Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

In my experience, virtually all real estate developers are —. So, maybe they need to be threatened with a lawsuit to get them to do anything.

Unfortunately Micky Luv's post is typical... once you've signed, adios.

I don't think I'll ever buy a presale again. I would advise others to do the same.

I don't know if we're all —....lol. Presales have their pros and cons and I don't think you can judge them all the same. I think that if you are thinking about one, it's very important that you research who you are buying from and what their track record is like. Anyways.....

I think the problem with the OV and completion/possession revolves around the agreements between Millennium and the CoV. As most people know, the CoV never gave Millennium possession of the land to ensure that they could be held accountable for getting everything built on time, etc. My guess now is the CoV and Millennium are having disagreements on how the social housing aspect is being worked out/transfered, and the CoV is trying to play hardball. Of course by doing that they are — all the buyers who were promised to have possession before the HST kicked in.

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

I actually think Mickey has a better argument than any of the folks interviewed with the lawsuit.

I totally agree here. If documents were signed stating possession dates and those aren't being honoured that could be considered breach of contract.

As for Mickey's situation, here is my unsolicited advice. Mickey, get on the phone or go down to the sales office in person today (better). INSIST upon an addendum that clearly states you will be compensated / credited with the difference in tax costs if completion and delivery of your unit is not made prior to July 1. If there are other costs you will be bearing if the closing is delayed, factor those in as well. Be insistent and fair, but also insist you want to work out a reasonable agreement so you don't bare costs you were not supposed to have.

You were promised a unit before the tax kicked in, and your contract - even with the extension - states that delivery of the unit would be made to you prior to the HST kicking in.

Under shadow of the disgruntled buyer's existing lawsuit, the developer would be foolish not to agree to a reasonable request and make a reasonable accommodation in order to find a solution.

Definitely agree with this.

As for the unhappy lawsuit buyers, the story wreaks of cold feet. Virtually every new unit has some items which need to be addressed either just prior to closing (i.e., install of final appliances) or post-closing (deficiency items). Some deficiencies aren't even discovered until after move-in, which is why there exists a warranty period. For them to walk in and expect a "perfect" unit might be wonderful, but it's not typical anywhere at any price range . . . even with the most reliable of quality builders.

It is definitely cold feet from those buyers. For many reasons they may not want to complete, the recession could have hit them hard, they may consider the OV to be overvalued, lots of different things, but that's too bad. No one said buying presales didn't come with some risks. It's why it's cheaper (usually) to buy a presale.

As for the parking lot, I'd be extremely curious what the full story is on that. The article doesn't actually say it's going to be a parking lot forever, just that it is now. I certainly haven't heard of any "new" parking lots being created in that area. I suspect a certain degree of embellishment has been added to make the buyer's plight sound worse since the other claims fall a bit short at soliciting tremendous amounts of sympathy.

My guess is that one of the pocket parks in the development isn't completed yet (I know there is one that is currently still gravel). Or - as someone else suggested - a parcel of land not even on the development site isn't as pretty as they'd hoped it would be. Then again, I haven't heard of any changes to the park plans in SEFC so I'm not even sure that makes sense. It would be nice to hear the reporters press for a bit more detail on that aspect of their complaint. My bet is the current tale of woe over lost park views is a bit overstated.

I'm almost positive the park issue is on the east side of the site where the OV borders the Translink lands. While some real estate agents may have painted a pretty picture of what it will all be like when it's done, no developer would have guaranteed a park on land they don't own.