RTB should send a sound clip to the tenant as well
https://youtu.be/Sw4AdwA0u5s?si=uAjTFmClbBpC6xlE

And on the flip, they should send it for great68 post for shitty landlords
"This was timely:

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-...em-out-7616245"

Our old house is listed ! Yes yes this is self serving as fuck but if any RS member wants it, I rather sell it to you guys than some buttfuck builder.

Sigh gonna miss this place. The new place is much bigger and nicer but it still doesn’t feel like home.

Ps that circle on the ground full of dead grass is where my Costco hot tub used to be. It’s now in the new place making another crop circle full of dead grass

Sounds like if they had a plan prior and created a digital trail they could have won this.

1. Have son email you telling you he wants to move into your apartment with a response saying you'll give notice.
2. Follow up with an email after notice is given telling him when it will be available.
3. After tenants move out send another email stating you're going to start renovations, so happy you're going to get to live here.
4. Son follows up a month later after renovations have started with the bitch and I broke up, I think I'd rather live in Burnaby.
5. Sell condo, profit.

I really like that place. Can you move it to north van and keep it the same price?

So what services does Kathy provide :ifyouknow: rs open house meat :lawl:

Does it come with the car?

Why would you want a Corolla, you need a Maserati to go with it

This kind of proves the math that donk was laying out though.

They pay a $19,000 penalty, but they sell/sold the place at peak market, I'm sure they did much better than $19k...

And if the tenants rent costs went up 45% moving to a new place, that means they were paying at least 45% under market... even if the landlord had re-rented it out to someone that $19k would have been made back so fast.

I don't know what the problem is society wise, but I can see both sides... you don't want to see people forced out of places, but at the same time why should anyone be shielded from the price of things rising?

Do you just ban anyone from owning secondary properties? Does that help? I'm not sure tbh.

im trying to capture the mainlander market so thats why i went with her, otherwise id get a white guy to sell it as i think it appeals to much more than just mainlanders.

But whatever, ill target mainlanders first, and then see what happens

No but you can move to Richmond :badpokerface: im only 5 minutes away from the old place so we can still hang out

My wife did a good job with the furniture choices. we still gotta move all this old furniture to the new place once this sells. I cant believe that couch is 15 years old but it still solid and it looks modern. Plug for Sofaworks (local shop and built right in their warehouse on United Blvd)

I can't imagine an Asian person having lived in that house, that sm bed, where's the rice cooker and red wall calendar that's how you target your China people. You should have got that dracco or that Tracy liu:lawl:

All the ching chong ling long shit is in the new house. Didnt want to make it look like the typical chinamenz house so i stashed all that shit away

You didn't frame it right. The BJs are for the BUYERS. It's a selling point.

badhobz wants to start a bidding war

https://cdn.realtor.ca/listing/TS638...R2819613_5.jpg

all i can think about

https://media.tenor.com/PJx6fsadkQQA...-the-couch.gif

GLWS BH - cool house. Too bad it's in Richmond

EDIT: no pics of the garage? first thing i look at in every listing, then work backwards from. you get a lot of info/impressions from the garage pics

Woah, that's a great price + location. Would love to move to be there at somewhere near that price point. I'd also get a golf memby at Quilchena if I'm next to it.

Cool fireplace. Imagine if you leaned into the MCM trend... and it was in East Van... you'd have hipsters all over it.

Yeah notice how I said I liked it haha.

LOL. Man, for someone who has said they "never do the bad faith" thing to tenants, you sure took that shitty landlord comment personally.

If you're not one of those landlords, then great! That comment doesn't apply to you! Why are you so upset?

Or perhaps a guilty conscience? I dunno, otherwise I enjoy living rent free in your head.

They should send it to the landlords in your post, not you......

:facepalm:

In an another post, someone said "Hate the game, not the player".

But the game comes with rules and conditions. And those are well known when the game starts.

Those rules include such things things as how much rents can increase in a certain year (and that rate is controlled by the government). Massive jumps in rents to "Market rate" is not likely ever to happen under the rules of the game.

Those rules are also very specific on how tenancies can be ended. It is not within the intent of the rules to end tenancies to obtain "market rate".

None of the above should be a surprise to a landlord. There should never have been any expectation they could crank rents to market rates at will. It's not "shielding" anything, it's just how the rules work.
How much that allowable increase should be every year is a completely different discussion. But utilizing the the existing tools to end tenancies not as they are intended will lead to stricter rules being implemented. This is my point.

These crappy landlords in the article might have mathematically won, but in the process they're fucking over and making it more difficult for every other good landlord that wouldn't try to evict people and fuck up their lives because they see their tenants as an ATM.

And even if as quasi said these people changed their process so that they would have won, the RTB and government aren't dumb and if this sort of thing continues to be abused don't be surprised if they think about implementing things such as vacancy control, requiring registration of tenancies and having any evictions be applied for and reviewed by RTB for approval, etc.

And before the other guys come in with the "But but but, that'll cause people to pull units from the market". I personally don't think so. People want their rental income. When the rules around renovictions and compensation got more strict a few years ago, available market units never decreased. At all.

It actually comes down to risk vs reward. Just like everything in life.

You play the game knowing the rules and knowing the risks, if you can stomach the risk then you get the reward.

The cliche of nice guys finishing last is true. We live in a world where life isn't fair and if you play by the rules you can have a good moral conscience, but you may not win the "game". If you play by the rules great, but there are so many out there that aren't. So you just have to pick your side and stick with it, but realize there are others who are going to pass you by.

Realistically, the RTB is so stretched for resources I can't see them reviewing evictions. It takes 4-6months to get a RTB hearing, they don't have the resources to do any reviews as you suggest.

If the rental increases were fair, to begin with, maybe more landlords wouldn't have to play these "games". How is it fair that people's mortgages went up 30% and they can only raise rent by 2%?

A couple pages ago I said this, so I think we're in agreement:


Mortgages and rents are not comparable in that sense. There's no "fair" or "unfair" between the two.

I know what you're saying here, and while it may be true that available market units have not decreased when the rules tightened, let's not forget who the landlords are could very well have changed.

This is purely anecdotal evidence that I have seen myself, and I recognize that it may or may not be true across the board. But what I have been noticing is that the number or percentage of scumbag landlords -- or at least, shady landlords -- have increased as the rules got tighter. My personal theory is, as the rules got tightened, potential landlords that would have played by the rules figured that they weren't able to get the ROI that they expect, so they got out of the (landlordship) game. Meanwhile, you have other people with higher "risk tolerance" -- ie. more willing to do shady stuff to not play by the rules to take up landlording because there is still money to be had.

So of course the natural outcome from all this is -- a larger share of shady / scumbag landlords, and a residential rental climate that is worse off than before.

As an example of 1, I am one of those people who gave up the landlord gig because it was just too much of a PITA, and the ROI from renting my place out just wasn't worth it anymore.

Being a landlord is essentially a business. If your expenses go up, you should be able to increase the cost of the product to help cover the expense, if not, you won't be able to stay in business, you would be running at a loss. Doesn't seem fair to me.

But, I get what you're saying above, all the landlords went into the game knowing the rules, so even though they cap rental increases, everyone knew this going in, even if they thought it was unfair.

In the last 10 years rents and property values have also doubled to tripled. You can't have it both ways.