« Greater Vancouver boil water advisory.
Animal maxims for investment strategies »

More fallout from False Creek lease rate increases

There’s an article in todays Globe and Mail about some of the anger and distress caused by the recent increases in False Creek lease rates.

The people who own homes in False Creek aren’t rich and they aren’t poor. They’re teachers, child-care workers, retired professionals and small-business owners. Over the past 30 years, most of the nearly 300 homeowners have paid out their leases, so this increase does not affect them.

But the owners of 118 units, like Ms. Greene, still pay monthly. Ms. Greene said she could never afford to buy out her lease, last tabulated at more than $30,000.

The new rates were passed unanimously by city council last month, though some politicians are now saying that they ‘didn’t fully understand the issue’.

Michael Flanigan, director of Vancouver’s real-estate services, said the increases were tabulated to reflect current market values. Mr. Flanigan stressed that the increases aren’t carved in stone; residents will have their say at a council meeting. He said consideration may be granted to those who can’t afford the fees.

“We are not insensitive,” Mr. Flanigan said in an interview. “Not all homeowners are in the same socio-economic class or have the capacity to pay these increases. . . . We don’t necessarily want to see economic evictions.”

No, we don’t necessarily want to see economic evictions, but you can’t make world class omelette’s without breaking a few eggs eh?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

6 Responses to “More fallout from False Creek lease rate increases”

  1. 1
    solipsist Says:
    November 18th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
    N’or a fruity-as-a-nut-cake city without crushing a few nuts.

    Current score: 0
  2. 2
    Anonymous Says:
    November 19th, 2006 at 7:06 am
    Well the $64,000 question is what are the terms of the leases?

    Sounds a lot like what happened to the Musqueam leaseholders, whom I don’t have a lot of sympathy for because the lease specified that the rates could be adjusted after x number of years.

    Current score: 0
  3. 3
    zealot Says:
    November 19th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
    Let that be a lesson to everyone:

    1) Never purchase anything on leased land.
    2) Never trust the city to act in your interest.

    Current score: 0
  4. 4
    solipsist Says:
    November 19th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
    dohp - that ought to have been nutty-as-a-fruit cake.

    Current score: 0
  5. 5
    Anonymous Says:
    November 21st, 2006 at 1:10 pm
    Re Zealot:

    1) There is nothing wrong with purchasing leased land as long as you know the terms of the lease and they are favourable. Much land in England is actually leased.

    2) The city acts in the city’s interest. If they own the property you’re living on that’s against your interest. Just like any property owner.

    Current score: 0
  6. 6
    zealot Says:
    November 21st, 2006 at 4:56 pm
    leased land will never have the value that freehold land does, so unless you have a short-term profit plan it doesnt make sense to buy on leased land. Specifically for reason number 2 that you list.

    Current score: 0