Thank you very much for the question.
While I will say that we have a number of our individual members who work in assessment authorities, including places like BC Assessment, across the country, we would not presume to speak for the assessment authorities.
I will say, though, in terms of highest and best use, that is a fundamental principal evaluation, but it does recognize, in arriving at a value for a subject property, the need and the requirement that the use of the property be legally permitted.
I think when we talk about that degree of flexibility and that need for all parties to come to the table to look at innovative and different ways perhaps to zone properties to allow for more innovative approaches to bring more housing supply onto the market—that's why we believe very strongly there are no silver bullets—we do have to address the whole question of Nimbyism. I appreciate my colleague Mr. Lee's “Yimbyism”. That will be one I will borrow on a go-forward basis. I do think it is really about looking at this in a whole new way and bringing everyone to the table who can play a role. Highest and best use has to be a premise, because at the end of the day, regardless of whether it's a commercial lender or a government or an individual who's making the investment, they have to understand that the value is going to be there down the road. Moving the needle on some of those other factors can really help shift the energy and shift the focus there.