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.
Im fairly certain the people of Vancouver would be behind the city/police in doing whats necessary to move the protestors out if the protestors got unruly with the fresh memories of the riot from 6 months ago.
That's not the problem though. The city wouldn't risk jeopardizing its image. The enforcer won't come in unless the judge give the green light.
Occupy Vancouver is such a fucking joke, and they're moving to UBC now? I'd love to see students pull some nasty pranks on them if that happens.
Virgin Radio or The Beat made a Stereo Hearts parody of Occupy Vancouver. Can't find it on Youtube though.
I want to swap my car horn to a train horn and annoy these fuckers into leaving. That, or people should plant rotting meat near the tent city.
Honestly, one of the better ways to make these wastes of space leave is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to be there. Rig sprinklers on the perimeter, cut power, lock down the wi-fi, hourly siren blares, and bar them from entering businesses within 20 blocks of the tent city.
Every time I hear about these useless attention whores on the news, I keep asking myself "Why are you still there?".
I'm almost positive it will come to that no matter what. There are very few if any legitimate protesters at the art gallery. It's pretty much all drug addicts, trouble makers and shit disturbers looking for any excuse to take on the police and scream brutality, violation of their rights bs.
They've already assaulted media, firefighters and VPD officers by spitting on them, pushing and grabbing them. I'm sure the majority of the "protesters" down there are hoping that VPD and bylaw officers move in to take down the structures so they can resist, push, spit at and grab peace officers and when VPD responds appropriately by arrest or allowable use of force, they'll scream bloody murder and violation of rights bs when we all know they have no leg to stand on.
It'll likely come to that either way, time to get on with it now.
They had on global last night that a bunch of the original protesters have quit/left occupy because it got subverted by the heroin using, biting and pee throwing element.
Meaning even the people that started this thing are like:
Sacred fire??? What the fuck? Seriously, just dump a couple pounds of crack on the site and nature will sort itself out shortly after that.
__________________
Brickyard '03 350z
Roll That Shit, Light That Shit, Smoke That Shit!
Quote:
(told to me by the stupidest person in the world)...
'Yeah, i've been to taco time before, but i got in trouble...I had a Mexican girlfriend who wanted to go to a mexican restaurant for our anniversery, so i took her to Taco Time"
I want to swap my car horn to a train horn and annoy these fuckers into leaving. That, or people should plant rotting meat near the tent city.
Honestly, one of the better ways to make these wastes of space leave is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to be there. Rig sprinklers on the perimeter, cut power, lock down the wi-fi, hourly siren blares, and bar them from entering businesses within 20 blocks of the tent city.
Every time I hear about these useless attention whores on the news, I keep asking myself "Why are you still there?".
do u think useless scumbags who live in mud for a month will be bothered by some rotting meat? need to just put them in jail - same living conditions and urine attacks with a bit more butt rape Posted via RS Mobile
• Immediate and full disclosure of all developer and corporate contributions to all civic election campaigns
This I agree with. It wasn't made a huge deal in New West, but the current Mayor has received a small windfall in these donations, and what do you know, we're building out the city like no tomorrow.
• Abolition of developer and corporate contributions to civic campaigns
I could see curtailing them.
• Genuine consultation with affected communities on all new developments and land-use decisions
I've noticed that public consultation on these things tends to happen rather late in the process.
End real estate speculation
• Tax on empty units and undeveloped lots
• Progressive tax on multiple properties
• Progressive property tax
• Progressive property transfer tax
OK..I think there are things that could be done to limit speculation through raising a few taxes here, and cutting a few there
• All new revenues into affordable housing fund
Bingo. That's how you create affordable housing for free. Through capitalism. Maybe not all new revenues, but instead of a developer putting up a park or something, I could see a developer that wants to build 100 condos have to put enough in the pot for 2/3/5/10? affordable housing units. As long as the sum isn't so large that it eliminates a lot of business, but enough that it helps, but just becomes a cost of business for 5 years or so.
Aboriginal justice
• Inclusion of first nations in land-use decisions
• Funding for first nations housing
I'm down with that. Everyone should have a place to call home. I'd like to see habitat for humanity take the reigns on that, and get the homeowner involved in the building of the units-give a sense of pride, so it becomes a home, not a house. Maybe eliminate the reservation feel where no one cares and it starts to look run down in 3 years. Just hand them a chunk of change and say go.
Stop evictions and gentrification
• The right to sleep — no forced removal of homeless peoples from public land
Don't like where this is going.
• Moratorium on demolition of all affordable rental apartments
This is starting to affect me
• Strict upkeep of affordable housing, no “renovictions”
The fuck you did! The fucking fuck you did. I shouldn't have to answer to anyone why I want to take my property, enhance it and rebuild it and make more money.
• Freeze rents. Current allowable increase of 7 per cent is far too high above inflation. Any future increases should be tied to increases in welfare and minimum wage
The current increase is 4.3%. The standard is inflation plus 2%. I don't agree that tying it to minimum wage and welfare is relevant. I don't rent to people that make min.wage and I think we have out of 84 units, I think I have 5 that are on welfare, mostly centered on one building
• Moratorium on condo development in low-income neighbourhoods, especially the Downtown Eastside
Anytime you create a blockade around a neighborhood, you make it a ghetto. You'll end up having a development wall on whatever border you use to create the DTES.
Increase Supply of Truly Affordable Housing
• 10,000 units of affordable resident-controlled public housing per year until the housing crisis is over
• In the meantime, year-round operation of all temporary and cold-weather shelters
No one has really talked about the elephant in the room with her...the heroin.
She was a great, free-spirited girl-that used heroin.
She always did her own thing-including using heroin.
I don't think Occupy Van killed her. I think if you have an event like this, with no barrier to entry, you are going to have issues with some of the people that come out.
I do agree with the statement that if she had been 10 blocks east, she wouldn't have made a headline, she would have been a statistic.
I've been hearing talk of cops telling homeless people they can't stay on the streets but that they can go crash the art gallery in an attempt to get them bad press and shut down.
• Moratorium on demolition of all affordable rental apartments
This is starting to affect me
• Strict upkeep of affordable housing, no “renovictions”
The fuck you did! The fucking fuck you did. I shouldn't have to answer to anyone why I want to take my property, enhance it and rebuild it and make more money.
I find it funny these 2 comments are back to back. You're a building manager of apartments, yet you're all for renovictions? Many renovictions aren't to increase rent, they are to turn apartments into condos and sell them, alleviating you of your job. Hell my building is an example of just that.
I understand renovictions make your life easier as better units usually mean better renters... yet aren't you worried about them being turned into condos?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridlock
The current increase is 4.3%. The standard is inflation plus 2%.
Its dumb they don't even know the correct increase, thanks for pointing it out. If they were smart they'd be asking for what Ontario has, increased pegged to inflation, not inflation + 2%.
Yet then we'd have to point out to them that despite the average allowable increase being ~4% for the past decade, rents have only increased < 3% on average. Landlords are not cranking the rent up, despite the few infamous renovictions in the media.
I've been in Vancouver for > 3yrs without a single rent increase. In fact we want a rent decreased based on similar units in our building renting for $50-150 less.
Yeah, I don't know where they got 7% from. Last year was in the 2ish range...2.2% I think? This year is 4.3%. I expect that the 4-5% increase per year will hold for the next 3 years, based on the inflation aims of 2% per year, give or take.
Honestly, I don't think that many are being turned into condos. Most people have rental apartments for the purpose of having rental apartments. It's a hedge against inflation and a retirement fund. Going condo is a fancy way of selling off your building. Slice it, instead of going whole.
One client of my reno company sold off a portion of his building as condos. I don't think he'd do it again. He now has a property manager in his life telling him what he needs to do in what was his own building. And seeing as he still owns halfish of it, when someone's assessment for something is 5k, his is 30k.
I agree with your point, that if they really want to tackle something realistic, its the +2% part. I have this conversation a lot with people regarding rent increases...especially the longer term tenants that had a few years without them. This is a business. Nothing goes across my desk that I don't agree with. So no, we aren't negotiating the increase. So if inflation +2% is too high, then we cut it down. Our litmus test is, with a coat of standard beige, could I re-rent for this amount?
I get that rentals have a large amount to do with affordable housing. But we can't expect building owners to take that burden alone. It's already very restrictive in BC as to what we can and cannot do. We have a price ceiling. We have legislation down to the point of what I can and cannot say to people. We have legislation as to what circumstances I can say yes and no to people wanting to rent.
Yeah, there are a few renoviction cases that flare up in the news. There is one that is going on that is just ridiculous on both sides. The company handles it like a blunt instrument, and the residents dig in their heels. We cannot offer the protection of home ownership to people that rent. It's that simple. We can offer protections, and I think its good. I have personal conflicts with a couple of people that don't like my style. I cannot do anything to them, or affect their tenancy UNLESS I'm offered a window. No window of opportunity? Then we both survive to have this fight another day.
I don't think a building owner should have to hide behind the level of repair needed in order to do a renoviction. I think I should be able to go up to people, hand them a check and call it a day. Let's have the conversation on how big that check needs to be. Make sure that we go in and actually do work, that's fine, but the act should be clearer on how I can go about doing that.
Here's my fear. In a tenancy, the amount of monetary increase is locked in by the government. My ability to end a tenancy is locked in by government. Where is my motivation to improve the rental stock in a given neighborhood if I can't re-rent units at higher cost? If I'm stuck with attrition based renovations, my hands are tied. Sooner or later, you say fuck it, take your money and run. Roof leaks? Slap on some tar. Window is broken? I'll use clear packing tape, instead of duct.
I don't know what the actual answer is. Where the balance is.
Bond European Central Bank European Union Eurozone Goldman Sachs goldman sachs headlines Italy Monetization Structured Finance
We have long mocked and ridiculed the Fed for being the ultimate ponzi instrument: after all, why worry, when your central bank will buy up almost three trillion in US paper in about 2 years (a very comforting fact for US politicians who never have to fear that those trillions in new porkbills, pardon fiscal stimulus programs, may end up without funding). Well, as it turns out those wily veteran bankers from across the Atlantic have just one upped America yet again. According to the Telegraph, the abysmal, and barely successful, 3 EUR billion issuance of EFSF bonds (which was originally supposed to be 10 EUR billion, on its very very gradual climb to 1 EUR trillion) had one more very curious feature to it, aside from confirming that it is Dead On Arrival as expected. It turns out that in addition to being the most convoluted and complex creation ever conceived by JPM which is advising Europe on coming up with structured finance products that are so complex nobody will ask any questions and will automatically assume someone else has done the homework, it is also the quintessential ponzi instrument. The Telegraph reports that the already reduced 3 EUR billion "target was only met after the EFSF resorted to buying up several hundred million euros worth of the bonds." You read that right: in its first bond issuance since its transformation to the European Bank/Soveriegn Bailout Swiss Army Knife, the EFSF not only failed to raise a minimum token amount, but also had to... buy its own bonds. We can assume that the money the EFSF needed to fund said purchase came from the money growing tree, as at last check the ECB was still not funding the EFSF with crisp, new zEURq.PK equivalent binary 1s and 0s. But at least we all know what happens when the global ponzi goes full retard.
More on this surreal story which will be promptly buried in the barrage of Monday headlines because an international advisor to Goldman Sachs is now in charge of Italy.
Sources said the EFSF had spent more than € 100m buying up its own bonds to help it achieve its funding target after the banks leading the deal were only able to find about €2.7bn of outside demand for the debt.
The revelation will be seen as a major failure and a worrying sign of future buyers strike after EFSF officials and their bankers had spent recent weeks travelling the world attempting to persuade key investors, including China's national wealth fund and Japanese government funds, to buy its bonds.
And just in case one monetization vertical was not enough, Europe used, well, all the other ones it could:
Other European Union funds are also understood to have supported the EFSF's bond sale. The failure of the EFSF will increase pressure on the European Central Bank to effectively become the lender of last resort for the eurozone, a move it has strongly resisted.
At a private breakfast organised by PI Capital last week, Mark Hoban, the Treasury minister, said: "What it doesn't do is provide the next stage of the solution, which is how do you stop this from happening again?" he said.
The move, by the European Investment Bank, will cause more disquiet among non-eurozone EU members who have become concerned about their growing exposure to the cost of rescuing the currency bloc.
The explanation, for anyone whose brain just exploded, is that despite the marionette rotation at the top, the math of Europe is still not only absolutely hopeless, not to mention meaningless, but somehow just got even worse, because take away the magical powers of modern finance to be one with the ponzi, and Europe would have already imploded.
It also means that our earlier observation that the EFSF is an AA+ equivalent credit instrument has to be revised: pro formaing out the ponzi, means it is at best AA if not A, and most likely D if one takes away all the magic bells and Keynesian whistles, unicorns and other end of the western financial world loopholes that modern finance is forced to resort to every single day to mask the fact that every country in the developed world is now 100% bankrupt.
By now even a retarded monkey can tell you throwing money at the problem wont fix it, yet the people are powerless to stop it. This is the crux of the problem.
I get that rentals have a large amount to do with affordable housing. But we can't expect building owners to take that burden alone.
That's why the city should be building affordable housing. Instead of giving away property to the Olympic village, they should increase fees to developers and use that money to build their own units.
Ottawa has entire villages of low income housing managed by the city. One neighbourhood you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and the suburb right beside it, its managed so well.
Everytime Vancouver trusts developers to build affordable housing into plans, the city gets screwed. Thus they need to change how they handle this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridlock
I think I should be able to go up to people, hand them a check and call it a day. Let's have the conversation on how big that check needs to be.
The law already permits this. If my landlord wants my unit back, he could ask me anytime to renegotiate the lease and I would certainly take a pay out to move. The problem is the landlord might not like the amount I write on the piece of paper as it would be in the several $Ks, that's why landlords lie about the renovations required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gridlock
Here's my fear. In a tenancy, the amount of monetary increase is locked in by the government. My ability to end a tenancy is locked in by government. Where is my motivation to improve the rental stock in a given neighborhood if I can't re-rent units at higher cost?
That's a lame shitty excuse. There's always turnover. Sure a couple units may have long term tenants, yet most units turn over within 5 years leaving ample time to do improvements to individual units. Improvements to the building can be done with no renovictions, as shown by the numerous leaky condos owners live through repairs.
That's why the city should be building affordable housing. Instead of giving away property to the Olympic village, they should increase fees to developers and use that money to build their own units.
I totally agree. The city can't do it alone, and neither can rental owners. I think there needs to be a partnership where market rent isn't totally out of control, and where the pressure for those that can't afford market is covered through subsidized housing.
Ottawa has entire villages of low income housing managed by the city. One neighbourhood you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and the suburb right beside it, its managed so well.
There is another example of how Greater Van isn't getting us there. There are very few examples where you can't tell what the subsidized housing is. No one has any skin in the game, so they don't care what the place is like. I really think we need some type of habitat for humanity program where all the beneficiaries are involved in the complex.
Everytime Vancouver trusts developers to build affordable housing into plans, the city gets screwed. Thus they need to change how they handle this.
Totally agree.
The law already permits this. If my landlord wants my unit back, he could ask me anytime to renegotiate the lease and I would certainly take a pay out to move. The problem is the landlord might not like the amount I write on the piece of paper as it would be in the several $Ks, that's why landlords lie about the renovations required.
Yeah. I get that. I examined the option. I think there is a lot of power in signing a lease. Almost too much. I like the Nova Scotia system where a tenancy becomes tenured after a certain point. The protections of the lease increase over time. If someone isn't a problem after 3 years, they are good to go.
That's a lame shitty excuse. There's always turnover. Sure a couple units may have long term tenants, yet most units turn over within 5 years leaving ample time to do improvements to individual units. Improvements to the building can be done with no renovictions, as shown by the numerous leaky condos owners live through repairs.
Yeah, that's mostly true. I have someone in one building that has lived there since I was 10. I turn 33 in December. Thankfully, he is an exceptional tenant. Lucky. I totally agree that short of pulling the fucker down, you can leave a unit occupied for just about anything. Of course renovictions are a lie! That's the bullshit part of the whole thing. The only way I can end a tenancy without cause is re-build it *kind of*, or park a family member in it for 6 months, or go off the books, and cut a check. Those are my options. I say kind of, because we both agree, I can work around people under most circumstances. I've done renos with people living there. It's a pain in the ass, but do-able. I think the only real deal killers would be a total re-pipe of the building, as in every last inch of copper, or asbestos removal/total drywall replacement. Probably building wide electrical too.
And here's the main point. Why would I do such a thing, without payback? I wouldn't. I can't re-pipe half a building. I can't put a new roof over just the expensive ones, or leave a stairwell in place for the long-termers that looks old and shitty, while my new tenants walk on marble. Occasionally, we need to improve the rental stock, to last for another 50 years.
My point is, if you leave the renoviction thing vague, or worse, close that gap, as a building owner, you are fucked. One lady that we talked about managing her building(she's in the RHS thread) is now trying to sell it. Looked at the numbers provided on the listing. She averages $566/unit gross per month based on her numbers . Now, between her bad management and the numbers, you can't unload that building. She's asking 1.4 million. I'd offer 950k. She has leases she can't end, and to start doing rent increases now is futile. She'll never catch up. You can apply for additional increases based on being lower than market, but I'll be honest, I don't know the success rate. I know no branch is ever going to say, "cool. Your rent goes from $566 to $766 next month". She can't afford(or unwilling to spend) the money its going to take to bring the building up to standard with the majority of tenants being long term, thus cementing people in their apartments, as being the best deal in town.
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!
I'd love to see students pull some nasty pranks on them if that happens. 
Finally 
Vancouvers turn
