Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[donk.]

Originally Posted by winson604

In my experience it has been standard. This is the 5th spot my wife had rented downtown in a condo from a resident for work and every person has always asked for a security deposit.

A security deposit for a parking stall?!???!
I'm on my 4th stall, only one person asked me to sign a "contract", and he was one paranoid weirdo.
No deposits otherwise.

If they don't have an actual reason to keep your deposit, it might be time to "spill" a gallon of oil on your old stall

[winson604]

Originally Posted by donk.

A security deposit for a parking stall?!???!
I'm on my 4th stall, only one person asked me to sign a "contract", and he was one paranoid weirdo.
No deposits otherwise.

If they don't have an actual reason to keep your deposit, it might be time to "spill" a gallon of oil on your old stall

Ha yea the deposit has always been for the for like whatever it would have costed to replace the fob if lost or broken. Generally hasn't been a big deal until now where they're refusing to return it making up reasons as they go.

[SumAznGuy]

It's definitely NOT an RTB matter.
You'll have to take it to small claims court to try to get your security deposit back.

[Mikoyan]

If strata there explicitly doesn't allow renting to non residents, nuclear option is reporting to the strata council that they're doing it.

Have to be careful who you report it to. In our building downtown, it turned out the security/concierge staff were the ones running the parking spot rentals.

[Scotsman]

Well that was fast...

CHOA = Condominium Home Owner's Association of BC

https://choa.bc.ca/whats-happening/

You can find their news release on the Nov 25 link.

With the passing of BILL 44 –Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 strata
corporations across BC will no longer be able to enforce bylaws that prohibit or restrict rentals. Effectively
immediately, all rental bylaws are no longer enforceable.

Only age restriction bylaws of 55 and over that apply to occupancy are now enforceable with a
requirement to accommodate live in care givers or support persons.

This will be interesting to watch how this takes shape with investors now wanting to buy those previously undesirable no-rental strata units.

You'll have some no-rental strata owners finally able to rent their place out (intent of this new bill).

Then you have some no-rental strata owners' greatest fears come true, to share space with renters and to have investor owners who won't want to vote for strata upkeep.

[68style]

I never understood those stupid age restricted communities either... if that isn't Karen living large I don't know what is.

[Badhobz]

What if you really really hate children but really really like geriatric sex ? That’s the best thing about these 55+ communities. I heard in these Florida retirement homes, stds/stis are rampant. Ethel was a prude for most of her life, now she takes it up the ass from Mr magoo 2x a week while flirting with other 500 club members over 5pm dinners.

[68style]

Haha well you can’t get pregnant anymore so bareback that shit all dayyyyy! Woooo!

[winson604]

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

It's definitely NOT an RTB matter.
You'll have to take it to small claims court to try to get your security deposit back.

I called and as expected it isn't which was obvious but now I can further call BS. This will be a hard fight but I'm pretty determined right now. The building definitely doesn't allow renting of spots to non residents no less too but nit sure I want to burn that bridge yet as my wife is still renting there but from someone else. If they decide to start enforcing it may end up affecting her.

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by 68style

I never understood those stupid age restricted communities either... if that isn't Karen living large I don't know what is.

Seems odd they kept these age restricted buildings. Not sure why that's allowed.

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by winson604

I called and as expected it isn't which was obvious but now I can further call BS. This will be a hard fight but I'm pretty determined right now. The building definitely doesn't allow renting of spots to non residents no less too but nit sure I want to burn that bridge yet as my wife is still renting there but from someone else. If they decide to start enforcing it may end up affecting her.

For sure.

I mean if it isn't a lot of money, prolly easier to let it go.

Good luck with it.

[Great68]

Keeping the 55+ restriction is to keep a segment of sub-market housing available for lower income seniors/pensioners.

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by Great68

Keeping the 55+ restriction is to keep a segment of sub-market housing available for lower income seniors/pensioners.

Oh, okay. that makes sense. I guess at that age, they can be quite vulnerable.

[68style]

That does make sense thank you!

[The Producer]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Well that was fast...

CHOA = Condominium Home Owner's Association of BC

https://choa.bc.ca/whats-happening/

You can find their news release on the Nov 25 link.

With the passing of BILL 44 –Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 strata
corporations across BC will no longer be able to enforce bylaws that prohibit or restrict rentals. Effectively
immediately, all rental bylaws are no longer enforceable.

Only age restriction bylaws of 55 and over that apply to occupancy are now enforceable with a
requirement to accommodate live in care givers or support persons.

This will be interesting to watch how this takes shape with investors now wanting to buy those previously undesirable no-rental strata units.

You'll have some no-rental strata owners finally able to rent their place out (intent of this new bill).

Then you have some no-rental strata owners' greatest fears come true, to share space with renters and to have investor owners who won't want to vote for strata upkeep.

we talked about this a couple of pages ago

this affects us - we live in a 90% non rental building (strata laws did allow for 10% of ~80 units to be rented on a 5ish year waitlist)

I still can't really figure out what this has to do with helping the housing market. Our building is 100% occupied - this really doesn't put any more units into the market.

Even if I rent out my unit - I have to live somewhere. What's the difference?

This just seems like a windfall for investment owners. Why would we want to help this group?

Potential owner occupiers who looked for both a quieter lifestyle, and a possible purchase discount will get blown away in multiple offers by investors.

Just going further down the subscription based society slope I guess.

[winson604]

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

For sure.

I mean if it isn't a lot of money, prolly easier to let it go.

Good luck with it.

Yea I mean it's $200 do I spend countless hours trying to go a legal route which also costs money filing fee for small claims is around $100 as well as trying to track down who I'm actually serving because I'm not even dealing with an owner it was some I think property managment type company but the whole time they contract out some 3rd party store fronts downtown where you go pick up the fobs so really I don't even have much info other than phone numbers and first names of various people I've been doing with. There's definitely possible a route of doing something super stupid too but the older me obviously says not worth getting arrested for something as dumb as $200 even though it does piss me off and I'm In the right.

[westopher]

I would just make sure there’s a reason to keep my damage deposit at that point.

[Badhobz]

Originally Posted by Great68

Keeping the 55+ restriction is to keep a segment of sub-market housing available for lower income seniors/pensioners.

You ruined my skanky seniors housings theory

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by The Producer

we talked about this a couple of pages ago

this affects us - we live in a 90% non rental building (strata laws did allow for 10% of ~80 units to be rented on a 5ish year waitlist)

I still can't really figure out what this has to do with helping the housing market. Our building is 100% occupied - this really doesn't put any more units into the market.

Even if I rent out my unit - I have to live somewhere. What's the difference?

The policy doesn't do anything dramatic in terms of actual units but it will help a bit - people who have moved in with their partners who couldn't rent out (or who want to), people who have relocated and don't want to sell, people who can't actually afford the place anymore for some reason etc. It's all stuff on the margins right now but it still helps.

I'm surprised Eby didn't roll out all of his proposed housing policies in one go - the stuff about legal secondary suites and 3 units on a single lot. He must have gotten a tonne of pushback on it and needs to refine it. Even those two policies are pretty small changes - legal secondary suites are hard to create in older houses and who the heck wants to put the work in to legalise a suite (mine is not legal but otherwise meets almost every standard to be legal)?

[westopher]

This could make units which were more desirable to be a home for someone more desirable to be an investment for someone. I understand the logic, but it could backfire huge. The problem should have been addressed 3 decades ago, by heavily taxing or even denying multiple properties being owned by a single owner, and especially by corporations, but politicians would never consider interrupting their own gravy train.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by Badhobz

You ruined my skanky seniors housings theory

Actually Std's tend to run rampant in old folks homes, that's what i've been told from care givers and nurses i've talked to that work in some of them.

Apparently these old folks got nothing to lose, and lots of them just sleep around with no protection. Crazy shit. Also mildly disturbing.

[Mikoyan]

Originally Posted by winson604

Yea I mean it's $200 do I spend countless hours trying to go a legal route which also costs money filing fee for small claims is around $100 as well as trying to track down who I'm actually serving because I'm not even dealing with an owner it was some I think property managment type company but the whole time they contract out some 3rd party store fronts downtown where you go pick up the fobs so really I don't even have much info other than phone numbers and first names of various people I've been doing with. There's definitely possible a route of doing something super stupid too but the older me obviously says not worth getting arrested for something as dumb as $200 even though it does piss me off and I'm In the right.

Yeah that sounds like how it was when my wife was renting a spot downtown. Had a first name and a cell number and they managed a bunch of spots.

[J____]

housing prices, be it rent or buy, is affected by supply and demand. This policy will do shit all to prices if they don't find ways to increase supply.

[Hondaracer]

Saw somthing on instagram, it said every month more than 2000 people are moving to Surrey. At that rate you’d have to complete 2 high rises a month to create the supply to satisfy the demand. Good luck

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Saw somthing on instagram, it said every month more than 2000 people are moving to Surrey. At that rate you’d have to complete 2 high rises a month to create the supply to satisfy the demand. Good luck

That's not THAT bad for Surrey - between 2016 and 2021 (5 years) it grew by 50k people (10%) and that was the SLOWEST rate of growth they've seen since data started getting recorded in 1921. They've done 10-12k people/year since around 1981 and percentage wise have done 35% growth over 5 years recently. 24k new people is only a ~5% increase in a single year.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey,_British_Columbia