1903 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Strata is the same level of governance as me owning a home with my partner. And making our own decisions about it. I don't think many of us want that taken away.

[sebberry]

Strata is the same level of governance as me owning a home with my partner. And making our own decisions about it. I don't think many of us want that taken away.

 

Bullcrap. 

[Nparker]

.. Isn't a strata just another level of governance?

If it is, it may be the only level of governance that one has some choice to join or not. No one is being forced to buy into a strata property and live by its rules. It's pretty hard to avoid the rules of a municipality, regional district, province or nation.

[Nparker]

Bullcrap. 

You really need to get out of the strata game sebberry!

[jonny]

Maybe it's just sebberry's building? It's hot, poor ventilation, shitty insulation and what sounds to be a terrible strata council.

[jonny]

I appreciate those who think their stratas should be able to hovern as they wish. But I got to ask, are not some of you the same ones that seek amalgamation of the CRD because of too many levels of governance? Isn't a strata just another level of governance?

 

Strata's are private property. Not at all like a "government". They are actually a private corporation governed by a corporate board.

Edited by jonny, 11 July 2017 - 09:29 AM.

[jonny]

Maybe it's just sebberry's building? It's hot, poor ventilation, shitty insulation and what sounds to be a terrible strata council.

 

For the record, I understand the nightmare strata situation well. The previous council I was involved with has a retired lawyer (eek!) who always insisted she be a “member at large”, which basically means she can be involved in the decision making, stir up all kinds of **** and piss everybody off while having no obligation to do any of the actual strata work.

 

All it takes is one bad apple to really spoil the bunch. The situation has gotten to the point where she is the only person left on strata, aside from a new owner who has no idea what he signed up for.

[sebberry]

 a terrible strata council.

 

Of which I'm the chair.  

[shoeflack]

If it is, it may be the only level of governance that one has some choice to join or not. No one is being forced to buy into a strata property and live by its rules. It's pretty hard to avoid the rules of a municipality, regional district, province or nation.

 

I dunno. Definitely not gun to the head forced, but I'd argue that with the current market, many people are financially forced.

 

I don't know of a lot of people, maybe aside from downsizers, who would choose a condo over a SFH if everything was equal.

[Nparker]

...I don't know of a lot of people, maybe aside from downsizers, who would choose a condo over a SFH if everything was equal.

I would. So much less to worry about. One monthly payment and everything outside of my walls is maintained.

[Nparker]

Of which I'm the chair.  

Now it all makes sense. 

[Awaiting Juno]

I think there's something to be said for a consistent set of rules across strata properties.  I'm not sure the rules on month-to-month rentals are really all that fair.  A strata cannot (except in limited circumstances) prevent a person from buying a unit, yet there is is tremendous ability to prevent people from renting that same unit.  Sometimes the only difference is ownership status.  If you'd let Bob and Joe own a unit and live there, why not let Bob and Joe rent a unit and live there?  Perhaps there's some middle ground to be had where the amount on deposit is different than would be the case in a traditional rental.

[VicHockeyFan]

I think there's something to be said for a consistent set of rules across strata properties.  I'm not sure the rules on month-to-month rentals are really all that fair.  A strata cannot (except in limited circumstances) prevent a person from buying a unit, yet there is is tremendous ability to prevent people from renting that same unit.  Sometimes the only difference is ownership status.  If you'd let Bob and Joe own a unit and live there, why not let Bob and Joe rent a unit and live there?  Perhaps there's some middle ground to be had where the amount on deposit is different than would be the case in a traditional rental.

 

If there is currently no limit on move-in/out charges, that limit will also need to be made law.  Or stratas could just decide on a $10,000 charge.

[lanforod]

I appreciate those who think their stratas should be able to hovern as they wish. But I got to ask, are not some of you the same ones that seek amalgamation of the CRD because of too many levels of governance? Isn't a strata just another level of governance?

 

The first goal of amalgamation isn't reducing the levels of governance: We want amalgamation firstly because there are too many sets of the same level of governance. Big difference.

 

For different levels, an amalgamated region of all municipalities would negate the need for a CRD, thus removing a level, but that is unlikely to happen. A region of 4 main cities would still need a CRD level of governance for services provided across the whole area, such as Parks. 4 large cities could perhaps collaborate better though, working at eliminating the need for a CRD. 

[KAS]

One year our strata tried to pass a No Rentals bylaw.  That was the one year we had over 50% participation in the AGM and the proposal was defeated.

 

The reason that the proposal was even brought forward was because of eight months of nightmare behaviour by one tenant, and the landlord who a: was almost impossible to get hold of, and b: didn't seem to care that their tenant was severly impacting the lives of not only those living in units adjoining, but the lives of the council members who were trying to deal with irate residents over weeks of escalating bad behaviour (it went from noise complaints to stealing electricity from both the strata and the neighbouring balconies).  The entire situation was only resolved with the arrest of the tenant due to poor behaviour elsewhere.

 

I agree with the comment further up the discussion about the virtual impossibility of knowing everyone in your building - even on sight.  And I speak as someone who was on council.  Personally, I have no problems with allowing rentals, as long as the owner is fully prepared to be a responsible landlord.  If the real reason behind the desire to limit rentals is due to the difficulties in dealing with situations such ours, and the Strata Act gets re-written forbidding the banning of rentals, I would hope that the new Civil Resolution Tribunal will provide stratas with improved means of dealing with poor tenants and poor landlords.

[jonny]

As a strata council president, I'm a big proponent of bringing the hammer down on bad behaviour. If people are being jerks, fine the hell out of them. It's amazing how many tenants think it's lame and surprising their neighbours weren't super stoked about their Sunday evening beer pong tournament.

 

Financial incentives usually work. The nuisance/noise bylaw is a beautiful thing.

 

The biggest problems I see with stratas:

1. People have no idea what they are buying into. They don't know what a strata is, how they work, what the implications of decisions are.

2. KAS' situation above where one instance of something happening and owners get up in arms and want to make major knee jerk changes. These things snowball easily.

3. Complacency. 75% of owners really don't care. They plan to own there for 3-5 years and simply don't give a ****. That leaves the same 4-5 people doing everything on strata. If 1 or 2 of those people on strata are a little off kilter, watch out.

4. Landlords who pick terrible tenants. Why do so many landlords focus on renting their brand new $600,000 condos to students? Why rent to two unrelated roommates instead of a single professional or a couple?

5. Communication. Things boil over via email or after a tipping point because people didn't know Joe in unit 401 is an all around douche.

[jonny]

A lot of landlords are surprisingly not picky. In this market, you do not need to lease to the first person to respond to your Craigslist ad.

[VicHockeyFan]

A region of 4 main cities would still need a CRD level of governance for services provided across the whole area, such as Parks. 

 

Why do we have "CRD parks" now?   Take those parks and stick them into the adjoining municipality.  I mean, we have a CRD park at Gonzales Hill.  Why?  And why does a North Saanich resident pay for its upkeep?

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 July 2017 - 01:05 PM.

[shoeflack]

Why do we have "CRD parks" now?   Take those parks and stick them into the adjoining municipality.  I mean, we have a CRD park at Gonzales Hill.  Why?  And why does a North Saanich resident pay for its upkeep?

 

Same could be said for why a North Saanich resident pays for the upkeep of a provincial park in the Okanagan, or for that of a national park in Cape Breton.

 

It's a consistent level of government that is unique to BC per the Local Government Act. Ontario is far more confusing; some areas only have a single-tier municipality, while other municipalities fall under a subsequent regional municipality, county, or district. At least there's some consistency in BC. Everyone in the province can at least complain about the same thing.

[VicHockeyFan]

Same could be said for why a North Saanich resident pays for the upkeep of a provincial park in the Okanagan, or for that of a national park in Cape Breton.

 

Well, huge parks like that, they already have efficiency.  But it seems to me to be not very efficient for CRD staff to drive to Oak Bay to tend to that little park, when OB has a parks team.

 

Back in the olden days, Victoria owned Mt. Doug park, until they realized what was the point, in 1992.

 

Similarly, the Saanich panhandle should be just be affixed to Victoria or Oak Bay, and the property lines that run through houses off Foul Bay should be moved over to the edge of the private property.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 July 2017 - 02:18 PM.