Downtown Eastside - DTES Issues

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by scryer

Rude of me to laugh at this but: lol.

It's very funny.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Oh, I'm sure they paid at least $500k per unit.

Ron.

That would be a rip off to the Sahotas......the City is supposedly going to spend $1m per unit on average at a social housing building in Coal Harbour. The city would be getting a phenomenal "deal" at $500k per unit

[nds88]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You... like the Sahotas?

I don't like how they do business....but that is irrelevant to someone's property rights. There is no market deal in Vancouver's recent history where a property has been valued at $1. This would have set a disturbing precedent.....in my eye's it already has given that the council voted in favour of it, but luckily it was not sealed in the courts. Taking someone's property because they're a dick and you want their property to house the homeless is not an appropriate use of expropriate in my opinion.

If they had received legitimate offers of $25 million, then at a minimum if the city expropriated the properties, then the Sahotas should receive $25 million with a substantial premium.....it should also be tax free so they can re-invest it back in to real estate or some other asset that would be taxed under cap gains and the cap gains will be charged whenever that asset they transferred into is sold at their choosing.

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by nds88

That would be a rip off to the Sahotas......the City is supposedly going to spend $1m per unit on average at a social housing building in Coal Harbour. The city would be getting a phenomenal "deal" at $500k per unit

In that case, the per unit cost is similar. The City's staff report for the social housing cites a total cost of $36.5m for the 60 social housing units. Works out to about $600k per unit.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

In that case, the per unit cost is similar. The City's staff report for the social housing cites a total cost of $36.5m for the 60 social housing units. Works out to about $600k per unit.

It's a completely one sided sham in the City's favour. They have all the power. First they implement the SRO restrictions to cap rents and prevent redevelopment. That significantly impacts the owner's ability to run their business and depresses the value of their property. There's no other sane option from an economic perspective but for the property to go into disrepair and eventually into an uninhabitable state and occupants are evicted due to safety. The City then votes to expropriate, and not just expropriate at full use value, but to try and snake it for a $1. Kicker, while property empty owners had to pay empty home tax on the BC assessed value. Once the property is in City hands, they will then make an excuse about amending the zoning to tear it down and build something bigger and better, significantly pumping up the land value. This is banana republic level of shenanigans.

This is like if a buyer went to one of my properties and said the assessed value of the land is $995,000 and the building is $5,000.....so the buildings needs to be fully renovated or torn down to rebuilt. Oh it will cost me $1.1m to tear this down and rebuild a new home, which is more than the $1m assessed, therefore I will pay you $1 for everything.

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by nds88

It's a completely one sided sham in the City's favour. They have all the power. First they implement the SRO restrictions to cap rents and prevent redevelopment. That significantly impacts the owner's ability to run their business and depresses the value of their property. There's no other sane option from an economic perspective but for the property to go into disrepair and eventually into an uninhabitable state and occupants are evicted due to safety. The City then votes to expropriate, and not just expropriate at full use value, but to try and snake it for a $1. Kicker, while property empty owners had to pay empty home tax on the BC assessed value. Once the property is in City hands, they will then make an excuse about amending the zoning to tear it down and build something bigger and better, significantly pumping up the land value. This is banana republic level of shenanigans.

This is like if a buyer went to one of my properties and said the assessed value of the land is $995,000 and the building is $5,000.....so the buildings needs to be fully renovated or torn down to rebuilt. Oh it will cost me $1.1m to tear this down and rebuild a new home, which is more than the $1m assessed, therefore I will pay you $1 for everything.

I wasn't commenting on the Balmoral, Regent, Sahotas or the City specifically. Just pointing out that the Coal Harbour project cost is not $1 million per unit. If you want to beef with the City, then go do that.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

I wasn't commenting on the Balmoral, Regent, Sahotas or the City specifically. Just pointing out that the Coal Harbour project cost is not $1 million per unit. If you want to beef with the City, then go do that.

Accidentally quoted you on that reply.

But relevant to your comment, the $1m is in when you account for the land value too.

From Daily Hive "The social housing component cost of $36.5 million provides the project with an average construction cost of $608,000 per social housing unit. When the assessed land value of $25.42 million is accounted for, the average social housing unit cost increases to $1.03 million. "

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by nds88

Accidentally quoted you on that reply.

But relevant to your comment, the $1m is in when you account for the land value too.

From Daily Hive "The social housing component cost of $36.5 million provides the project with an average construction cost of $608,000 per social housing unit. When the assessed land value of $25.42 million is accounted for, the average social housing unit cost increases to $1.03 million. "

All good

Philosophically we could probably debate the land cost and whether or how to count it for some time. I'm assuming the Coal Harbour parcel was dedicated as part of public benefits back in the day but am not hunting down those reports!

[nds88]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

All good

Philosophically we could probably debate the land cost and whether or how to count it for some time. I'm assuming the Coal Harbour parcel was dedicated as part of public benefits back in the day but am not hunting down those reports!

It can be thought of an opportunity cost, since the land could be sold at the equiv of 400k per unit. However, it's not 400k out of the bank account.

Whether its 600k or 1m per unit, or somewhere in between, I think most people would agree that is an insane amount and terrible optics to the taxpayers. Back a decade ago I bought a presale 1br 520 sf near downtown for $300k....that was land + construction + profit for the developer.....now the construction cost alone for this project is $600k.

[Vin]

The most insane thing is that the most productive and hardworking residents of the Lower Mainland are not rewarded with anything but instead constantly bombarded with increasingly challenging barriers to jump over, whereas the least productive and even destructive ones in society can be given a lot more than they deserve, without a set of enforced rules to make them become better citizens. This becomes an even greater joke when there are actually way cheaper options to assist them, but authorities usually just take the easy way out by forcing the productive citizens to pay for it.

[djh]

I think we all need to remember that no matter where housing is built for the less-privileged members of society, people will *always* have a problem with it. Justifiable complaints perhaps, but nonetheless, there is no perfect place to build this housing. Consider this:

- Low-income Housing built in the wealthy parts of the city: "Why is the city wasting taxpayers money building there? Why don't they build in a cheaper place and get more housing for the same money?!" --> valid point, but...

- Low-income Housing built in the cheapest parts of the city: "Why is the city building a slum?! You're sticking all the poor people in one place! It will make that place a crime haven! Drugs and prostitution and violence!!" --> seems reasonable, but...

- Low-income Housing built in the middle income parts of the city: "Why is the city putting all these poor people in my neighbourhood? They'll bring down the value of my house, and make the area unsafe! Think of the increase in break-ins! Think of the children! Drugs everywhere! Not in MY back yard!" --> hmm

So what to do?

- No low-income housing built: "Why does the city not care about the homeless!?!?"

[Vin]

Originally Posted by djh

I think we all need to remember that no matter where housing is built for the less-privileged members of society, people will *always* have a problem with it. Justifiable complaints perhaps, but nonetheless, there is no perfect place to build this housing. Consider this:

- Low-income Housing built in the wealthy parts of the city: "Why is the city wasting taxpayers money building there? Why don't they build in a cheaper place and get more housing for the same money?!" --> valid point, but...

- Low-income Housing built in the cheapest parts of the city: "Why is the city building a slum?! You're sticking all the poor people in one place! It will make that place a crime haven! Drugs and prostitution and violence!!" --> seems reasonable, but...

- Low-income Housing built in the middle income parts of the city: "Why is the city putting all these poor people in my neighbourhood? They'll bring down the value of my house, and make the area unsafe! Think of the increase in break-ins! Think of the children! Drugs everywhere! Not in MY back yard!" --> hmm

So what to do?

- No low-income housing built: "Why does the city not care about the homeless!?!?"

What about all of them?

[jlousa]

I've been pushing for a few years to let the private sector build the housing. Every highrise ends up with some units that the layout is less then ideal, they could be sold to a government backed entity to run as social housing for a lot cheaper then the government itself can have anything built. This way you'd end up with a few units everywhere.

[djh]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I've been pushing for a few years to let the private sector build the housing. Every highrise ends up with some units that the layout is less then ideal, they could be sold to a government backed entity to run as social housing for a lot cheaper then the government itself can have anything built. This way you'd end up with a few units everywhere.

^ This makes so much sense.

When I lived at XL there was a government-led programme subsidised costs to put artists in decent buildings like that. It wasn't clear if they outright bought the unit, covered rent for a period. But the goal was to help change the social fabric of neighbourhoods by inserting diverse people who were adding value to society (in this case they worked with up-and-coming artists) and helping them to live and work in neighbourhoods that they might not be able to get into otherwise. I think part of the deal was that they had to provide some art for the building, or do a show or something. But it lead to a different balance in the building.

Every building in every neighbourhood should have a mix of people to add diversity to an area. One type of any group is just the start of an enclave, where others feel unsafe or unwelcome. I'd love to see the difficult-to-sell units in a building get bought by levels of government and used to bring new types of people to an area.

I'd go further and say that a similar approach could be used on commercial retail units. Instead of kicking out Mom & Pop retailers before a reno/rebuild, wouldn't it be good if a deal could be arranged to offer a similar-sized space to the old businesses once the new build goes in, but at a subsidised rate. They still pay whatever they did before, for the same square footage, but any extra space they take comes at a higher price/market rates. This would encourage small shops to return to new developments and take those tiny CRUs that are awkward shapes and harder to rent, but then a chain can still come along and take the main large retail spaces.

[logan5]

One of the goals of the DTES local area plan was to decentralize poverty and addiction and bring more balance. The opposite actually seems to be happening as most developments are social housing. Some of that balance was well underway in Chinatown, but the City put a stop to development in Chinatown, undermining all the years of work (and tax payer dollars) that went into creating the DTES plan.

I believe the plan would work if they actually followed it, but at this point I have run out of patience. We need to accelerate things by giving developers more incentives to build. We can still keep the social housing aspect, but maybe throw in more market rentals, allow more density and height.

The Woodward was transformative for that stretch of Hastings that it sits on. That's what we need to be doing on other blocks of Hastings (Oppenheimer Park too) on the sites that are available. That would mean building tall, in order to preserve the historic buildings while at the same time bringing in enough new residents to affect change.

Instead, the City has continued to let our most historic neighbourhood rot. It's dereliction of duty at a criminal level.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by nds88

That would be a rip off to the Sahotas......the City is supposedly going to spend $1m per unit on average at a social housing building in Coal Harbour. The city would be getting a phenomenal "deal" at $500k per unit

No need to worry for the poor Sahotas. Apaprently the shrewd negotiators at the city turned a $1 expropriation into paying 70% over assessed value for the Balmoral and Regent.

Vancouver Paid $11.5 Million for Condemned Regent and Balmoral Hotels
EXCLUSIVE: The city had agreed to a demand from the former owners, the Sahota family, to keep the sale price secret.
-Jen St. Denis

Vancouver paid the former owners of the notorious Regent and Balmoral hotels $11.5 million for the properties, according to a source with knowledge of the transaction.

The city has refused to release the cost of the deal, saying it had agreed to the Sahota family’s demand for secrecy in order to speed up the sale process.

The two East Hastings properties are assessed at a total of $6.7 million.

The sale ended years of wrangling over the two Downtown Eastside single-room occupancy hotels. After years of city bylaw violations and tenant complaints, the city had condemned the Balmoral in 2017 and the Regent in 2018....

https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/12/15/Vancouver-Regent-Balmoral-Hotel-Cost/

[whatnext]

An article in the Sun this week over the costs to private businesses to try and control the DTES chaos. The city has definitely failed them in this regard.

Vancouver faces both a humanitarian and existential crisis
-Analysis: Vancouver’s core is at risk of becoming like New York City’s in the 1970s — a place abandoned by everyone except for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged who have nowhere else to go
Author of the article: Daphne Bramham
Publishing date: Dec 29, 2020

The unholy trinity of homelessness, addiction and untreated mental illness on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside has created a humanitarian crisis.

But it also poses an economic and existential threat, with vandalism, graffiti, break-ins, open drug use and overdoses pushing it to a tipping point.

Security costs are through the roof at commercial, retail and office buildings. So too are the almost-daily costs of repairing damage and cleaning up garbage and even feces from building entrances.

The Downtown Eastside has gone from an interesting — albeit gritty — place to work and do business to one that is increasingly dangerous and expensive....

The jump in operating costs is extraordinary. In one building alone, costs have risen 3,200 per cent since 2016, according to an analysis by landlords with buildings in the Downtown Eastside. Yes, you read that right — a 33-fold increase....

....For building owners and tenants, the costs just keep rising.

The quadruple-digit increase is the worst case in the analysis. It went from having no security costs in 2015 to $216,534 in 2019.

Window replacement costs nearly doubled in five years. Repairs caused by graffiti, vandalism or needed for improved security more than quadrupled.

For tenants, that meant rents rose to $2.91 per square foot from 39 cents. For the smallest tenant, it added an extra $3,270 a year. For the largest, it meant $55,000.

Other buildings have also had substantial increases — 810 per cent in one building, for example, and 300 per cent at another — with tenants’ costs increasing from between $730 to $11,330 a year......

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/daphne-...th-a-humanitarian-and-existential-crisis

[whatnext]

Murderer found hanging out at Strathcona Park. I thought we were told the park was being cleared?

Two arrested in fatal attack on Vancouver senior
BY KATHRYN TINDALE
Posted Feb 3, 2021

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – Two men have been arrested for the fatal attack of a 78-year-old woman in her home near Queen Elizabeth Park.

Vancouver police believe the men were able to enter Usha Singh’s home on around 6 a.m. Sunday because they were dressed as officers. Singh was taken to hospital with “grave injuries” and died Tuesday....

....A 47-year-old man – who was wanted Canada-wide for unrelated offences – was arrested near Strathcona Park Tuesday.

Addison says when police tried to use the warrant to arrest the man in Strathcona Park, where he is believed to be a resident, officers were met by a “volatile and hostile” crowd and more officers were called in.

The man was hurt during the arrest, which involved a police dog, and taken to hospital before he went to jail. The Independent Investigations Office was informed.

Later that evening, a 41-year-old man was arrested near Main Street and Terminal Avenue....

https://www.citynews1130.com/2021/02/03/two-arrested-in-fatal-attack-on-vancouver-senior/

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Murderer found hanging out at Strathcona Park. I thought we were told the park was being cleared?

Two arrested in fatal attack on Vancouver senior
BY KATHRYN TINDALE
Posted Feb 3, 2021

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – Two men have been arrested for the fatal attack of a 78-year-old woman in her home near Queen Elizabeth Park.

Vancouver police believe the men were able to enter Usha Singh’s home on around 6 a.m. Sunday because they were dressed as officers. Singh was taken to hospital with “grave injuries” and died Tuesday....

....A 47-year-old man – who was wanted Canada-wide for unrelated offences – was arrested near Strathcona Park Tuesday.

Addison says when police tried to use the warrant to arrest the man in Strathcona Park, where he is believed to be a resident, officers were met by a “volatile and hostile” crowd and more officers were called in.

The man was hurt during the arrest, which involved a police dog, and taken to hospital before he went to jail. The Independent Investigations Office was informed.

Later that evening, a 41-year-old man was arrested near Main Street and Terminal Avenue....

https://www.citynews1130.com/2021/02/03/two-arrested-in-fatal-attack-on-vancouver-senior/

I'm dying to know how the police were able to connect the dots and figure out it was these two particular guys.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Murderer found hanging out at Strathcona Park. I thought we were told the park was being cleared?

In April. It can't happen soon enough.