1896 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Comrade Isitt wants to over-rule your own condo council:

 

Options for Rental Housing In Strata Property

--Councillor Isitt

 

A Council member motion providing recommendations regarding a resolution for options for rental housing in strata property.

 

Recommendation:That Council endorse the following resolution and request that the Mayor, on behalf of Council, write to the provincial Minister Responsible for Housing and Members of the Legislative Assembly representing constituencies in the Capital Region, forwarding a copy of the resolution and requesting favourable consideration: Resolution: Options for Rental Housing in Strata Property WHEREAS Many communities in British Columbia face acute housing affordability and housing availability challenges, with low vacancy rates and escalating housing prices contributing to economic insecurity for seniors, youth and people with low to moderate incomes who cannot afford safe, stable rental housing; AND WHEREAS Provisions in the Strata Property Act have enabled strata councils to introduce bylaws that restrict rental housing as a permitted use, resulting in many dwelling units remaining vacant or underutilized rather than contributing toward the supply of rental housing in local communities; AND WHEREAS more than 20 percent of property owners who responded to a recent City of Vancouver survey cited rental restrictions in strata bylaws as the reason why these units were unoccupied; THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT the Province of British Columbia amend the Strata Property Act to prohibit bylaws restricting rental housing in strata-titled residential property, while retaining the authority of strata councils to introduce bylaws to restrict short-term vacation rentals.

 

Motion_Options for Rental Housing in Strata Property

[Nparker]

I'd say I am surprised, but I am sure the good Comrade feels more empowered than ever and believes he has a sympathetic ear in the provincial legislature. I can't see this one getting a great deal of support from a government with such a tenuous grasp on getting bills passed in the house.

[VicHockeyFan]

I'd say I am surprised, but I am sure the good Comrade feels more empowered than ever and believes he has a sympathetic ear in the provincial legislature. I can't see this one getting a great deal of support from a government with such a tenuous grasp on getting bills passed in the house.

 

Will City Council pass it and forward it?

[sebberry]

Shockingly, I agree with Ben on this one.  

As a member of a strata where rentals were reduced from 33 to 18% of the building and where some owners want to see it reduced further to 0%, the "logic" behind he changes is puzzling to say the least.  

 

It's usually the vocal minority that want to implement such limitations, and the remainder go along with it thinking the changes won't impact them - until they do.  

[DavidL]

Fabulous.  Yet another attack on private property rights.  I'm all for offering stratas incentives to remove their rental restrictions, and I think there are lots of creative and imaginative ways to accomplish this, but requiring that a strata allow rentals when they have decided that they don't want to is just ludicrous.

[sebberry]

^You could say that stratas themselves are imposing unreasonable restrictions on private property rights.  

[VicHockeyFan]

Shockingly, I agree with Ben on this one.
As a member of a strata where rentals were reduced from 33 to 18% of the building and where some owners want to see it reduced further to 0%, the "logic" behind he changes is puzzling to say the least.

It's usually the vocal minority that want to implement such limitations, and the remainder go along with it thinking the changes won't impact them - until they do.

The logic is you collectively set you own rules. Rightly so.

[VicHockeyFan]

^You could say that stratas themselves are imposing unreasonable restrictions on private property rights.

By majority vote though. If you are so sure rentals are fine, bring a compelling case to your council and other owners.

[Nparker]

Shockingly, I agree with Ben on this one...

It's an infringement on private property rights. Strata councils are perfectly capable now of putting a vote to their owners to determine if the majority want rental restrictions or not. There is no need to amend the act.

[Nparker]

^You could say that stratas themselves are imposing unreasonable restrictions on private property rights.  

Stratas cannot impose significant changes to property usage without getting a majority vote of the owners.

Edited by Nparker, 10 July 2017 - 11:07 AM.

[VicHockeyFan]

Fabulous. Yet another attack on private property rights. I'm all for offering stratas incentives to remove their rental restrictions, and I think there are lots of creative and imaginative ways to accomplish this, but requiring that a strata allow rentals when they have decided that they don't want to is just ludicrous.

Exactly. Hey look, here's an easy incentive for stratas. Government can offer them up to $200 per unit per year to cover move in/out costs. They can also still charge the owner a fee.  Stratas can submit a bill for every into that turns each calendar year as long as they provide proper support documents..

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 10 July 2017 - 11:33 AM.

[Nparker]

...It's usually the vocal minority that want to implement such limitations, and the remainder go along with it thinking the changes won't impact them - until they do.  

In the nearly 20 years I have been a strata property owner there have been 2 votes at my building to impose rental restrictions; neither have passed. The system is working just fine.

[DavidL]

I disagree with owners who wish to impose restrictions, but I support their right to do so.  You would think that Isitt would be a supporter of the collective decision making process in strata corporations.

[Nparker]

Here's a thought, if stratas are told they cannot restrict rentals then they need to be given the power to screen all prospective tenants. How's that? 

[Nparker]

... You would think that Isitt would be a supporter of the collective decision making process in strata corporations.

I don't think he believes in private property ownership...other than for himself of course.

Can I assume he will also lobby the Province to make it illegal for any property owner to refuse tenancy in their privately owned dwelling? If someone comes to your 3 bedroom home and says "I want to rent a room", you will not be able to say no.

[sebberry]

I find it fascinating how time and time again we criticize city council for infringing on private property rights, then turn around and defend the right of the majority of strata owners to impose restrictions taking away the very same property rights from other owners.  

[DavidL]

I think the plan would be to turn over all potential rentals to the state for central administrative control with a set rate being paid to the "owner".  The state then manages the rental in such a way that produces the most social good according to a "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" perspective.  Stratas, as corporations, would be ignored.

[sebberry]

Nobody is forcing anyone to rent out their strata property. 

[DavidL]

I find it fascinating how time and time again we criticize city council for infringing on private property rights, then turn around and defend the right of the majority of strata owners to impose restrictions taking away the very same property rights from other owners.  

 

The issue here is that within a strata each owner is aware that there exists a set of common rights that, through the agreement of owners in a super majority, can be altered or amended through a well defined set of processes.  The private property rights of strata owners are defined and governed by the owners themselves.  This is a crucial difference in perceiving who affects the rights that you hold.

[jonny]

By majority vote though. If you are so sure rentals are fine, bring a compelling case to your council and other owners.

 

A by-law restricting rentals would have to be passed by a 3/4 vote.