649 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Vivid is BC Housing backed so there are restrictions.

[downtownlurker]

But if you buy pre-sale, you could almost sell it right when occupancy is approved no?

 

No, it had to be your principal residence for 2 years, just can't remember if it the official start was occupancy or possession... I would guess possession because that is when you'd start living there as your principal residence. and I believe people started moving in early May 2021.

[Mike K.]

If it completed in April, it makes sense to see listings appearing now, with possession following the actual two year period.

[magmazing]

I got the keys to my place in early May 2021. 

 

I won't be selling because I work a 5 minute walk away  

[MarkoJ]

This is becoming a big story -> https://www.cbc.ca/p...y/2314522691814

 

With very bad reporting unfortunately. 

[Victoria Watcher]

A couple things.

Is it suggested Yu arranged and brokered most of these deals? It says she was involved in 13.  EDIT:  yes it is.

How can Yu be a licensed Realtor with limited knowledge of English?

Why is Yu the only defendant named in the news report?

 

 

 

 

The buyers named in the lawsuits come from all walks of life — scientist, student, insurance broker, businessman. A number are retired — including a man who allegedly owns a $1.7-million home in Nanaimo where he "currently operates what appears to be a small hotel."

 

Yet another of the retired buyers was allegedly living in subsidized housing in Chinatown instead of her $309,120 unit at Vivid when B.C. Housing filed suit against her in December 2022.

 

The bulk of the lawsuits were filed in 2022, but B.C. Housing filed the latest notice of civil claim this week against a software engineer who allegedly paid $300,400 for a unit at Vivid; the suit says he also owns a $716,000 detached home and $425,300 townhome in Victoria.

 

The agency is also suing real estate agent Janet Yu, who B.C. Housing claims "realized significant personal profit by acting as the realtor for a number of purchasers in the Vivid building." She also bought a unit for herself. 

 

"Nearly all the purchasers for whom [Yu] represented as a realtor have also failed to comply with the terms of the Affordable Home Ownership Covenant," the claim against her reads.

 

_____________________

 

In her response, Yu claims she "does not speak English as her first or principal language, and has limitations with respect to her understanding of English."

 

 

 

 

 

She has "limited English skills" but represented 12 other buyers, "from all walks of life — scientist, student, insurance broker, businessman."  All Chinese I have to presume.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 March 2024 - 04:12 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon said in an interview Tuesday that it was the responsibility of the developer to vet buyers for units in Vivid at the Yates. The province first became aware of concerns that some owners were not living in the units in 2021 through an audit by B.C. Housing, he said.

The province started reviewing every purchaser to confirm their incomes and whether they were living in the units, he said. It raised those concerns with Chard, which hired an independent third party to monitor compliance, he said.

Some owners had declared only a portion of their income and were hiding other income in real estate corporations, or did not declare all incomes in the household, Kahlon said.

Five owners identified through a review as skirting the rules returned their units when asked, he said. Those who refused face legal proceedings.

Vivid was the only project in the pilot and the affordable home-ownership program has been “completely reformed” with a different structure and more stringent rules, Kahlon said.

Initially brought in under a B.C. Liberal government, the program had few rules when it was launched, he said.



https://www.timescol...qualify-8402830

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 March 2024 - 07:15 AM.

[Mike K.]

The most recent version of the program isn’t much different.

Primarily, it requires the owner to pay back a 10% equity stake from the government upon resale. The equity value is a real-world value/market price, or in other words, 10% of what you sell for, provided you sold at market value and didn’t hand a $450k unit to a friend for $325k. The Vivid model priced the unit roughly 10-12% below market value at the time of pre-sale, with the stipulation that owner-occupiers would reside there for a minimum of two years. Then after that they can do whatever they like.

[Victoria Watcher]

The big shell game continues.

And now we hear it’s 18 units not 13.

I won’t be making further comments since it’s before the courts.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 March 2024 - 07:28 AM.

[Mike K.]

I suppose that does put the government in a position of investing into the re-sale market.

[lanforod]

The most recent version of the program isn’t much different.

Primarily, it requires the owner to pay back a 10% equity stake from the government upon resale. The equity value is a real-world value/market price, or in other words, 10% of what you sell for, provided you sold at market value and didn’t hand a $450k unit to a friend for $325k. The Vivid model priced the unit roughly 10-12% below market value at the time of pre-sale, with the stipulation that owner-occupiers would reside there for a minimum of two years. Then after that they can do whatever they like.

 

I think the 10% stake method is probably better as that shields these owners from a market downturn - assuming of course, your intent is to help lower income folks get into the market. However, if they must still qualify for a full market value mortgage, how does that work? Or do they just have to qualify for full market - 10% that the government pays for? Do lenders take into account that the government has a 10% stake?

Anyways, why 10%? Why not 5, 20, 30, 100? 

 

Oh, and yes, throw the book at folks if they blatantly disregarded the rules, and double so at Yu if she's the source of most of that. Punitive damage requests seem really rare here, so I presume BC Housing has a lot of evidence.

Edited by lanforod, 06 March 2024 - 08:31 AM.

[Ismo07]

One reason we can't have nice things...

[lanforod]

This alone should refute any sort of language barrier defense by Yu: https://www.bcfsa.ca...age-proficiency

 

 

 

BCFSA recognizes that strong language skills are essential for real estate professionals. In B.C., all new licence applicants must demonstrate their English proficiency in reading, writing, speaking and listening by taking the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program General (CELPIP-General) test.

Edited by lanforod, 06 March 2024 - 08:47 AM.

[Mike K.]

I think the 10% stake method is probably better as that shields these owners from a market downturn - assuming of course, your intent is to help lower income folks get into the market. However, if they must still qualify for a full market value mortgage, how does that work? Or do they just have to qualify for full market - 10% that the government pays for? Do lenders take into account that the government has a 10% stake?

Anyways, why 10%? Why not 5, 20, 30, 100?

Oh, and yes, throw the book at folks if they blatantly disregarded the rules, and double so at Yu if she's the source of most of that. Punitive damage requests seem really rare here, so I presume BC Housing has a lot of evidence.

It works two-fold.

The government’s 10% allows you to reach 20% down with only 10% out of pocket, and avoid CMHC insurance, thereby lowering your monthly mortgage cost. It also helps you lower the actual mortgaged amount, so you’re qualifying for 80% LTV instead of 90% or whatever you have personally. Eventually you have to pay the government back its 10% stake, whether it’s higher than at the time of purchase, or lower.

You can also put down a total of 25% or x%, with 10% coming from the government, under this program, but at minimum it’s 10% and 10%.

[Victoria Watcher]

One reason we can't have nice things...

It was pointed out that when this hairbrained scheme was put in place, new buyers could easily find bigger, but older condos for sale in town at a lower price. This program never should have been put in place. It simply made us other taxpayers fund nicer or better homes for buyers here.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 March 2024 - 08:58 AM.

[MarkoJ]

The interesting thing is someone with $10 million net worth can qualify to buy in Vivid if their T4A shows below $150,000 per year. I find that to be a bit of an oversight.

 

Guys see my comment from 6 years ago...every news outlet is attacking this story from the net worth of one of the buyers and the fact that another owned 6 properties......these were NEVER qualifying criteria. You could be worth $100 million and own 60 properties, as long as you lived in the unit as principal residence for two years and had an income below $150,000 you LEGALLY qualified.

 

The reporting on this is sooooooo bad. Someone needs to ask the housing minister why there was no net worth or number of properties qualifying criteria. 

Edited by MarkoJ, 06 March 2024 - 09:13 AM.

[Nparker]

It's not surprising the government is being litigious as a result of its own mistakes. 

[Ismo07]

Guys see my comment from 6 years ago...every news outlet is attacking this story from the net worth of one of the buyers and the fact that another owned 6 properties......these were NEVER qualifying criteria. You could be worth $100 million and own 60 properties, as long as you lived in the unit as principal residence for two years and had an income below $150,000 you LEGALLY qualified.

 

The reporting on this is sooooooo bad. Someone needs to ask the housing minister why there was no net worth or number of properties qualifying criteria. 

 

I get it Marko, but I think the intent of this wasn't meant for people with that kind of net worth to scheme it through.  Yeah they should've seen that and made the policies better for sure. I guess people will always take advantage where they can..  Too bad...  It does sound like perhaps that people didn't live in them as their principal residence.

[lanforod]

Guys see my comment from 6 years ago...every news outlet is attacking this story from the net worth of one of the buyers and the fact that another owned 6 properties......these were NEVER qualifying criteria. You could be worth $100 million and own 60 properties, as long as you lived in the unit as principal residence for two years and had an income below $150,000 you LEGALLY qualified.

 

The reporting on this is sooooooo bad. Someone needs to ask the housing minister why there was no net worth or number of properties qualifying criteria. 

 

If you're right, then the reporting wasn't just so bad, it blatantly lied, because at least one article I read said one of the requirements was that you owned no other property anywhere in the world.

[MarkoJ]

I get it Marko, but I think the intent of this wasn't meant for people with that kind of net worth to scheme it through.  Yeah they should've seen that and made the policies better for sure. I guess people will always take advantage where they can..  Too bad...  It does sound like perhaps that people didn't live in them as their principal residence.

 

My clients had to sign a declaration infront of a lawyer agreeing to the qualifying criteria. If BC Housing had a criteria that you can't currently own more than one property do you think someone with 6 properties goes infront of a lawyer to sign a decleration that they own only one (or zero properties)? Not a chance.

 

This entire thing could have EASILY been avoided by a small amount of common sense on the part of BC Housing. 

 

Yes, people that broke the rules are in the wrong.