HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 2:22 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Vancouver Rental Market Discussion

As you all know, we enjoy a fabulous suite Downtown. We settled in after seeing 15 other properties and we think we have been having a pretty fair rent considering the size of the suite and the building we are in.

Now, unfortunately for us the previous owner had to sell the suite at the end year and the new owners have now taken possession. Fortunately they purchased the suite as an investment and have no plan of using it themselves. So they are planning to keep renting it out and they would love us to stay.

We would of course love to stay as well, however there is a limit to what we are ready to pay even for a suite as wonderful as this is. Now, we don't know how much the new owners will be asking as the new rent, but the rental agency that they have chosen to use has been talking about "going market price" which they think would be 25-40% more than what we are currently paying. I realize that the rental agency gets a piece of the rent and so wants to maximize it, but I seriously question this assessment based on what we know of the market and several other factors, but this is what they might be suggesting the new owners to ask.

We will see how that goes, but I am curious to know if there is any tenancy law or act in B.C. that protects from this kind of excessive rent increase? I am aware there being a law preventing increasing the rent year-over-year by only 2% (or so) during an ongoing tenancy, but how about when our current rental agreement is going to end and we need to be signing a brand new one with a new owner? Is there any protection against rent hike of 25-40% or is the rent purely up to what the landlord and tenant happen to agree on?

If nothing will protect us from such a rent hike, it might be that you won't be seeing more Downtown photos from above as we have to move elsewhere at the end of April. That will be a shame, but everyone has their max budget to follow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 3:00 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
If your old tenancy was for a predetermined amount of time and did not continute month to month afterwards then you're unfortunately screwed, as you will need to sign a new lease and they can dictate the terms. If the old contract had the box checked that the lease would continue month to month then they can only raise the rent at inflation+2% so ~4%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 3:01 AM
nds88 nds88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 217
Check your RTB-1 Rental Agreement, page 2 section 2 "Length of Tenancy"

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAs...B97CE2EDC11F85

It really depends how you filled this out.

2)a) You selected month-to-month. Then the new landlord can only raise the rates by the standard set out by the government. I think this is between 2-4%/year. The only way to get you out is serve you 2 month notice that a family member is moving in. Get you kicked out and put a new tenant in. If they don't actually put a family member in, then they face some consequences for lying if caught.

2)b)i) When your lease ends at the predetermined date, then there is the option of going month-to-month or another fixed time (I'm not sure which party gets to decide). This is the least certain clause for me (as a landlord), since I do not know if I must re-new the lease if the tenant wants, or what I am allowed to do with the rate. I interpret it as in the lease ends, then we renegotiate either month-to-month or a fixed lease at whatever rate I want. If the tenant agrees, then great. If they don't agree, then they move out.

One can also interpret it that if it converts to month to month, then the same lease terms remain and the landlord must abide by the max raise set out by the government. If it converts to another fixed lease, then the lease remains at the same terms for a repeat of the same time length. I am also not sure if it is the tenant who decides which route (m-t-m or fixed), or the landlord.

I never use this clause because I am not sure which interpretation is correct. If you checked this box, I would recommend checking what it really means with the Residential Tenancy Board

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...274E030254B3DD

2)b)ii) I always use this clause, because it is the most advantageous to me, as a landlord. I verbally tell the tenant at the start of the lease that I have no intention of having them move out at the end of the first lease. I let them know that if I am happy with them, then I will gladly enter a new lease when the first lease is up. But at the end of the day, this clause gives me ultimate power. I have freedom of raising the second lease with the same tenant to what ever rate I want. Also, if I decide to sell or things in my life change and I need them out, I know exactly what day I have the power to get them out. If you checked this box, then the landlord can raise the rate to whatever they want for the second lease. If you don't like it, then you are SOL since you initialed that box.

c) I assume you didn't check this clause.

Option 2)a) is most advantageous to tenants. They can stay as long as they want (assuming they pay on time and aren't destructive) and know that their rent can only change by a 2-4% amount each year.

Option 2)b)ii) is best for landlords. Since I pretty much have no recourse if a tenant leaves, a fixed time length doesn't add value to me anyways. Sure, I can try to sue (if they even have any money at all), but the cost/time of that isn't worth the few months they exit early by. What I like about this clause is that when the lease is up; I either kick them out if I don't like them or renew the lease at my terms. If they don't like it, I put someone else in. It's super clear and they can't argue with me about it.

So far I have picked really good tenants and have been merciful. If I do raise the rate after the first lease, it is usually within the 2-4% anyways just to keep up with strata fee increases.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 3:13 AM
a very long weekend's Avatar
a very long weekend a very long weekend is offline
dazzle me
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 94109
Posts: 824
edit: wow, good answer nds88.

i was curious about rent controls in vancouver, so i look a quick look.

unless i'm missing something related to the definition of tenancy in buildings built after a certain point, it seems pretty straightforward:

1) Length of the tenancy:
Fixed-term - A tenancy set for a specific period of time (e.g. a year, a month or a week). The tenancy cannot be ended earlier than the date fixed unless both parties agree in writing or are ordered by an arbitrator. A “move out” clause can be included requiring the tenant to move out on the date the agreement ends – both parties must have their initials next to this term in order for this to be enforceable. If the agreement doesn’t say what happens at the end of the term, the tenancy continues on a month-to-month basis and the tenant doesn’t have to move out or sign a new fixed-term agreement

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...y%20Agreements

2) Landlords can only increase the rent once a year by an amount permitted by law or an additional amount approved in advance by an arbitrator – they need to use the right form and give the tenant three full months’ notice of the rent increase.
The maximum allowable rent increase changes each year.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...nt%20Increases

so, at most, it sounds like you got your 3 months notice.

if you want to look at the act directly, your question should be answered by 13(2)(f) here, linked right from that page:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...vision_d2e1270

so basically, look carefully at your tenancy agreement and figure it out from there. if there's no mention of ownership change negating an agreement or the month-to-month transition (which reads that it should take effect with the end of the pre-determined lease period unless explicitly stated), then you should be good to go on the annual increase rather than the "market rate" that the leasing agent is throwing out there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 3:34 AM
nds88 nds88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by a very long weekend View Post

1) Length of the tenancy... If the agreement doesn’t say what happens at the end of the term, the tenancy continues on a month-to-month basis and the tenant doesn’t have to move out or sign a new fixed-term agreement

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...y%20Agreements

2) Landlords can only increase the rent once a year by an amount permitted by law or an additional amount approved in advance by an arbitrator – they need to use the right form and give the tenant three full months’ notice of the rent increase.
The maximum allowable rent increase changes each year.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...nt%20Increases
Thanks Long Weekend.

1) Now its more clear. M-t-M if the tenant chooses at the end of the lease if option 2)b)i) was selected in form RTB-1 (unless an addendum or note explicitly writes that a new lease is the first option)

Its still not Sun Tzu approved for a landlord, so this reinforces not using it.

2) I believe that this only applies to M-t-M agreements. If its signing a brand new second lease, there is freedom to choose the new rate. Bit of a loophole.

Also, it is not legal to have a clause that says new owners negate existing agreements. The new owners take over the tenancy and must honor the contracts in place.

So if Klazu does convert to M-t-M, he should be good with the 2-4% increase (I still recommend checking with a lawyer or the tenancy board)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 5:29 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Thank you for the quality replies, guys! Unfortunately our current rental agreement is type 2)b)ii) which gives the new landlord the power to have us move out or renew the lease under his/her terms.

Our old landlord was very upfront about the fact that he may need to sell the suite at the end of our current lease, which is why he mandated us selecting this option to give him the best position to try sell the suite. So we knew this would leave us hanging by the wire, but we had no option. Fortunately the suite was bought by people that want to rent it out and not live there themselves, so the only question is for what price.

I was looking to hear if there would be any rule about what would be considered "reasonable rent hike" upon new contract being signed, but as I was guessing, it seems to be totally up to the landlord. As mentioned, we don't at this point know whether they will consider hiking the rent 25-40%, but that seems to be what the rental agency is eager to be proposing to them. New owners living oversees, my worry is that they don't really know what the real going price is, as honestly the "market price" the rental agency is dreaming of is at the very top end of the scale.

I searched for similar suites in our building and the going rate seems to be only 0-10% higher than what we are currently paying. Granted, there is one place renting with that 40% premium, but that unit is furnished and based on the photos seems renovated with much more luxurious finishings. Our unit is in the original state (the building is 14 years old) and shows quite a bit of wear and tear when you look around, which we pointed out to the rental agent.

So it all depends on how greedy or reasonable our new landlord wants to be and how well they understand the local market rates being. I hope it will work to our benefit that the new landlord is renting our condos in several countries and has had bad experiences with bad tenants. We are extremely good and stable tenants, which they have been told by many parties, which I hope will make them want to keep us no matter what and be reasonable, but we will see.

If it ends up being a snafu, then we can always try rent one of the other units in the building. Thanks to my photos of the window exchange project and the building most of the residents actually know us and our previous landlord, our neighbors and the concierge love us. So there is the option to find something else in-house. Or then we have to find the next dream home elsewhere Downtown.

No matter what the case ends up being, if we have to move out of this unit, it will be a sad day, no matter what. Let's see what happens. Wish us luck!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 7:07 AM
nds88 nds88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 217
Moving is a pain, but at least you might be able to get a unit in the same building if you need to cross that bridge. Glad to hear you weren't blinded sided and the previous landlord was transparent with you.

Here's a few suggestions.

If you are confident that your current rent is at market level, then you can try calling them out on their mistake. Have them list it at the premium price now (as a test) to see what the market interest level is. Have them realize no one is going to rent it if it actually is over priced. Then swoop in and negotiate a fair renewal price (don't pick option 2)b)ii again).

If it is a hot unit and people are highly interested, then you at least know in advance that it wasn't meant to be for you. Then you have extra time to find a place instead of finding out last minute.

Compile a listing of rentals in the building and their rates. Get a few listings of comparable units near by. Show them their numbers are out of whack. Make it as easy as possible for them by doing the homework and putting a summary page together. Gather a few reference letters, employer letters and keep the unit in tip top shape to show you are the ideal tenant anyways. Perhaps your previous landlord will sign an outstanding reference letter (write it yourself and have them sign it - make it easy for them). Its always impressive when you have your s**t together.

Its a bit of work, but if you think it will tip the scale to your favor, then it may be worth your time.

Its probably not likely or ethical, but can you cut them a "referral" check for the commission they would get with the rent raise instead?

Good luck!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2015, 4:21 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Thank you, nds88. You have been a great help and I highly appreciaty your ideas!

The worst indeed ended up happening and our new landlord is looking to increase our rent by ridiculous 31,5%. That is completely out of whack and despite capable of still affording it, we will definitely NOT be paying extra five figures annually for the same walls - no matter how fantastic this apartment has been. There is just so much more that one can do with that money and it is crazy to even think about putting so much money into accommodation.

Being a skyscraper lover to the heart, I am still depressed by the news and so I have yet to build a case to show how out of touch with reality they are. I doubt it will change anything, but I will certainly do it. Meanwhile we have already started looking at other apartments.

As it will be very difficult to find anything even remotely similar, our plan is to look for something different instead. I am sure we will have to settle for a lower floor in the future, but having a big balcony or patio would be nice. There are some interesting views some buildings in this city do offer. We have a great budget to be working with, so the biggest problem will be availability of great suites.

Leaving Downtown is a BIG question on our mind, as living in Downtown is fantastic. Even going across the water to Kitsilano feels like a huge mental step to take and for example Granville Bridge is anything but a short walk across.

Other considerations are also places like Metrotown and North Vancouver, but in Metrotown one is tied to the busy Skytrain (which can still be fast, but is crowded). In North Vancouver the prices seem to be much more affordable and there are some great skyline views, but those bridges and the weather...

So it seems to be 95% likely that we will be on our way out at the end of April, but on the positive note at least there is some activity on the rental market. Not surprisingly there are also other landlords trying to ask ridiculous rents, like that one person thinking he can still charge $5500 for his tiny Shangri-La apartment that lost all its views because of Trump and 745 Thurlow. Oh, how delucional some people can be that just the building will sell it...

So the search is once again on and I would appreciate any comments on areas and buildings. Rewards from the best tip will be some nice photos in the future.

Last edited by Klazu; Feb 11, 2015 at 5:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2015, 5:00 AM
nds88 nds88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 217
Good luck with the search. Not what I was hoping to hear though.

The Olympic Village area is good and has some nice views. Lots of new stock being added with the completion of Central, Lido, Meccanica, Opsal, West etc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2015, 7:10 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
If you have gone past the lease end date and a new lease has not been signed then you are month to month regardless of what you ticked and the move out clause is null and void. In this case they can only increase your rent by the allowed amount and they cant evict you unless a family member is moving in. If your lease is expiring give the tenancy branch a call and ask for clarification and/or arbitration. If your lease is still valid then they cant change it or enforce the move out clause until it expires.

Don't let a property management company trick you, they are notorious for that. Also be careful regarding misinformation. Believe it or not there is nothing illegal about lying to you and getting you to sign a new lease, but it is very profitable and many people fall for it.

Last edited by cornholio; Feb 11, 2015 at 7:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2015, 7:25 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,107
Sorry to hear about that Klaus. I think you'd find Metrotown a bit of a culture shock if you are worried about Kits!

I have a question to those who seem knowledgable about leases, isn't Klaus' signed contract with the original owner, and not any new owner?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2015, 1:15 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
The weather on Lonsdale, especially Lower Lonsdale, is not any different than downtown. It's the higher up areas, in the valleys to the sides (Capilano and Lynn/Seymour) that get huge dumpings of rain when the rest of Vancouver doesn't. I absolutely hated living near upper Mosquito Creek as a kid for this reason, whereas I am pleasantly surprised by LoLo's weather.

Although I won't defend the bridges and will say it is a bit of a different culture. People on the north shore generally wouldn't live downtown even if they could afford it, which of course they often can.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 2:04 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
If you have gone past the lease end date and a new lease has not been signed then you are month to month regardless of what you ticked and the move out clause is null and void. In this case they can only increase your rent by the allowed amount and they cant evict you unless a family member is moving in. If your lease is expiring give the tenancy branch a call and ask for clarification and/or arbitration. If your lease is still valid then they cant change it or enforce the move out clause until it expires.

Don't let a property management company trick you, they are notorious for that. Also be careful regarding misinformation. Believe it or not there is nothing illegal about lying to you and getting you to sign a new lease, but it is very profitable and many people fall for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
I have a question to those who seem knowledgable about leases, isn't Klaus' signed contract with the original owner, and not any new owner?
Thanks for these, but it is pretty clear case with our current rental agreement. It was knowingly set to end this April under our previous landlord. When the new owners took possession of the suite, we had papers moved to them under the same conditions (still ending in April). They did notify us exactly three months ahead of this that the lease is ending, but it can be renewed if agreeing to rent increase of 31,5%. So it has been done according to the book and unfortunately there is no way out of that.

But you are completely correct that these rental agencies are not to be trusted one bit. I have been inquiring other units in this building and I had one rental agency telling me how this one unit in this building has been tremendously successfully rented out almost constantly during the past 8 years they have been managing it. I asked about it from the concierge and their records show the unit having been empty for at least half of the time. In my latest email to them I called their BS, but I do not expect them to be admitting it or feeling one bit sorry for it.

It's actually a pretty funny unit. It is located around the same level in the building, but faces the least-desirable direction and has carpet in all rooms. Even then they are asking 54% more than we have been paying for a much more desirable one.

With that it is no wonder why the unit has sat empty half of the time. It's just pretty interesting think how stupid the landlord needs to be to continue making a loss years after year just because being so damn greedy. I suppose they pray on tenants utilizing the "Fool them once, shame on them..." philosophy...

We have spent so much time watching the market that we know the reasonable rent level. That's why I am still to make my case to our new landlord which I think has been BS'ed by the new rental agency to think their unit is worth much more than it really is. I don't know if a voice of reason will be of any help, but I will still do it when I just get the chance and have all these details.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 4:48 AM
b5baxter b5baxter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Thanks for these, but it is pretty clear case with our current rental agreement. ...
Are you sure?

It the agreement just says that the lease ends in April then the landlord can NOT increase the rent by that amount.

The only way that they can increase the rent by that amount if the lease explicity states that you MUST MOVE OUT in April. You and the landlord must initial extra boxes on the rental agreement to show that it is a fix term tenancy that ends and that you are moving out.

It doesn't sound like this is the type of agreement you signed. So the rental increase is illegal. I don't think you should let them get away with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 5:34 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Thanks b5baxter, but unfortunately this was already concluded back in January and the "must move out" clause is there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Thank you for the quality replies, guys! Unfortunately our current rental agreement is type 2)b)ii) which gives the new landlord the power to have us move out or renew the lease under his/her terms.

Our old landlord was very upfront about the fact that he may need to sell the suite at the end of our current lease, which is why he mandated us selecting this option to give him the best position to try sell the suite. So we knew this would leave us hanging by the wire, but we had no option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 7:14 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Thanks b5baxter, but unfortunately this was already concluded back in January and the "must move out" clause is there.
You should still call the tenancy branch. You may be surprised. Don't assume anything. You can not circumnavigate the act. You may be able to have the move out clause invalidated if they intend to continue renting out the unit but for more money then is allowable. The act specifically is meant to prevent these sorts of scenarios. Move out clauses are not meant to be a way to be able to force illegal rent increases. Also make sure you very clearly articulate all the facts, especially that they told you that you can stay at a 40% rent increase and that they will continue to rent the unit.

Ultimately all that matters is what the RTB tells you.

Residential Tenancy Branch General Information:
Public Information Lines:
604-660-1020
250-387-1602
1-800-665-8779 (Toll free from anywhere in BC)

Their office is on Kings Way in Burnaby just east of Metrotown.

Good luck. Act fast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2015, 10:01 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
You should still call the tenancy branch. You may be surprised. Don't assume anything. You can not circumnavigate the act. You may be able to have the move out clause invalidated if they intend to continue renting out the unit but for more money then is allowable. The act specifically is meant to prevent these sorts of scenarios. Move out clauses are not meant to be a way to be able to force illegal rent increases. Also make sure you very clearly articulate all the facts, especially that they told you that you can stay at a 40% rent increase and that they will continue to rent the unit.

Ultimately all that matters is what the RTB tells you.
Thanks cornholio for giving some faint hope, but I did call the RTB and they are saying the case is clear when the move out clause is there. The current lease will end at the said date and a new one needs to be signed. At that point the landlord is not constrained by the old lease in any way and may set whatever price he wants and thinks he can get. Having the landlord change during the ongoing lease does not change the situation in any way.

I also asked if there is anything protecting BC tenants against overseas investors coming in purchasing rental properties and hiking up rents when a lease is up. Unfortunately there is nothing protecting the current tenant (or the future tenant) if the move out clause is there.

I think the only option left is to try to reason with our new landlord, but I think his greedy expectations are just way off with the reality to reach any kind of conclusion. He will have to learn the reality the hard way after having his unit maybe 30-50% of the time empty instead of 100% steady income. Unfortunately this won't help us.

We have already started seeing other units, but boy it is hard to find anything similar! Layouts in most of the new buildings are just horrible. Even 1200 sqf is not much and does not equal to spacious rooms. It seems to be that only 1400 sqf and above will begin to feel spacious and those suites are not many in Downtown.

I realize that we are moving out of an almost 1600 sqf suite, so it will be challenging to fit a large king size bed, 8-seat dining table and two large couches in many tower condos and still have room to move around...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2015, 1:03 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Thanks cornholio for giving some faint hope, but I did call the RTB and they are saying the case is clear when the move out clause is there. The current lease will end at the said date and a new one needs to be signed. At that point the landlord is not constrained by the old lease in any way and may set whatever price he wants and thinks he can get. Having the landlord change during the ongoing lease does not change the situation in any way.

I also asked if there is anything protecting BC tenants against overseas investors coming in purchasing rental properties and hiking up rents when a lease is up. Unfortunately there is nothing protecting the current tenant (or the future tenant) if the move out clause is there.

I think the only option left is to try to reason with our new landlord, but I think his greedy expectations are just way off with the reality to reach any kind of conclusion. He will have to learn the reality the hard way after having his unit maybe 30-50% of the time empty instead of 100% steady income. Unfortunately this won't help us.

We have already started seeing other units, but boy it is hard to find anything similar! Layouts in most of the new buildings are just horrible. Even 1200 sqf is not much and does not equal to spacious rooms. It seems to be that only 1400 sqf and above will begin to feel spacious and those suites are not many in Downtown.

I realize that we are moving out of an almost 1600 sqf suite, so it will be challenging to fit a large king size bed, 8-seat dining table and two large couches in many tower condos and still have room to move around...
Interesting. Well if you are the type send Global / CBC etc. a email with your story. They absolutely love stuff like this. By shining the public eye on such a horrible loophole hopefully it will be quickly closed. There is nothing wrong with a move out clause, there is a shit load wrong with using it as a way to circumnavigate the maximum legal rent increases and only hurts the livability of the city. There is a reason we have tenancy laws, housings costs represent a large share of peoples income and moving causes huge disruptions to peoples lives.

To get you started:

http://www.vancouversun.com/about-va...editorial.html

Global BC
globalbcviewercommentsmbx@globalnews.ca
604-420-2288


http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/about/contact/

http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/h.../news/10725415

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/contact-us

Also make sure you fire off the same email to your MLA (Mary McNeil?) and MP (Hedy Fry).

Go big or go home. You will do everyone a favor. Just write up a email template and fire it off to all the news outlets. The various journalists/reporters will contact you and certainly do a story. Do this before you move out. Maybe you will have a higher up from RTB contact you again. Dont forget to throw the management company under the bus as well, along with the abuse of this loophole. Don't sleep before any interview so you look stressed and tired. But dress smart to gain sympathy. Good luck. Have fun. *If its a foreign buyer make sure you include this information, this is perfect bait for everyone to jump on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2015, 1:10 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Well c'mon let's get serious, the public doesn't feel much sympathy for someone who can afford a 1,600sq foot unit at Wall Centre. Klazu is an awesome poster (and most likely awesome person) and deserves sympathy but news channels would rather have a story about some schmuck from a middle class area getting kicked out by a 1%er.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2015, 1:32 AM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,675
Yeah, it's an unfortunate situation for Klazu, but this case doesn't really represent the type of tenancy hardship that the media would care to pick up on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:56 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.