BUILT 200 Cook Street Uses: rental, commercial Address: 200 Cook Street Municipality: Victoria Region: Urban core Storeys: 5 |
Learn more about 200 Cook Street on Citified.ca
[Cook St. Village] 200 Cook Street | Rentals | Built - completed in 2019
#1141
Posted 19 September 2018 - 08:37 PM
I don’t have any objections to the rentals coming to 200 Cook Street, and the tenants of the building will be a great addition to the neighbourhood. But I do wonder if at least some percentage of the tightness in the rental market is due to potential condo buyers choosing to “rent in place” for longer than expected due to being unable to find (or afford?) suitable housing that they can purchase...resulting in them staying in the rental market for longer than desired? In other words, would increasing the supply of new build condos free up some units in purpose-built rental housing?
Essencia Verde is the only significant condo development in Fairfield south of Richardson completed in the past decade that I’m aware of (setting aside townhouse-only projects like The Brownstone), so perhaps new condo developments like the one proposed for Cook and Pendergast can attract CSV renters who want to by whilst staying in the neighbourhood.
#1142
Posted 20 September 2018 - 05:52 AM
CoV has placed legal covenants or Housing Agreements on many of the condo projects going through rezoning which prevent the strata from adopting bylaws that would restrict rentals. If this agreement isn't on title, then there's no restriction. This is what happened with that one on Fort (I think?) where staff didn't ask for this agreement, but then Council did right at the end of the process.
The Strata Property Act provides that strata corporations may have rental restriction bylaws that can restrict or prevent strata owners from renting their strata units, subject to certain process requirements. I understand that the CoV has lobbied the government in the past to eliminate this right, upon some unsubstantiated position that it makes more housing stock available. As the act was not changed (a political minefield for the Province), the City opted to try and enforce the "no rental restrictions" policy by forcing developers to enter into a covenant in that regard as a condition of re-zoning approvals. The City then registers notice of the negative covenant on title in an attempt to bind the strata corp and unit owners. I haven't taken a close look at the law, but I cannot see how such a covenant forms a legal interest in the land, and therefore may be unenforceable as a property right. It might be enforceable as a contractual obligation, but then what is the measure of damages? The CoV obviously relies on the fact that strata corporations and unit owners do not want to engage in a costly legal battle with the municipality, but at some point this over-reaching of authority will and should be challenged. The CoV should not do indirectly what they are not otherwise authorized to do directly.
- Nparker and lanforod like this
#1143
Posted 20 September 2018 - 06:07 AM
Very good, thank you.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#1144
Posted 20 September 2018 - 07:30 AM
If someone wants to live on a property where only owner-occupiers may reside, such as a co-op or strata condo, then should they be prevented doing so by municipal policy? I submit that such a policy impinges upon a person's right to association, and freedom of association is a fundamental freedom protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 2. (d)). This right and freedom is subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society, such as no discrimination on the basis of religion, but a requirement of ownership certainly does not fall into that category. It is the provincial legislature that controls property rights, and they have specifically provided for rental restrictions in the Strata Property Act. They have "occupied the field" from a constitutional law perspective. The CoV is way off base on this one.
- Nparker likes this
#1145
Posted 20 September 2018 - 07:34 AM
The Strata Property Act provides that strata corporations may have rental restriction bylaws that can restrict or prevent strata owners from renting their strata units, subject to certain process requirements. I understand that the CoV has lobbied the government in the past to eliminate this right, upon some unsubstantiated position that it makes more housing stock available. As the act was not changed (a political minefield for the Province), the City opted to try and enforce the "no rental restrictions" policy by forcing developers to enter into a covenant in that regard as a condition of re-zoning approvals. The City then registers notice of the negative covenant on title in an attempt to bind the strata corp and unit owners. I haven't taken a close look at the law, but I cannot see how such a covenant forms a legal interest in the land, and therefore may be unenforceable as a property right. It might be enforceable as a contractual obligation, but then what is the measure of damages? The CoV obviously relies on the fact that strata corporations and unit owners do not want to engage in a costly legal battle with the municipality, but at some point this over-reaching of authority will and should be challenged. The CoV should not do indirectly what they are not otherwise authorized to do directly.
The covenant is just one piece, there's also a Housing Agreement Bylaw. You can look at the one for Heywood here: https://www.victoria...986 Heywood.pdf
Housing Agreements are permitted by the Local Government Act.
#1146
Posted 20 September 2018 - 07:54 AM
Look at the title of Section 483: "Housing agreements for affordable housing and special needs housing". This section was included in the LGA to address special situations, for example 200 Cook where the developer wanted to include rent restricted units, and was never intended to apply across the board for all condo developments within the municipality. The CoV is attempting to rely on section 483 to give them ostensible authority.
#1147
Posted 20 September 2018 - 08:03 AM
Over-stepping their authority is certainly nothing new for the current CoV government.
#1148
Posted 24 September 2018 - 09:03 AM
- Nparker likes this
#1149
Posted 24 September 2018 - 11:42 AM
I don’t have specific details, but the ground-floor commercial space has been leased to a licensed restaurant of some sort...
And all those that were against this project will be eating at this restaurant on a regular basis complaining about the height of the next proposal.
- Nparker, Hotel Mike, DavidSchell and 2 others like this
Marko Juras, REALTOR® & Associate Broker | Gold MLS® 2011-2023 | Fair Realty
www.MarkoJuras.com Looking at Condo Pre-Sales in Victoria? Save Thousands!
#1152
Posted 17 May 2019 - 01:58 AM
#1154
Posted 18 May 2019 - 05:07 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#1155
Posted 20 May 2019 - 07:52 AM
- aastra and Nparker like this
#1156
Posted 20 May 2019 - 08:01 AM
To be fair, it does sort of make the rest of the neighbourhood look like its dying.
#1157
Posted 20 May 2019 - 08:06 AM
To be fair, it does sort of make the rest of the neighbourhood look like its dying.
theb70's and 80's apartments would get updates if there was no rent control.
#1158
Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:20 AM
Rent controls continues to ensure a mix of income levels across the neighbourhood
#1159
Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:43 AM
Applications are being accepted for the rental units; the anticipated move-in timeframe is fall 2019.
See http://cookstvillage.com/ .
#1160
Posted 20 May 2019 - 11:26 AM
Rent controls continues to ensure a mix of income levels across the neighbourhood
Absolutely, that's what you get in the Uplands. On the flip side lots of wealthy people are moving to Esquimalt too!
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users