You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
I was talking with my realtor a few days ago. He says the market is going really strong right now due to people wanting to close prior the lending rules changing in January. He expects it to cool off between Jan to March as the market will see how people react to the new lending rules. Plus Jan to March is typically the slowest time of the season. He does expect April to really pickup due to the low inventory levels of re-sales.
Can't believe Surrey is going for $800 /sf. 3 Civic Plaza was selling for about $500/sf back in 2014, and that was considered the highest for Whalley at the time.
I know TD and RBC are allowing the pre-approval to be held for 120 days prior to the introduction of the stress test, so that's my plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdf007
lol at these prices. Seems like the first time buyer is totally priced out even from one-bedrooms. I feel for the next generation.
yup this is basically me. once the stress test comes into affect january 1st, i'll be able to take out a smaller loan. I'm currently in the process of getting a pre-approval before the year ends and i'll have 4 months to look for a condo before i have absolutely no chance lol.
So had a rented property, wanting to move in there now. Served the guy notice (with the required time frame), guy goes to the tenancy board, they tell him he gets a free month.
Why the FUCK would he get a free month, meanwhile I can't live there and have to pay rent on my other property, or move twice cause he's a little bitch. Like seriously renting rights advocates need to shut the fuck up, I own the place, I should be allowed to do with it as I please, not have someone live there a month for free just because he doesn't feel like leaving.
Also for the next 6 weeks I have to be worried about what happens if he doesn't leave, and just starts squatting. Then I gotta go get an arbitration date, and even if it gets ruled in my favour I still need to get a sherrif to come take him out, and pay someone to move his things, and pay to store his stuff, etc. With no guarantee I will see another dime out of him. And he has 6 weeks to demolish the place.
I swear to god renting is a mistake, I see exactly why there is no rentals available. Having renters in your million+ dollar place is just a huge liability.
There needs to be a common sense balance between renters and landlords that, unfortunately, doesn't exist because extremists on both sides have fucked it up.
I swear to god renting is a mistake, I see exactly why there is no rentals available. Having renters in your million+ dollar place is just a huge liability.
I wouldn't say renting out your property isn't a mistake -- from helping my parents with their rental unit over the past 7 - 8 years, yes, I have seen my share of shxt and come across some not very good tenants, but my overall experience has still been generally positive. The 3 key points that I seem to notice are:
1) location
2) unit type
3) tenant screening
Both my parents and I share the same (stubborn?) belief that we wouldn't purchase a rental unit where we wouldn't live there ourselves, so the unit is located in a good neighbourhood in the first place. Personally, I find that particular trait alone will already attraction only certain types of the more desirable tenants. ie. When the rental unit is already in a middle class neighbourhood, it is less likely to attract unreliable, non-middle class tenants.
As far as unit type is concerned, we had a small 2 bedroom suite at first, and later switched to a bigger 2 bedroom suite. During our ownership, the small 2 bedroom unit primarily attracted young or small families (because that's the target audience of the suite), and in my experience, this type of tenant are far easier and more sensible to deal with. The bigger 2 bedroom suite attracted a more diverse crowd, and at times, some of that more diverse group is more troublesome to look after as tenants.
Last but certainly not least, and probably the single most important determining factor is -- the landlord really needs to screen the hell out of the potential tenants. In hindsight, I have learned to trust my gut feeling because it is generally correct. Nowadays, I'd rather leave the unit empty for a few months instead of settling for a shorter down time.
I fully understand that this approach is probably not going to maximize profits. But these guiding principles have certainly left me with far fewer headaches. At the end of the day, I value my time and a lack of PITA issues more than max monetary gains.
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Failed 929 Times in 340 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by meme405
So had a rented property, wanting to move in there now. Served the guy notice (with the required time frame), guy goes to the tenancy board, they tell him he gets a free month.
Why the FUCK would he get a free month, meanwhile I can't live there and have to pay rent on my other property, or move twice cause he's a little bitch. Like seriously renting rights advocates need to shut the fuck up, I own the place, I should be allowed to do with it as I please, not have someone live there a month for free just because he doesn't feel like leaving.
Also for the next 6 weeks I have to be worried about what happens if he doesn't leave, and just starts squatting. Then I gotta go get an arbitration date, and even if it gets ruled in my favour I still need to get a sherrif to come take him out, and pay someone to move his things, and pay to store his stuff, etc. With no guarantee I will see another dime out of him. And he has 6 weeks to demolish the place.
I swear to god renting is a mistake, I see exactly why there is no rentals available. Having renters in your million+ dollar place is just a huge liability.
your tenants is asshole that's all. Never had a problem with asking tenants to leave when my parents rented out their place. The thing is screening the correct tenants. I think you only need to give a month's notice? We usually give at least 2 months and nothing happens since we live upstairs so they can 't really trash the place like you said.
Depends on how asshole your tenants wants to be really. He can play the game and there is nothing you can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum
I wouldn't say renting out your property isn't a mistake -- from helping my parents with their rental unit over the past 7 - 8 years, yes, I have seen my share of shxt and come across some not very good tenants, but my overall experience has still been generally positive. The 3 key points that I seem to notice are:
1) location
2) unit type
3) tenant screening
Both my parents and I share the same (stubborn?) belief that we wouldn't purchase a rental unit where we wouldn't live there ourselves, so the unit is located in a good neighbourhood in the first place. Personally, I find that particular trait alone will already attraction only certain types of the more desirable tenants. ie. When the rental unit is already in a middle class neighbourhood, it is less likely to attract unreliable, non-middle class tenants.
As far as unit type is concerned, we had a small 2 bedroom suite at first, and later switched to a bigger 2 bedroom suite. During our ownership, the small 2 bedroom unit primarily attracted young or small families (because that's the target audience of the suite), and in my experience, this type of tenant are far easier and more sensible to deal with. The bigger 2 bedroom suite attracted a more diverse crowd, and at times, some of that more diverse group is more troublesome to look after as tenants.
Last but certainly not least, and probably the single most important determining factor is -- the landlord really needs to screen the hell out of the potential tenants. In hindsight, I have learned to trust my gut feeling because it is generally correct. Nowadays, I'd rather leave the unit empty for a few months instead of settling for a shorter down time.
I fully understand that this approach is probably not going to maximize profits. But these guiding principles have certainly left me with far fewer headaches. At the end of the day, I value my time and a lack of PITA issues more than max monetary gains.
Another tip is I find when posting ads on CL anything that's above $1000 will screen away a lot of bad tenants. I also always ask for reference and their work place with another agreement saying they fully allow me to check their credits. You can apply with a company online to screen credits but you must prof you are the landlord and the form the tenants fill out. On the form it have to state clearly is it no require and you did not force them to sign it.
I have had tenants who refuse to sign that form and or refuse to give reference. Their application goes straight to the trash. But most people are ok with filling them anyways. There are things you can find out right away the potential tenants. IE what car they drive, how do they dress, their manners, if they have kids how does the kids behave, they way the speak etc etc.....
One months rent is the rule is it not? Not sure why the guys a "bitch" for that, who wouldn't do that if it was owed to them? They are the ones who now have to go out in this shitty rental market and overpay for another place.
There's always the option to not play landlord if it's such a hardship.
So had a rented property, wanting to move in there now. Served the guy notice (with the required time frame), guy goes to the tenancy board, they tell him he gets a free month.
Why the FUCK would he get a free month, meanwhile I can't live there and have to pay rent on my other property, or move twice cause he's a little bitch. Like seriously renting rights advocates need to shut the fuck up, I own the place, I should be allowed to do with it as I please, not have someone live there a month for free just because he doesn't feel like leaving.
Also for the next 6 weeks I have to be worried about what happens if he doesn't leave, and just starts squatting. Then I gotta go get an arbitration date, and even if it gets ruled in my favour I still need to get a sherrif to come take him out, and pay someone to move his things, and pay to store his stuff, etc. With no guarantee I will see another dime out of him. And he has 6 weeks to demolish the place.
I swear to god renting is a mistake, I see exactly why there is no rentals available. Having renters in your million+ dollar place is just a huge liability.
TENANT COMPENSATION FOR LANDLORD'S USE OF PROPERTY
WHEN THE NOTICE IS CONSIDERED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE TENANT
INFORMATION FOR LANDLORDS
INFORMATION FOR BOTH LANDLORDS AND TENANTS • On or before the effective date of this Notice, the landlord must pay the tenant an amount equal to one month's rent payable under the
tenancy agreement.
• The tenant may withhold the last month's rent instead of being paid compensation.
• Compensation is not owed to tenants who receive this Notice because they do not qualify for the subsidized rental unit.
• If a tenant has already paid the last month's rent, the landlord must refund the rent as the compensation.
• If the landlord does not take steps toward the purpose for which this Notice was given or if the unit is not used for the stated purpose for at
least 6 months beginning within a reasonable period after the effective date of this Notice, the landlord or purchaser must pay the tenant an
additional amount equal to double the monthly rent paid under the tenancy agreement.
• A tenant who receives this Notice can give 10 days' written notice and move out early. The landlord must still pay the tenant one month's
rent as compensation.
Did you not read the fucking tenant-landlord agreement? Don't sign a lease if you're going to fucking move in before the lease is over. Think of it as a penalty for breaking the lease early. Just because you're the landlord doesn't mean you can do whatever the fuck you want with no penalties.
He's not an asshole, he's just a renter.
Some of my best tenants have known more about the tenancy act than most lawyers. It's in a renter's best interest to know his rights in BC, and take advantage of it. A free month for a guy who probably doesn't have a lot is a big deal.
That's why being a landlord is a tough way to make money. For every 4 good tenants I've had, there has been one bad one, and they're almost not worth the profit.
Why did you even let it go this far? I been in both shoes. Both parties know the rules and at the end of the day the landlord should have an open honest relationship with their tenants with ample notice.
Why did you even let it go this far? I been in both shoes. Both parties know the rules and at the end of the day the landlord should have an open honest relationship with their tenants with ample notice.
It's meme405 we're talking about here though.
He was probably all like... "Hey renter dickface, get out. You're not worth my fucken trouble since now I need a new home for my fucken hoes and my pimp ass ride, so get the fuck out you fucker! Go be a prick loser somewhere else asshole! Fuck, fuckity, fuckwad!"
Which is exactly the way I would have worded it too.
It looks like the City of Vancouver is serious about doing something about the homeless population. CoV is going to build modular housing in Marpole, despite the protests from Chinese homeowners in the neighbourhood who still are a key constituency in many neighbourhoods in the CoV. The next site proposed for this type of housing is a vacant lot across from 29th Avenue station which still remains home to a lot of old timer CBC families.
Considering that the majority of RS still considers Vancouver their home, how would you feel about modular housing being built in your neighbourhood?
Despite being a middle class neighbour, my area has always had a number of low income housing, coop housing, non-wealthy senior homes, etc. Some of the population is on social assistance, disability assistance, etc. In the past, I don't think there has been any actual homeless shelters, but there will soon be a some sort of new underprivileged women and/or children shelter in the neighbour.
IMO, when the percentage of a low income / underprivileged population is similar to their actual percentage in society, the situation is fairly managable. Problems only come up when their numbers become disportionately large, and then it becomes a burden that negatively affects the neighbourhood.
One potential problem I find is, I don't see any of the wealthy CoV communities taking on their share of these low income / underprivileged population, so other non-wealthy communities end up bearing more than their share of the population, and that becomes a burden.
Additionally, I seem to recall these modular homes are billed to be "temporary"? Personally, without a cohesive and region-wide or provincially backed solution to address the homeless / low income housing issue, these modular homes are going to be anything but temporary. In light of that, I'd much rather see something more permanent.
I don't know how I feel about this temporary modular housing and homelessness. I can understand there is displeasure for the Marpole location because it's practically at an Elementary and Highschool where kids are all day, which raises safety concerns for a parent. If I were a parent, I likely wouldn't even want my kids to go there. E.g. What if they stepped on a needle? Too many what ifs that haven't been addressed which why I can see parents are pissed when CoV shoving the go ahead with this project down their throats.
Cesspool of disease and drugs, etc. Refer to the pics of a homeless guy trashing a place in Toronto couple pages back. Wouldnt go near let alone having kids close by.
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Failed 929 Times in 340 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca
It looks like the City of Vancouver is serious about doing something about the homeless population. CoV is going to build modular housing in Marpole, despite the protests from Chinese homeowners in the neighbourhood who still are a key constituency in many neighbourhoods in the CoV. The next site proposed for this type of housing is a vacant lot across from 29th Avenue station which still remains home to a lot of old timer CBC families.
Considering that the majority of RS still considers Vancouver their home, how would you feel about modular housing being built in your neighbourhood?
Doesn't bother me as long as they clean themselves and are trying to get their life back on track. I see a lot of low income/homeless people who try very hard to make life work and turn away from drugs and they are some of the most friendly people I meet. On the other hand you have those that will never change. They will take drugs everyday, cause issues, very volience in nature and tend to be very messy and smelly. Is the 2nd group I have issues with. If you aren't going to try to get your life back on track maybe society should just leave you to your own fate.
The apartment I am in have some low income units and while you can tell by the looks or clothes I find them to be very friendly. I give them a smile say hi and discuss things here and there about the apartment. On the other hand there are those who are rich (most likely using daddy's and mommy's money) they act like they are above you, doesn't even want to talk to you at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traum
Despite being a middle class neighbour, my area has always had a number of low income housing, coop housing, non-wealthy senior homes, etc. Some of the population is on social assistance, disability assistance, etc. In the past, I don't think there has been any actual homeless shelters, but there will soon be a some sort of new underprivileged women and/or children shelter in the neighbour.
IMO, when the percentage of a low income / underprivileged population is similar to their actual percentage in society, the situation is fairly managable. Problems only come up when their numbers become disportionately large, and then it becomes a burden that negatively affects the neighbourhood.
One potential problem I find is, I don't see any of the wealthy CoV communities taking on their share of these low income / underprivileged population, so other non-wealthy communities end up bearing more than their share of the population, and that becomes a burden.
Additionally, I seem to recall these modular homes are billed to be "temporary"? Personally, without a cohesive and region-wide or provincially backed solution to address the homeless / low income housing issue, these modular homes are going to be anything but temporary. In light of that, I'd much rather see something more permanent.
The gov is never ever going to build these modular homes in a wealthy area. Is not just the backlash but these rich people have the means the challenge the gov. They are likely going to go to a court battle with the battle and hire lawyers to prevent such things being built near their homes. They have the $$$ so they can play the game. Not to mention the gov does receive donations from these wealthy people one way or another so you piss of them you get no donations.
The only reason moonbean is doing this is to try to win some votes. That's all. If he all about housing he would have done this years and years ago. Instead he wasted millions and millions on bike lanes for the rich and wealthy.
Not like if you built them in Shaunessy anyone would be in the country to oppose it
There is almost no land to build any sort of multi unit dwelling in my area, however, a while back there was a little blip in some letter about consultation over a renovation of an existing building to provide low income units, the amount being considered though was almost irrelevant, it was like 10 or something.
Nanaimo seems to separate the lower income/subsidized buildings from the north side residential areas of Hastings sunrise and I’ve never run into a problem once. There seems to be a tonne of subsidized native housing in this area and also down by Wall Street and Dundas and again, haven’t had any problems although I don’t frequent these areas I do walk them fairly often.
I kind of go back to the thought of, why do these types of people deserve to be seemingly handed a unit in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, but then the argument can go back to resources, community, and the chance to actually make something of yourself may be greater in Marpole etc than it would be in Whalley or chilliwack.
I think if they actually heavily enforced rules like no drug use, keep your unit clean/respectable, be aware of the community, etc etc. and you’re gone if you don’t, and the whole place is shut down if enough violations occur, people may hold each other more accountable.
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
A commonly cited argument that gets thrown around a lot is -- many of the homeless are also suffering from mental health issues, and thus they can't help themselves to keep their lives together. I know a few people and have worked with people with mental health issues. When they refuse to stay on top of their medications for whatever reason -- and sometimes the meds really make you feel quite awful or mentally slow -- they absolutely cannot be reasoned with in a conventional manner. And then what can society do? Kill them off to cleanse the pool? You can't blame them for not looking after themselves.
An article about the gentrification of Vancouver neighbourhoods and growing income inequality in the suburbs.
My take:
Yuppies/tech bros with an affinity for beards and craft beer are pushing out immigrant families in the City of Vancouver. Immigrants with wads of cash who work low wage jobs are buying properties in Burnaby and Richmond.
Absent in this article are stats on suburbs like New Westminster, Maple Ridge, Langley, and Port Coquitlam where middle class people live.
Quote:
The Globe and Mail
How income inequality is reshaping Metro Vancouver
An avalanche of money
KERRY GOLD
VANCOUVER
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 5 HOURS AGO
UPDATED DECEMBER 7, 2017
The maps are dramatic, and show a remarkable trend under way: A landslide of wealth is flowing eastward across Vancouver, pushing low-income groups to the fringes of the city and into the suburbs. Burnaby, Richmond and Surrey – places that used to symbolize a comfortable, middle class existence – now show the highest concentrations of low-income households.
It's what everybody in Metro Vancouver is already experiencing at some level. And now, we have the data to illustrate the transition, and a mother lode of maps and charts.
University of Toronto professor David Hulchanski, who is the principal investigator of the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, says the exhaustive research examined the past 45 years of Canadian neighbourhood incomes. Using census data, the team is releasing its Vancouver data here for the first time.
In terms of inequality, Vancouver joins the club with Calgary, Toronto and Montreal as cities where the gap between rich and poor is widening. As a result, major cities are transforming. Dr. Hulchanski spoke on the topic at Simon Fraser University last week, as part of the annual Warren Gill lecture series.
"It is a fact that, since the 1990s, for Canada, we are more unequal – the income gap is larger, and there is more polarization," Dr. Hulchanski said in an interview. Polarization is when there are more high income and low-income people, and fewer people in the middle.
"This research is simply now showing where it lives."
Dr. Hulchanski is a leader in research on how income disparities are reshaping Canada's metropolitan areas. His "Three Cities" report on Toronto had surprised that city when he found a mostly rich urban core, a shrinking middle class, and increasing poverty throughout many suburbs. Vancouver is following a similar pattern, but for different reasons. Unlike Toronto, Vancouver doesn't have the high-paying jobs to drive its economy. Instead, the city relies largely on an inflow of foreign money to fuel its real estate industry. That reliance has put communities at a disadvantage, widening the gap between the haves and have-nots. The Neighbourhood Change maps and graphs show that gap in full colour.
Vancouver's low-income communities have receded: in 2000, almost half, or 48 per cent, of neighbourhoods were low income, while today 26 per cent of the city falls into that category. Meanwhile, the wealthier communities have grown in number, to 33 per cent of the city from 25 per cent. Gentrification is well under way.
"The city's population is increasing, as this shows, and over time, low income neighbourhoods, low income people, are being pushed out of the City of Vancouver and into other places," says Dr. Hulchanski.
The research is based on census data from 1970 to 2015, as part of a long-term project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The Vancouver area has 460 census tracts, which were used by the team to map out household and individual incomes. A census tract typically represents about 5,000 people.
The data show that wealthy enclaves are creeping eastward across the city of Vancouver, with middle-class gentrification nibbling around the edges of the traditionally low-income inner city neighbourhoods, including the downtown eastside, Gastown, Chinatown, Strathcona, Grandview-Woodland and Mount Pleasant.
We are seeing profound implications at street level, such as massive tax hikes on small downtown businesses and skyrocketing apartment rents – a crisis for a city whose renters make up half the population. And we see long-time communities battling it out to survive amid rezonings for more density, and the redevelopment that follows. We see an increase in homelessness, and people who are living on the brink of homelessness, desperate for social housing.
"If you look at the city itself, you actually see that every inner city neighbourhood is trending upwards [in incomes], including the downtown eastside," says University of B.C. geography professor David Ley, an expert in immigration and housing markets. He heads up the Vancouver research team, and he focused on 35 years back to 1980, when the region started to rapidly change, with condos replacing rental apartments, and the first wave of wealthy Asian migrants started to move into the housing market.
Increased housing redevelopment has contributed to growing displacement.
"Because every time redevelopment occurs you get a substantial increase in the socio economic status of occupants … [market-rate] supply is only for high-income people. So, whenever redevelopment occurs, it means higher income people are occupying the space," says Dr. Ley. "Two things are happening: there is gentrification in the inner city, but then there's what I call 'capital deepening,' which is an area that is becoming richer."
West Vancouver and the west side of Vancouver, for example, are a sea of dark blue, the colour for "very high" individual incomes, those people who earn 140 to 463 per cent more than $46,821 – the average individual income throughout the census metropolitan area. Delta and White Rock have also made significant income gains.
North Vancouver has maintained a solid half/half mix of middle-income and high-income neighbourhoods over 35 years, with a negligible 3 per cent increase in low-income areas.
Dr. Ley says the trend of gentrification started around 1970, in Kitsilano and the West End, and has worked its way downtown, into Strathcona and the downtown eastside. Residents of traditionally low-income industrial areas are pushed outside the city.
Their relocation to elsewhere in the region, as well as the influx of new immigrants to the more affordable suburbs, has transformed Metro Vancouver.
And the suburbs are where the really dramatic changes are unfolding, Dr. Ley says.
"The suburbs today are far, far different from the 50s and 60s image of the white, middle-class homogenous suburb; the suburb of single-family dwellings and middle class people," he says. "Surrey has the largest number of low-income census tracts now."
He emphasizes that these are big picture trends. There are still low-income groups living throughout the downtown eastside, where they are connected to established social service providers. As well, there are many middle class neighbourhoods in Surrey. But the trends are remarkable.
Since 2000, Surrey's low-income communities have grown by 25 per cent; Burnaby's by 19 per cent; Richmond's by 20 per cent. Richmond, he says, could be an anomaly since there are multimillion-dollar homes in single-family tracts that could indicate under-reporting of global income. Census data is based on declared income, not wealth.
Dr. Ley also points to the finding that 37 per cent of neighbourhoods over all have declined in income, compared with the regional average. Clearly, this is not a demographic that can support expensive housing. "More have actually declined than have increased or have stayed stable."
The danger in such a trend is that a region with dramatic inequality leads to segregation, ghettoization and growing feelings of frustration and resentment. We've seen this scenario play out in European cities, and the social unrest that follows. Low-income people who rely on transit more than any other income group are being pushed further away from it, which makes day-to-day life more difficult. How can anyone get off on the right foot if it takes an hour and a half to get to work and back again?
As for solutions, it won't be easy at this late juncture. Dr. Ley says the government's ongoing position that rampant market rate development will address the crisis has worsened the situation.
"The wide-open supply argument has been thoroughly tested and it's been found wanting," he says. "The problem has simply been aggravated. I think now, finally, people are recognizing that supply is not a problem solver, but in fact a problem generator because it is pricing up land all the time."
As for the city's new housing strategy, which acknowledges that unabated development is not a solution, Dr. Ley says it's a start.
"I wish the city of Vancouver had held this position a decade ago. I cannot quite understand why what is obvious to most Vancouver residents has taken so long to become the policy position at city hall. Anyway, thank goodness it is now.
"I've been saying exactly what [planning director] Gil Kelley said, 'there is no silver bullet that is going to solve the problem.' The best we can do at this point is to mitigate, to try to make sure the problem doesn't get worse, and make what changes we can. And all three levels of government have to be involved in that.
"It may require some extraordinary thinking outside the box."
Did you not read the fucking tenant-landlord agreement? Don't sign a lease if you're going to fucking move in before the lease is over. Think of it as a penalty for breaking the lease early. Just because you're the landlord doesn't mean you can do whatever the fuck you want with no penalties.
He's been there like 3.5 years.
I'm not breaking the lease. He's been month to month for 2+ years.
RTB still said he gets 1 month free.
I gave 2 months notice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by originalhypa
He's not an asshole, he's just a renter.
Some of my best tenants have known more about the tenancy act than most lawyers. It's in a renter's best interest to know his rights in BC, and take advantage of it. A free month for a guy who probably doesn't have a lot is a big deal.
That's why being a landlord is a tough way to make money. For every 4 good tenants I've had, there has been one bad one, and they're almost not worth the profit.
Dude is paying $4500 a month, he sold a 17 million dollar house in Wvan before moving into my place. I offered him the option of buying the apartment off of us, but he doesn't want to tie up the money in it. At the same time he knows he won't find another 3 bedroom place like this for this price anywhere.
Dude doesn't want to leave, so I can already see the writing on the wall. I'm going to have issues with him.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
hell, even the homeless are getting a place to live in Vancouver 
