended June 30, 2025, the Company started the construction of two apartment communities: Avalon Kendall, located in Kendall, FL; and Avalon Brier Creek, located in Durham, NC. These communities are expected to contain an aggregate of 624 apartment homes. Estimated Total Capital Cost at completion for these Development communities is $210,000,000. In addition, during the three months ended June 30, 2025, the Company accelerated commencement of the planned second phase of the Avalon Pleasanton development, located in Pleasanton, CA. The expanded development of Avalon Pleasanton is expected to add 280 apartment homes and $160,000,000 in estimated Total Capital Costs at completion for a total of 362 apartment homes and an estimated Total Capital Cost at completion of $218,000,000 for the development. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company started the construction of four apartment communities and expanded the development of Avalon Pleasanton. These communities are expected to contain an aggregate of 1,495 apartment homes. Estimated Total Capital Cost at completion for these Development communities is $610,000,000. At June 30, 2025, the Company had 20 wholly-owned Development communities under construction that are expected to contain 7,299 apartment homes and 69,000 square feet of commercial space. Estimated Total Capital Cost at completion for these Development communities is $2,780,000,000. Disposition Activity As previously disclosed, during the three months ended June 30, 2025, the Company sold Avalon Wesmont Station I & II, two wholly-owned communities with 406 apartment homes and 18,000 square feet of commercial space, located in Wood-Ridge, NJ. The communities were sold for $161,500,000, resulting in a gain in accordance with GAAP of $99,636,000 and an Economic Gain of $71,648,000. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company sold three wholly-owned communities containing an aggregate of 508 apartment homes and 18,000 square feet of commercial space. These communities were sold for $226,600,000, resulting in a gain in accordance with GAAP of $155,926,000 and an Economic Gain of $109,628,000. Acquisition Activity As previously disclosed, during the three months ended June 30, 2025, the Company acquired six communities located in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. In aggregate, these communities contain 1,844 apartment homes and were acquired for a stated purchase price of $431,500,000, funded in part by the issuance of 1,060,000 DownREIT Units, valued at $225 per unit. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company acquired eight communities containing 2,701 apartment homes for a total purchase price of $618,500,000, which includes the stated value of the DownREIT units issued for the Dallas-Fort Worth portfolio. Structured Investment Program ("SIP") Activity During the three months ended June 30, 2025, the Company did not enter into any new SIP commitments. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company entered into one new SIP commitment, agreeing to provide an investment of up to $20,000,000 in a multifamily development project in Northern California. See full release for additional detail. In July 2025, the Company entered into one new SIP commitment, agreeing to provide an investment of up to $28,000,000 in a multifamily development project in Southeast Florida. Liquidity and Capital Markets At June 30, 2025, the Company had $102,825,000 in unrestricted cash and cash equivalents. During the three months ended June 30, 2025, the Company had the following debt activity: The Company repaid $525,000,000 principal amount of its 3.45% coupon unsecured notes at par upon maturity. As previously disclosed, the Company entered into a $450,000,000 term loan that matures in April 2029, which was fully drawn in May 2025. The term loan is indexed to SOFR plus a spread, currently SOFR + 0.78% per annum. The Company hedged the term loan interest rate variability with interest rate swaps, resulting in an effective fixed rate of 4.46% after deferred fees and issuance costs. As previously disclosed, the Company amended and restated its Credit Facility to (i) increase its borrowing capacity to $2,500,000,000 from $2,250,000,000, and (ii) extend the maturity date to April 2030 from September 2026. Subsequent to the amendment, the Company's cost of borrowing under the Credit Facility is SOFR + 0.705%. In addition, the Company increased the capacity of its unsecured commercial paper program to $1,000,000,000 from $500,000,000, with the terms of the program otherwise remaining unchanged. As of June 30, 2025, the Company did not have any borrowings outstanding under its Credit Facility, and had outstanding borrowings of $664,637,000 under its unsecured commercial paper note program. The commercial paper program is backstopped by the Company's commitment to maintain available borrowing capacity under its Credit Facility in an amount equal to outstanding borrowings under the program. The Company's annualized Net Debt-to-Core EBITDAre (as defined in this release) for the second quarter of 2025 was 4.4 times and Unencumbered NOI (as defined in this release) for the six months ended June 30, 2025 was 95%. In July 2025, the Company issued $400,000,000 principal amount of unsecured notes in a public offering under its existing shelf registration statement for net proceeds before offering costs of $394,888,000. The notes mature in August 2035 and were issued with a 5.00% coupon. The effective interest rate of the notes is 5.05%, considering the net proceeds and including the impact of offering costs and hedging activity. For its third quarter and full year 2025 financial outlook, the Company expects the following: The following table compares the Company's actual results for EPS, FFO per share and Core FFO per share for the second quarter 2025 to the mid-point of its third quarter 2025 financial outlook: Q2 2025 Results Compared to Q3 2025 Outlook Per Share EPS FFO Core FFO Q2 2025 per share reported results $ 1.88 $ 2.80 $ 2.82 Same Store Residential revenue 0.03 0.03 0.03 Same Store Residential Opex (0.08 ) (0.08 ) (0.08 ) Commercial NOI 0.01 0.01 0.01 NOI from new Development 0.02 0.02 0.02 Capital markets activity (0.02 ) (0.02 ) (0.02 ) Overhead and other 0.02 0.02 0.02 Non-core items (1) (0.01 ) (0.01 ) — Gain on sale of real estate, depreciation expense, and casualty loss 0.61 — — Projected per share - Q3 2025 outlook (2) $ 2.46 $ 2.77 $ 2.80 (1) For detail of non-core items, see Definitions and Reconciliations, table 3 and table 9. (2) Represents the mid-point of the Company's outlook. Expand The following table compares the mid-point of the Company's July 2025 full year outlook for EPS, FFO per share and Core FFO per share to its February 2025 outlook: July 2025 Full Year Outlook Compared to February 2025 Full Year Outlook Per Share EPS FFO Core FFO Projected per share - February 2025 outlook (1) $ 8.49 $ 11.32 $ 11.39 Same Store Residential revenue (0.02 ) (0.02 ) (0.02 ) Same Store Residential Opex 0.06 0.06 0.06 Commercial NOI 0.01 0.01 0.01 NOI from new Development (0.04 ) (0.04 ) (0.04 ) Capital markets activity 0.02 0.02 0.02 Overhead and other (0.03 ) (0.03 ) (0.03 ) Non-core items (2) (0.06 ) (0.06 ) — Gain on sale of real estate, depreciation expense, and casualty loss (0.48 ) — — Projected per share - July 2025 outlook (1) $ 7.95 $ 11.26 $ 11.39 (1) Represents the mid-point of the Company's outlook. (2) For detail of non-core items, see Definitions and Reconciliations, table 3 and table 9. Expand Other Matters The Company will hold a conference call on July 31, 2025 at 1:00 PM ET to review and answer questions about this release, its second quarter 2025 results, the Attachments (described below) and related matters. To participate on the call, dial 877-407-9716. To hear a replay of the call, which will be available from July 31, 2025 at 6:00 PM ET to August 31, 2025, dial 844-512-2921 and use replay passcode: 13750084. A webcast of the conference call will also be available at and an online playback of the webcast will be available for at least seven days following the call. The Company produces Earnings Release Attachments (the "Attachments") that provide detailed information regarding operating, development, redevelopment, disposition and acquisition activity. These Attachments are considered a part of this earnings release and are available in full with this earnings release via the Company's website at To receive future press releases via e-mail, please submit a request through In addition to the Attachments, the Company is providing a teleconference presentation that will be available on the Company's website at subsequent to this release and before the market opens on July 31, 2025. About AvalonBay Communities, Inc. AvalonBay Communities, Inc., a member of the S&P 500, is an equity REIT that develops, redevelops, acquires and manages apartment communities in leading metropolitan areas in New England, the New York/New Jersey Metro area, the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and Northern and Southern California, as well as in the Company's expansion regions of Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte, North Carolina, Southeast Florida, Dallas and Austin, Texas, and Denver, Colorado. As of June 30, 2025, the Company owned or held a direct or indirect ownership interest in 315 apartment communities containing 97,212 apartment homes in 11 states and the District of Columbia, of which 20 communities were under development. More information may be found on the Company's website at For additional information, please contact Matthew Grover, Senior Director of Investor Relations, at 703-317-4524. Forward-Looking Statements This release, including its Attachments, contains 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Company intends such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company's forward-looking statements generally use the words 'believe,' 'expect,' 'anticipate,' 'intend,' 'estimate,' 'assume,' 'project,' 'plan,' 'may,' 'shall,' 'will,' 'pursue,' 'outlook' and other similar expressions that indicate future events and trends and do not report historical matters. These statements, among other things, address the Company's intent, belief, forecasts, assumptions or expectations with respect to: development, redevelopment, acquisition or disposition of communities; the timing and cost of completion of communities under development or redevelopment; the timing of lease-up, occupancy and stabilization of communities; the pursuit of land for future development; the anticipated operating performance of communities; cost, yield, revenue, NOI and earnings estimates; the impact of landlord-tenant laws and rent regulations, including rent caps; the Company's expansion into new regions; declaration or payment of dividends; joint venture activities; the Company's policies regarding investments, indebtedness, acquisitions, dispositions, financings and other matters; the Company's qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; the real estate markets in regions where the Company operates and in general; the availability of debt and equity financing; interest rates, inflation, tariffs and other economic conditions and their potential impacts; trends affecting the Company's financial condition or results of operations; regulatory changes that may affect the Company; and the impact of legal proceedings. The Company cannot assure the future results or outcome of the matters described in these statements; rather these statements merely reflect the Company's current expectations of the outcomes of the matters discussed. The Company does not undertake a duty to update these forward-looking statements, and therefore they may not represent the Company's estimates and assumptions after the date of this release. You should not rely on forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, some of which are beyond the Company's control. These risks, uncertainties and other factors may cause the Company's actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from the anticipated future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. You should carefully review the discussion under Part I, Item 1A. 'Risk Factors' of the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and Part II, Item 1A. 'Risk Factors' in subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for further discussion of risks associated with forward-looking statements. Some of the factors that could cause the Company's actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the following: the Company may fail to secure development opportunities due to an inability to reach agreements with third parties to obtain land at attractive prices or to obtain desired zoning and other local approvals; the Company may abandon or defer development opportunities for a number of reasons, including changes in local market conditions which make development less desirable, increases in costs of development, increases in the cost of capital or lack of capital availability, resulting in losses; construction costs of a community may exceed original estimates; the Company may not complete construction and lease-up of communities under development or redevelopment on schedule, resulting in increased interest costs and construction costs and a decrease in expected rental revenues; occupancy rates and market rents may be adversely affected by competition and local economic and market conditions which are beyond the Company's control; the Company's cash flows from operations and access to cost-effective capital may be insufficient for the development of the Company's pipeline, which could limit the Company's pursuit of opportunities; an outbreak of disease or other public health event may affect the multifamily industry and general economy; the Company's cash flows may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest, and the Company may be unable to refinance existing indebtedness or the terms of such refinancing may not be as favorable as the terms of existing indebtedness; the Company may be unsuccessful in its management of joint ventures and the REIT vehicles that are used with certain joint ventures; the Company may experience a casualty loss, natural disaster or severe weather event; new or existing laws and regulations implementing rent control or rent stabilization, or otherwise limiting the Company's ability to increase rents, charge fees or evict tenants, may impact its revenue or increase costs; the Company's expectations, estimates and assumptions as of the date of this filing regarding legal proceedings may change; the Company's assumptions and expectations in its financial outlook may prove to be too optimistic; the Company may choose to pay dividends in its stock instead of cash, which may result in stockholders having to pay taxes with respect to such dividends in excess of the cash received, if any; and investments made under the SIP may not be repaid as expected or the development may not be completed on schedule, which could require the Company to engage in litigation, foreclosure actions, and/or first party project completion to recover its investment, which may not be recovered in full or at all in such event. Definitions and Reconciliations Non-GAAP financial measures and other capitalized terms, as used in this earnings release, are defined, reconciled and further explained on Attachment 13, Definitions and Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Financial Measures and Other Terms. Attachment 13 is included in the full earnings release available at the Company's website at This wire distribution includes only the following definitions and reconciliations. Average Monthly Revenue per Occupied Home is calculated by the Company as Residential revenue in accordance with GAAP, divided by the weighted average number of occupied apartment homes. Commercial represents results attributable to the non-apartment components of the Company's mixed-use communities and other non-residential operations. Development is composed of consolidated communities that are either currently under construction, or were under construction and were completed during the current year. These communities may be partially or fully complete and operating. DownREIT Units means units representing limited partnership interests in the "downREIT" partnership that acquired the Dallas-Fort Worth assets. Each DownREIT Unit will be entitled to receive quarterly distributions at the same rate as quarterly dividends on a share of the Company's common stock (pro rated for the time outstanding during the first quarter of issuance). Following the one-year anniversary of the closing date, each holder of a DownREIT Unit will have the right to initiate a transaction in which each DownREIT Unit may be redeemed for a cash amount related to the then-current trading price of one share of the Company's common stock or, at the Company's election, one share of the Company's common stock. EBITDA, EBITDAre and Core EBITDAre are considered by management to be supplemental measures of our financial performance. EBITDA is defined by the Company as net income or loss computed in accordance with GAAP before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization. EBITDAre is calculated by the Company in accordance with the definition adopted by the Board of Governors of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts ('Nareit'), as EBITDA plus or minus losses and gains on the disposition of depreciated property, plus impairment write-downs of depreciated property, with adjustments to reflect the Company's share of EBITDAre of unconsolidated entities. Core EBITDAre is the Company's EBITDAre as adjusted for non-core items outlined in the table below. By further adjusting for items that are not considered part of the Company's core business operations, Core EBITDAre can help one compare the core operating and financial performance of the Company between periods. A reconciliation of EBITDA, EBITDAre and Core EBITDAre to net income is as follows (dollars in thousands): Economic Gain is calculated by the Company as the gain on sale in accordance with GAAP, less accumulated depreciation through the date of sale and any other adjustments that may be required under GAAP accounting. Management generally considers Economic Gain to be an appropriate supplemental measure to gain on sale in accordance with GAAP because it helps investors to understand the relationship between the cash proceeds from a sale and the cash invested in the sold community. The Economic Gain for disposed communities is based on their respective final settlement statements. A reconciliation of the aggregate Economic Gain to the aggregate gain on sale in accordance with GAAP for the wholly-owned communities disposed of during the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 is as follows (dollars in thousands): Economic Occupancy is defined as total possible Residential revenue less vacancy loss as a percentage of total possible Residential revenue. Total possible Residential revenue (also known as 'gross potential') is determined by valuing occupied units at contract rates and vacant units at Market Rents. Vacancy loss is determined by valuing vacant units at current Market Rents. By measuring vacant apartments at their Market Rents, Economic Occupancy takes into account the fact that apartment homes of different sizes and locations within a community have different economic impacts on a community's gross revenue. FFO and Core FFO are generally considered by management to be appropriate supplemental measures of our operating and financial performance. FFO is calculated by the Company in accordance with the definition adopted by Nareit. FFO is calculated by the Company as Net income or loss attributable to common stockholders computed in accordance with GAAP, adjusted for gains or losses on sales of previously depreciated operating communities, cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle, impairment write-downs of depreciable real estate assets, write-downs of investments in affiliates due to a decrease in the value of depreciable real estate assets held by those affiliates and depreciation of real estate assets, including similar adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures, including those from a change in control. FFO can help one compare the operating and financial performance of a real estate company between periods or as compared to different companies because adjustments such as (i) gains or losses on sales of previously depreciated property or (ii) real estate depreciation may impact comparability between companies as the amount and timing of these or similar items can vary among owners of identical assets in similar condition based on historical cost accounting and useful life estimates. Core FFO is the Company's FFO as adjusted for non-core items outlined in the table below. By further adjusting for items that we do not consider to be part of our core business operations, Core FFO can help with the comparison of core operating performance of the Company between periods. A reconciliation of Net income attributable to common stockholders to FFO and to Core FFO is as follows (dollars in thousands): TABLE 3 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net income attributable to common stockholders $ 268,665 $ 253,934 $ 505,262 $ 427,383 Depreciation - real estate assets, including joint venture adjustments 230,264 206,338 446,891 417,685 Income attributable to noncontrolling interests 1,190 — 1,190 — Gain on sale of previously depreciated real estate (99,457 ) (68,556 ) (155,926 ) (68,486 ) Casualty loss on real estate 858 — 858 2,935 FFO 401,520 391,716 798,275 779,517 Adjusting items: Unconsolidated entity losses (gains), net (1) 1,223 (1,177 ) 2,465 (9,562 ) Structured Investment Program loan reserve (2) (247 ) (16 ) (230 ) 42 Hedge accounting activity 3 16 22 55 Advocacy contributions 87 2,107 87 2,182 Executive transition compensation costs — — — 104 Severance related costs 26 1,030 202 1,241 Expensed transaction, development and other pursuit costs, net of recoveries (3) 1,407 471 5,295 3,605 Other real estate activity (4) (3,614 ) (160 ) (3,747 ) (281 ) Legal settlements and costs (5) 4,098 644 5,576 1,508 Income tax benefit (531 ) (62 ) (647 ) (84 ) Core FFO $ 403,972 $ 394,569 $ 807,298 $ 778,327 Weighted average common shares outstanding - diluted 143,292,306 142,389,866 142,889,432 142,306,310 FFO per common share - diluted $ 2.80 $ 2.75 $ 5.59 $ 5.48 Core FFO per common share - diluted $ 2.82 $ 2.77 $ 5.65 $ 5.47 (1) Amounts consist primarily of net unrealized losses (gains) on third-party property technology and sustainability fund investments. (2) Changes are the expected credit losses associated with the Company's lending commitments primarily under its SIP. The timing and amount of any actual losses that will be incurred, if any, is to be determined. (3) Amount for YTD 2025 includes a write-off of $3,668 for one development opportunity that the Company determined is no longer probable. (4) Amounts for Q2 and YTD 2025 consist primarily of the gain on the sale of a development right. Amounts for the Q2 and YTD 2024 consist primarily of gains on sale of other non-operating real estate, as well as the imputed carry cost of for-sale residential condominiums at The Park Loggia. We compute this adjustment by multiplying the total capitalized cost of the unsold for-sale residential condominiums by our weighted average unsecured debt effective interest rate. (5) Amounts for Q2 and YTD 2025 and Q2 and YTD 2024 include legal costs and legal settlements. Expand Interest Coverage is calculated by the Company as Core EBITDAre divided by interest expense. Interest Coverage is presented by the Company because it provides rating agencies and investors an additional means of comparing our ability to service debt obligations to that of other companies. A calculation of Interest Coverage for the three months ended June 30, 2025 is as follows (dollars in thousands): Market Cap Rate is defined by the Company as Projected NOI of a single community for the first 12 months of operations (assuming no repositioning), less an estimate of typical capital expenditure allowance per apartment home, divided by the gross sales price for the community. Projected NOI, as referred to above, represents management's estimate of projected rental revenue minus projected operating expenses before interest, income taxes (if any), depreciation and amortization. For this purpose, management's projection of operating expenses for the community includes a management fee of 2.5% and an estimate of typical market costs for insurance, payroll and other operating expenses for which the Company may have proprietary advantages not available to a typical buyer. The Market Cap Rate, which may be determined in a different manner by others, is a measure frequently used in the real estate industry when determining the appropriate purchase price for a property or estimating the value for a property. Buyers may assign different Market Cap Rates to different communities when determining the appropriate value because they (i) may project different rates of change in operating expenses and capital expenditure estimates and (ii) may project different rates of change in future rental revenue due to different estimates for changes in rent and occupancy levels. The weighted average Market Cap Rate is weighted based on the gross sales price of each community. Market Rents as reported by the Company are based on the current market rates set by the Company based on its experience in renting apartments and publicly available market data. Market Rents for a period are based on the average Market Rents during that period and do not reflect any impact for cash concessions. Net Debt-to-Core EBITDAre is calculated by the Company as total debt (secured and unsecured notes, and the Company's Credit Facility and commercial paper program) that is consolidated for financial reporting purposes, less consolidated cash and restricted cash, divided by annualized second quarter 2025 Core EBITDAre. A calculation of Net Debt-to-Core EBITDAre is as follows (dollars in thousands): NOI is defined by the Company as total property revenue less direct property operating expenses (including property taxes), and excluding corporate-level income (including management, development and other fees), property management and other indirect operating expenses, net of corporate income, expensed transaction, development and other pursuit costs, net of recoveries, interest expense, net, loss on extinguishment of debt, net, general and administrative expense, income from unconsolidated investments, depreciation expense, income tax (benefit) expense, casualty loss, (gain) loss on sale of communities, other real estate activity and net operating income from real estate assets sold or held for sale. The Company considers NOI to be an important and appropriate supplemental performance measure to net income because it helps both investors and management to understand the core operations of a community or communities prior to the allocation of any corporate-level property management overhead or financing-related costs. NOI reflects the operating performance of a community and allows for an easier comparison of the operating performance of individual assets or groups of assets. In addition, because prospective buyers of real estate have different financing and overhead structures, with varying marginal impact to overhead as a result of acquiring real estate, NOI is considered by many in the real estate industry to be a useful measure for determining the value of a real estate asset or group of assets. Residential NOI represents results attributable to the Company's apartment rental operations, including parking and other ancillary Residential revenue. Reconciliations of NOI and Residential NOI to net income, as well as a breakdown of Residential NOI by operating segment, are as follows (dollars in thousands): TABLE 6 Q2 Q2 Q1 Q4 YTD YTD 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net income $ 269,855 $ 254,007 $ 236,597 $ 282,092 $ 506,452 $ 427,564 Property management and other indirect operating expenses, net of corporate income 38,153 37,553 36,100 49,688 74,253 72,757 Expensed transaction, development and other pursuit costs, net of recoveries 2,493 1,417 4,744 11,106 7,237 5,662 Interest expense, net 64,801 57,078 59,864 58,976 124,665 111,844 General and administrative expense 22,997 19,586 19,780 17,691 42,777 39,917 Loss (income) from unconsolidated investments 1,052 (866 ) 999 1,614 2,051 (8,595 ) SIP interest income (6,937 ) (3,956 ) (6,113 ) (5,907 ) (13,050 ) (7,074 ) Depreciation expense 231,730 206,923 217,888 215,539 449,618 419,192 Income tax benefit (531 ) (62 ) (116 ) (253 ) (647 ) (84 ) Casualty loss 858 — — — 858 2,935 Gain on sale of communities (99,457 ) (68,556 ) (56,469 ) (121,841 ) (155,926 ) (68,486 ) Other real estate activity (3,637 ) (181 ) (155 ) (117 ) (3,792 ) (322 ) NOI from real estate assets sold or held for sale (7,720 ) (19,684 ) (10,077 ) (12,135 ) (17,797 ) (40,298 ) NOI 513,657 483,259 503,042 496,453 1,016,699 955,012 Commercial NOI (7,190 ) (8,516 ) (9,902 ) (8,603 ) (17,092 ) (16,056 ) Residential NOI Same Store: New England $ 64,614 $ 63,790 $ 62,694 $ 63,917 $ 127,308 $ 125,280 Metro NY/NJ 96,074 93,582 93,459 94,672 189,533 185,566 Mid-Atlantic 72,860 69,296 72,117 71,145 144,977 138,132 Southeast FL 15,160 15,530 17,089 15,125 32,249 31,021 Denver, CO 7,231 7,249 7,461 7,430 14,692 14,602 Pacific NW 30,748 29,234 30,427 29,640 61,175 57,857 N. California 76,188 74,590 76,323 75,159 152,511 149,289 S. California 106,164 103,005 103,415 103,236 209,579 205,591 Other Expansion Regions 8,141 8,326 7,920 7,856 16,061 16,377 Total Same Store 477,180 464,602 470,905 468,180 948,085 923,715 Other Stabilized 25,275 9,832 19,510 17,510 44,785 14,940 Development/Redevelopment 4,012 309 2,725 2,160 6,737 301 Residential NOI $ 506,467 $ 474,743 $ 493,140 $ 487,850 $ 999,607 $ 938,956 Expand NOI as reported by the Company does not include the operating results from assets sold or classified as held for sale. A reconciliation of NOI from communities sold or classified as held for sale is as follows (dollars in thousands): Commercial NOI is composed of the following components (in thousands): Other Stabilized is composed of completed consolidated communities that the Company owns, which have Stabilized Operations as of January 1, 2025, or which were acquired subsequent to January 1, 2024. Other Stabilized excludes communities that are conducting or are probable to conduct substantial redevelopment activities. Projected FFO and Projected Core FFO, as provided within this release in the Company's outlook, are calculated on a basis consistent with historical FFO and Core FFO, and are therefore considered to be appropriate supplemental measures to projected net income from projected operating performance. A reconciliation of the ranges provided for Projected FFO per share (diluted) for the third quarter and full year 2025 to the ranges provided for projected EPS (diluted) and corresponding reconciliation of the ranges for Projected FFO per share to the ranges for Projected Core FFO per share are as follows: Projected NOI, as used within this release for certain Development communities and in calculating the Market Cap Rate for dispositions, represents management's estimate, as of the date of this release (or as of the date of the buyer's valuation in the case of dispositions), of projected stabilized rental revenue minus projected stabilized operating expenses. For Development communities, Projected NOI is calculated based on the first twelve months of Stabilized Operations following the completion of construction. In calculating the Market Cap Rate, Projected NOI for dispositions is calculated for the first twelve months following the date of the buyer's valuation. Projected stabilized rental revenue represents management's estimate of projected gross potential minus projected stabilized economic vacancy and adjusted for projected stabilized concessions plus projected stabilized other rental revenue. Projected stabilized operating expenses do not include interest, income taxes (if any), depreciation or amortization, or any allocation of corporate-level property management overhead or general and administrative costs. In addition, projected stabilized operating expenses for Development communities do not include property management fee expense. Projected gross potential for Development communities and dispositions is generally based on leased rents for occupied homes and management's best estimate of rental levels for homes which are currently unleased, as well as those homes which will become available for lease during the twelve-month forward period used to develop Projected NOI. The weighted average Projected NOI as a percentage of Total Capital Cost is weighted based on the Company's share of the Total Capital Cost of each community, based on its percentage ownership. Management believes that Projected NOI of the Development communities, on an aggregated weighted average basis, assists investors in understanding management's estimate of the likely impact on operations of the Development communities when the assets are complete and achieve stabilized occupancy (before allocation of any corporate-level property management overhead, general and administrative costs or interest expense). However, in this release the Company has not given a projection of NOI on a company-wide basis. Given the different dates and fiscal years for which NOI is projected for these communities, the projected allocation of corporate-level property management overhead, general and administrative costs and interest expense to communities under development is complex, impractical to develop, and may not be meaningful. Projected NOI of these communities is not a projection of the Company's overall financial performance or cash flow. There can be no assurance that the communities under development will achieve the Projected NOI as described in this release. Redevelopment is composed of consolidated communities where substantial redevelopment is in progress or is probable to begin during the current year. Redevelopment is considered substantial when (i) capital invested during the reconstruction effort is expected to exceed the lesser of $5,000,000 or 10% of the community's pre-redevelopment basis and (ii) physical occupancy is below or is expected to be below 90% during or as a result of the redevelopment activity. Residential represents results attributable to the Company's apartment rental operations, including parking and other ancillary Residential revenue. Residential Revenue with Concessions on a Cash Basis is considered by the Company to be a supplemental measure to Residential revenue in conformity with GAAP to help investors evaluate the impact of both current and historical concessions on GAAP-based Residential revenue and to more readily enable comparisons to revenue as reported by other companies. In addition, Residential Revenue with Concessions on a Cash Basis allows an investor to understand the historical trend in cash concessions. A reconciliation of Same Store Residential revenue in conformity with GAAP to Residential Revenue with Concessions on a Cash Basis is as follows (dollars in thousands): Same Store is composed of consolidated communities where a comparison of operating results from the prior year to the current year is meaningful as these communities were owned and had Stabilized Operations, as defined below, as of the beginning of the respective prior year period. Therefore, for 2025 operating results, Same Store is composed of consolidated communities that have Stabilized Operations as of January 1, 2024, are not conducting or are not probable to conduct substantial redevelopment activities and are not held for sale or probable for disposition within the current year. Stabilized Operations is defined as operations of a community that occur after the earlier of (i) attainment of 90% physical occupancy or (ii) the one-year anniversary of completion of development or redevelopment. Total Capital Cost includes all capitalized costs projected to be or actually incurred to develop the respective Development or Redevelopment community, including land acquisition costs, construction costs, real estate taxes, capitalized interest and loan fees, permits, professional fees, allocated development overhead and other regulatory fees and a contingency estimate, offset by proceeds from the sale of any associated land or improvements, all as determined in accordance with GAAP. Total Capital Cost also includes costs incurred related to first generation commercial tenants, such as tenant improvements and leasing commissions. For Redevelopment communities, Total Capital Cost excludes costs incurred prior to the start of redevelopment when indicated. With respect to communities where development or redevelopment was completed in a prior period or the current period, Total Capital Cost reflects the actual cost incurred, plus any contingency estimate made by management. Total Capital Cost for communities identified as having joint venture ownership, either during construction or upon construction completion, represents the total projected joint venture contribution amount. For joint ventures not in construction, Total Capital Cost is equal to gross real estate cost. Uncollectible lease revenue The following table provides uncollectible Residential lease revenue as a percentage of total Residential revenue, including the benefit of any rent relief. Government rent relief reduces the amount of uncollectible Residential lease revenue. The Company expects the amount of rent relief recognized to continue to decline in 2025 absent funding from various government entities. TABLE 11 Same Store Uncollectible Residential Lease Revenue Q2 Q2 Q1 Q4 2025 2024 2025 2024 New England 0.8 % 0.6 % 0.9 % 0.6 % Metro NY/NJ 1.7 % 2.0 % 1.7 % 1.8 % Mid-Atlantic 1.7 % 1.9 % 1.6 % 1.7 % Southeast FL 1.5 % 1.7 % 1.7 % 2.0 % Denver, CO 1.0 % 1.0 % 1.4 % 1.3 % Pacific NW 0.3 % 1.4 % 0.7 % 0.8 % N. California 1.4 % 1.3 % 1.2 % 1.1 % S. California 1.5 % 2.2 % 2.0 % 2.2 % Other Expansion Regions 2.9 % 2.4 % 3.2 % 3.5 % Total Same Store 1.4 % 1.7 % 1.5 % 1.6 % Total Same Store – Excluding Rent Relief 1.6 % 1.8 % 1.7 % 1.7 % Expand Unconsolidated Development is composed of communities that are either currently under construction, or were under construction and were completed during the current year, in which we have an indirect ownership interest through our investment interest in an unconsolidated joint venture. These communities may be partially or fully complete and operating. Unencumbered NOI as calculated by the Company represents NOI generated by real estate assets unencumbered by outstanding secured notes payable as of June 30, 2025 as a percentage of total NOI generated by real estate assets. The Company believes that current and prospective unsecured creditors of the Company view Unencumbered NOI as one indication of the borrowing capacity of the Company. Therefore, when reviewed together with the Company's Interest Coverage, EBITDA and cash flow from operations, the Company believes that investors and creditors view Unencumbered NOI as a useful supplemental measure for determining the financial flexibility of an entity. A calculation of Unencumbered NOI for the six months ended June 30, 2025 is as follows (dollars in thousands): Copyright © 2025 AvalonBay Communities, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Reuters
a day ago
- Business
- Reuters
Verisk expands residential insurance push with $2.4 billion AccuLynx deal
July 30 (Reuters) - Data analytics firm Verisk (VRSK.O), opens new tab said on Wednesday it will buy AccuLynx, which makes software for roofing contractors, for $2.35 billion as it looks for a bigger foothold in a key segment of the residential insurance market. The all-cash deal could allow Verisk to simplify interactions between insurers and contractors, which it says will speed up claims and lower expenses for policyholders. The deal also highlights growing interest in home repair companies, as severe weather and rising repair costs pressure both insurers and homeowners. Roofing is one of the most expensive components of property insurance. The acquisition, scheduled to close by the end of the third quarter, is expected to add to Verisk's adjusted earnings per share by the end of 2026. Its shares rose 2% before the open. Goldman Sachs and PJT Partners are serving as financial advisers to Verisk, while William Blair advised AccuLynx. Verisk also reported better-than-expected profit for the second quarter on Wednesday, driven by strong demand from property and casualty insurers for its underwriting risk assessment tools. Adverse weather has prompted P&C insurers to spend more on analytics to better assess policy risks. On an adjusted basis, Verisk earned $1.88 per share in the second quarter, beating analysts' estimates of $1.77, according to data compiled by LSEG. On reported basis, the company's underwriting revenue increased 8.3% in the quarter, while claims revenue climbed 6.6%. New Jersey-based Verisk now expects adjusted earnings per share between $6.80 and $7.00 for 2025, a slightly narrower range compared with $6.80 to $7.10 it had expected earlier. But the company raised its full-year revenue forecast to between $3.09 billion and $3.13 billion, up from $3.03 billion to $3.08 billion earlier.
Economic Times
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
Why affirmative action means more than Just quotas
The notification for the conduct of the next population Census has been issued. While the schedule for the collection of data is yet to be finalised, the government has announced that the collection of caste details will be part of the operation. Ostensibly, it is to find the socioeconomic profile of castes so as to take suitable affirmative action. Unfortunately, in common parlance, affirmative action has come to mean 'providing reservations as per the socio-economic condition of a caste'. While one should support any attempt to ameliorate the status of the marginalised communities, it must be noted that the 'provision of reservation' is not the only affirmative action. In fact, it should be the last resort to support the most deprived sections. Babasaheb Ambedkar has argued that reservations should not become the rule or apply to the majority, but rather be an exceptional measure to support the most disadvantaged. For Ambedkar, educating the marginalised is the surest way out of repression. SR Sankaran, the legendary Indian bureaucrat often remembered as the "People's IAS Officer" and a champion of social welfare and justice, particularly for Dalits, tribals, bonded labourers, and other marginalised groups, recognised this fact and set up an affirmative system for all to follow. He argued that there has to be a context-specific model of support that aligns affirmative action strategies with the type of deprivation faced. The Deprivation and Affirmative Action Model (DAM), followed therein has used differentiated interventions as per deprivation levels: free education for the economically deprived, residential schooling for those geographically isolated and enriched mentoring and psychological support for the socially and emotionally marginalised. SR Sankaran was instrumental in setting up the Social Welfare Residential Schools in Andhra Pradesh in 1983. The idea was to provide highest-quality education to the poorest children by setting up Social Welfare Residential Schools. Unlike social welfare hostels (which are present in all states and often badly managed), these residential schools offer an immersive educational ecosystem. A close-knit arrangement nurtures confidence and aspirations-two qualities historically stripped from the marginalised. With over 268 schools and colleges in Telangana and 308 schools in Andhra Pradesh, the social welfare residential schools provide enriched education to more than 2.75 lakh students, nearly all of whom come from highly disadvantaged backgrounds. An exclusive society has been created for managing the institutions, recruitment of teachers and for constant monitoring of the quality of education. Over time, the schools flowered into intermediate, degree and professional education through specialised institutions like Centres of Excellence (CoEs), Sainik Schools, Law and Pharmacy Colleges and Fine Arts Colleges. Teachers in this system are not merely facilitators but pivotal agents of change. Recruitment is handled through a specialised board, and professional development is continuous through initiatives like the Professional Learning for Educators Series (PLES) in collaboration with Khan Academy. Programmes like IMPACT bring parents to schools for dialogues on social issues, while QUEST encourages teachers to visit students' homes, deepening the bond between school and results speak volumes. These schools consistently outperformed the state average in both Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations. Moreover, their students have secured prestigious seats in IITs and medical colleges through NEET, often at nearly double the state average success rate. Some students have even been selected for international exchange programmes and scholarships, highlighting the global competitiveness instilled by the programme. The Society invests heavily in holistic development through programmes like Youth Parliament, sports competitions and adventure camps. Confidence-building activities such as public speaking, cultural festivals and exposure to national and international travel have been embedded into the support of the state governments for residential schools has been pivotal. Governments are convinced that fighting deprivation requires adequate investments; the cost per student has been more than Rs 1.5 lakh per year. Governments have consistently posted highly committed officers like RS Praveen Kumar as head of the Society and given them functional freedom. The social welfare residential schools proved, over the past 40 years, that by providing enriched education, even the most marginalised can be empowered to compete with others. It shatters the myth that excellence is the domain of the privileged. States and educational policymakers must internalise this lesson: social justice in education is not just about access, or about reservations, but about the quality, dignity and the empowerment it ensures. If the goal is to undo centuries of exclusion in a single generation, low-cost, one-size-fits-all approach, it won't suffice. The marginalised deserve the best. The Government of India has recognised the merit of this model and chiselled Ekalavya schools for tribals in the same mould. As the country goes into caste-based Census 2027, affirmative models like this shall get the first nod for forging social justice.
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NXRT or ESS: Which Is the Better Value Stock Right Now?
Investors interested in stocks from the REIT and Equity Trust - Residential sector have probably already heard of NexPoint Residential Trust Inc. (NXRT) and Essex Property Trust (ESS). But which of these two companies is the best option for those looking for undervalued stocks? Let's take a closer look. Everyone has their own methods for finding great value opportunities, but our model includes pairing an impressive grade in the Value category of our Style Scores system with a strong Zacks Rank. The proven Zacks Rank puts an emphasis on earnings estimates and estimate revisions, while our Style Scores work to identify stocks with specific traits. NexPoint Residential Trust Inc. has a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy), while Essex Property Trust has a Zacks Rank of #3 (Hold) right now. The Zacks Rank favors stocks that have recently seen positive revisions to their earnings estimates, so investors should rest assured that NXRT has an improving earnings outlook. However, value investors will care about much more than just this. Value investors are also interested in a number of tried-and-true valuation metrics that help show when a company is undervalued at its current share price levels. Our Value category grades stocks based on a number of key metrics, including the tried-and-true P/E ratio, the P/S ratio, earnings yield, and cash flow per share, as well as a variety of other fundamentals that value investors frequently use. NXRT currently has a forward P/E ratio of 10.23, while ESS has a forward P/E of 18.06. We also note that NXRT has a PEG ratio of 1.71. This popular figure is similar to the widely-used P/E ratio, but the PEG ratio also considers a company's expected EPS growth rate. ESS currently has a PEG ratio of 6.00. Another notable valuation metric for NXRT is its P/B ratio of 2.23. Investors use the P/B ratio to look at a stock's market value versus its book value, which is defined as total assets minus total liabilities. By comparison, ESS has a P/B of 3.22. These metrics, and several others, help NXRT earn a Value grade of B, while ESS has been given a Value grade of D. NXRT sticks out from ESS in both our Zacks Rank and Style Scores models, so value investors will likely feel that NXRT is the better option right now. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc. (NXRT) : Free Stock Analysis Report Essex Property Trust, Inc. (ESS) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Sign in to access your portfolio
Hamilton Spectator
06-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Stouffville Council Votes In Favour of Greater Housing Flexibility in Oak Ridges Moraine, Greenbelt
● In a 4-3 Council vote, Stouffville will ask the Province to permit up to two Additional Residential Units (ARUs) on all rural properties within the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) and Greenbelt. ● The Town will also push for broader local planning authority and flexibility for minor amendments to the Provincial conservation plans. ● A formal process for settlement area expansion into the ORM Countryside areas is also being requested. ● The recommendations were put forward in a report from Town Staff covered in an article last week. ● While some residents support ARUs as a multi-generational housing and affordability solution, critics fear 'green sprawl' and increased speculation. ● The Greenbelt Foundation and York Region Federation of Agriculture warned the broader planning changes could erode conservation efforts ● Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition emphasized the importance of not rushing such decisions, saying they should be left to a formal 10-year review anticipated in 2027. Following a narrow 4-3 Council vote on June 4, Stouffville will formally ask the Ontario government to permit up to two Additional Residential Units (ARUs) on rural properties within the Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt, including areas where they are currently prohibited. The recommendations aim to bring conservation plans in line with Ontario's 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, which permits up to two ARUs on agricultural lands outside the ORM and Greenbelt areas. The Town is also seeking broader decision-making authority over land-use matters within the protected zones. Councillors Sue Sherban, Keith Acton, and Rick Upton voted against submitting the recommendations to the Province, while Mayor Iain Lovatt and Councillors Hugo Kroon, Richard Bartley, and Maurice Smith supported it. The Push for Rural ARUs Town Staff argue that expanded ARU permissions would support multi-generational living, create secondary income opportunities, boost housing supply, and improve affordability. They have also asked the Province to issue guidance that ensures any resulting development maintains rural character and environmental protections. Mayor Lovatt referenced the Town's efforts to expand ARU permissions throughout the municipality's serviced settlement areas during the meeting, but he noted many rural residents have been denied ARU approvals due to conservation policies. 'We're trying to address real-life issues that our residents bring to us,' he said. Those frustrations were echoed in several presentations to Council from rural property owners. 'Our family purchased land in this area in 1997, prior to the implementation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP),' said deputant Michelle Johnson. 'The restrictions imposed…have significantly limited our ability to utilize our property in a way that would allow us to live affordably.' Johnson said ARUs could also help families like hers support adult children struggling with housing costs while offering aging parents the ability to remain on their land and connected to their communities. 'An ARU could generate income through rental opportunities, which would be beneficial in our retirement years,' she said. 'ARUs are not a form of major development and do not have a significant impact on the environment or community…They offer a practical solution for families like ours to utilize their properties in ways that are both sustainable and responsible.' Councillor Sherban expressed empathy but warned of long-term consequences. She argued that further small-scale permissions could open the door to broader land fragmentation and speculative development. 'It seems so minuscule what you're asking,' she said. 'But if this keeps on—one more ARU, one more ARU—it's opening that door. And where do we stop?' Sherban added that she did not want to be remembered as someone who helped launch unchecked rural development rather than someone who tried to prevent it. ' Sometimes somebody has to say no,' she said. Expanding Local Planning Powers In addition to the ARU request, Staff recommended Council ask the Province to grant municipalities more authority over local planning within the conservation areas, including a process for minor amendments to ORMCP and Greenbelt Plan policies. They also suggested procedures for redesignating prime agricultural land as rural, broader permissions for small-scale commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, and the ability to build public service facilities such as parks, fire stations, and community centres within protected areas. Staff further requested guidance for expanding settlement areas into the Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area. 'The Provincial plans are overly restrictive and do not provide sufficient flexibility to address local circumstances as well as the Town's planning objectives,' said Randall Roth, a Senior Policy Planner with the Town. The York Region Federation of Agriculture (YRFA), a nonprofit representing more than 600 farm operations, supported the ARU recommendations but opposed the broader planning changes. In their view, such changes would have a 'detrimental effect' on agriculture within the municipality. 'The Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt are significant agricultural and environmental resources. They must remain intact and protected in their entirety for future generations,' said YRFA Secretary and Treasurer Kim Empringham. 'Allowing local municipal amendments, redesignation of prime agricultural areas, small scale commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, public service facilities, and parks will result in the death of the ORM by a thousand cuts.' 'Settlement area expansions will speed up this demise,' she added. 'YRFA would support ARUs on the ORM and the Greenbelt, but not the list of requests found in Part 3 of the motion.' Greenbelt Foundation CEO Edward McDonnell submitted a letter opposing all recommendations. The Foundation cited the 2022 Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force report , which stated Ontario has ample developable land and does not require ORM or Greenbelt lands to meet housing targets. A recent Foundation report also highlights rural housing case studies from Durham, Niagara, and Huron as examples of how complete rural communities can be built without compromising protected conservation areas. Council ultimately deferred the request for expanded commercial and institutional permissions but approved the remainder for submission to the Province. Town Looks to Expedite Implementation While facing a barrage of criticism for a contentious and contested social media campaign opposing the report and its recommendations, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition Chair Robert Brown also addressed Council. He later told Bullet Point News that he was 'deeply disappointed' by the decision. Brown expressed concern over the potential consequences of fast-tracking the proposed changes through the upcoming Bill 17 legislative process, a path the Town has recommended to the Province. He believes the move would risk bypassing critical data collection and public consultation and suggested Stouffville should wait for the mandated 10-year review expected in 2027. 'That 10-year review process is the point where we collect new data, find out what has changed within the conservation areas over the last decade, and learn what impacts development patterns have had on the plan areas' ecology and hydrology,' Brown told us. He emphasized the importance of input from scientific and engineering communities, calling it 'reckless' for politicians to make such decisions in the absence of that data. 'That process also provides opportunity for public consultation, including with stakeholders like STORM, to be able to voice their opinions and have their say over the directions of the plan, identify pain points, and work them out mutually,' he added. Councillor Acton expressed a similar position during Council deliberations, saying he believes Stouffville is already doing its 'fair share' in delivering needed housing. In his view, there is no justification to rush implementation of the recommendations. ' In the next 18 months or less, the Province will do their review. At that point, all parties, the public, the municipality, whoever, will have an opportunity to make comments,' Acton said. ' I think it would be wise…to let the Province do their work and review on their timetable, and they will own that decision.' Brown also mentioned the importance of maintaining a top-down structure for Ontario's conservation plans, arguing that the approach is essential to achieving 'harmonized, ecological, and hydrological protections' across southern Ontario. 'That is how we protect vital agricultural and freshwater resources, mitigate climate change impacts, and maintain flood protections for communities like Stouffville,' he said. Councillor Kroon offered a contrasting perspective during the Council meeting, expressing a preference for local decision making over Provincial control. 'We know our municipality, and we know what is needed and what works much better than having the Province making… one-size-fits-all decisions,' he said. 'Stouffville is a unique town. We have unique solutions to our requirements, and we should be allowed to make those decisions,' Kroon added. The Threat of 'Green Sprawl' Brown characterized the ARU proposal as part of a growing wave of 'green sprawl,' where development creeps into environmentally sensitive areas under the guise of gentle density. While acknowledging a real need for more housing options, he pointed to the increasing number of 'palatial homes' across the Moraine and warned that the proposed changes would largely benefit wealthy landowners. 'They are the ones who have the money and resources to build ARUs. Furthermore, as we saw in the delegations, people are already talking about building ARUs as rental properties,' he said. 'We will have a whole new speculative rental market that will be highly desirable given its location on the ORM and Greenbelt. And when market speculation gets involved, we know there will be no affordable housing.' Brown acknowledged that STORM's social media messaging could have deployed a bit more nuance, but said he hopes the conversation will remain focused on the underlying policy implications. 'It is the narrow-sighted, 'no for the sake of no' responses to residents' actual, lived needs that is so frustrating,' Lovatt later told Bullet Point News. 'The ORMCP needs responsible reform, and the councillors who supported Staff's recommendations recognize that.' 'I can't look a resident in the eyes and tell them we're not going to review the policy because I'm worried about what might happen in another town,' he added. Lovatt also argued it's unreasonable to deny an ARU for aging parents when more damaging uses, such as large-scale aggregate extraction operation, are permitted under existing rules. 'I will never shy away from difficult files with the Province out of fear or 'what ifs,'' he said. 'I will advocate for fairness and generational equity, and let the Province make the final decision.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
