drip, drip, drip
Like that battery-marketing bunny, the leaky condo crisis keeps going and going.
Owners in a 71-unit building in Cloverdale say their builder repaired some leak problems a few years ago. At the time, the work was covered by warranty.
But recent testing found moisture in the building’s walls, and homeowners learned that they would be hit with a bill of about $45,000.
For some owners, that was too much to handle, and they just walked away. Eight owners have yet to come up with the necessary cash.
“They’re going to be foreclosing. I have until the end of December to come up with any monies,” owner Shirley Hall said. “I guess I have to walk away from it.”
The building was built in the 90s, at the height of the leaky condo crisis. For 11 years, the province gave interest-free loans to those facing massive repair bills.
A 2008 report done for the government said that after 2012, anywhere from 14,000 to 24,000 leaky condos would still near repairs, and that the demand for loans would be high until 2017.
..but as you all know, that interest free leaky condo repair loan program has been axed. Housing minister Rich Coleman suggests taking out equity to pay for repairs saying “Even seniors can get reverse mortgages — they’re pretty economical”.
Hat-tip to Bizznitch for the link.
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:52 am
Looks like the HST has done its job.
July
“NEW” unit sales
YEAR= UNITS = %Sales to listings ratio
1995 = 296 = 37%
1996 = 442 = 45%
1997 = 350 = 38%
1998 = 311 = 61%
1999 = 298 = 76%
2000 = 205 = 52%
2001 = 288 = 87%
2002 = 221 = 69%
2003 = 488 = 110%
2004 = 343 = 79%
2005 = 724 = 134%
2006 = 445 = 80%
2007 = 503 = 70%
2008 = 215 = 36%
2009 = 441 = 74%
2010 = 69 = 21% *** July 19
July 20th, 2010 at 2:37 am
Housing minister Rich Coleman suggests taking out equity to pay for repairs
He’s right in an obtuse way. The way to handle the risk of repair costs is to pay less for the property.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Bank of Canada raises key overnight interest rate to .75%
http://www.financialpost.com/n.....story.html
July 20th, 2010 at 6:36 am
@Anonymous:
Translation: Almost all “growth” in the Canadian economy since 2008 has been driven by increased consumer debt, especially in RE, and if we don’t start earning our way soon we’re in trouble.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:38 am
The Code of Hammurabi (Babylonian king, 1790 BC): “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then the builder shall be put to death”. Or the building starts leaking, the builder should have to repair at at his own expence.
We need laws like this here. Without them, it is just RE Mafia, allowed to do whatever they want, to build / repair properly or not. Sadly, the latter has become a norm and no one is doing anything about it.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:46 am
@Inventory: Fascinating. But even more interesting is that the new housing demand didn’t shift into the ‘used’ market. Sales in the resale market are low too. I guess the demand that we don’t see in the new market a) was shifted to april-may-june and b) evaporated.
Ah the life of a realtor in the summer. Sitting there watching the phone not ringing.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:58 am
Great..so Canada raises intrest rates in lock step behind such economic giants such as ….Thailand…. so what? The horror show that the travesty of artificial rates have left behind with a generation of FTB’s being skewered for the sake of a temporary fix has also caused RE to inflate far beyond the average Canadians ability to pay. The failing economy has also caused the dollar to sink again, allowing USD tracking Yuan to buy more Vanc property at a big discount further distancing Canadians from home ownership. The new generation is hitherto known as ‘the Cat Box Generation’.
New information regarding the outrageous direct property taxes and new indirect jumps in indirect taxes such as parking ‘fee’s’ are beginning to show up as a classic urban migration pattern in downtown Vancouver. As ratepayers are gouged they are fleeing the downtown core in droves. Just like East Hastings in the 1950′s. The current downtown will be a dead zone for the junkies to expand their turf as opposed to the gentrification concept which is obviously boomeranging back in the faces of the incompetant shitty hall denizens.
The city bought some airtime and ran an infomercial piece ( disguised as news) about how Vanshitter rates stack up against other cities, trying to quell the outflow and the outrage. Vancouver is here, and not anywhere else, so quit trying to tell me that we’re anything like Auckland or Hong Kong OK), the comparisons and averages obfuscations are just childish. Vancouver has zero similarity to London or Tokyo.
They are driving buisnesses out by imposing egegious taxes and now doing everything possible to stop traffic from flowing into the core. Since Vision has taken over the innner core f Vancouver has begun to die. This will continue and it will result in buisnesses abandoning the higher tax regimes for lesser ones and resulting in the gutting of entire areas…just like we see happening now and as has been the case before in Vancouver (East Hastings , Granville).
http://www.vancouversun.com/bu.....story.html
Rich Coleman is now suggesting that seniors take out Reverse Mortgages to pay for leaky condo’s. I have a suggestion for Mr Coleman. ” How about introducing legislation allowing the leaky condo owners to sue the real perpetrators of the problem…the city planners and architect cabal”.
Hey Rich,you asshole, the seniors are already deferring the property taxes they can’t afford. They will have nothing to live on when it becomes time for them to move into an assisted living facility if you keep sucking out their bank accounts. Lets point the blame to where it belongs…directly at city governments who OK’d the leaky condo designs while knowing that the envelopes were failing as they were being built.
July 20th, 2010 at 7:52 am
If the Ontario economy is picking up, than why are they revisiting Rae’s social contract?
http://www.thestar.com/opinion.....l-contract
Should we expect this in BC?
Seems deflationary.
July 20th, 2010 at 7:58 am
My first thought… “$45k divided by 71 owners, that’s not so bad!” OK I’m just waking up and not thinking too clearly.
Given how soft the condo market is becoming even in downtown Vancouver, I wonder how much one of these Cloverdale units would go for on the market today. That repair bill has got to knock well more than $45k off the price someone would be willing to pay, right? Knowing that other owners are in financial distress and all the risks that come with that, could the value of this building actually go to zero?
July 20th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Not only has the leaky condo repair loan program ended, but now they have to pay over $3,000 extra per unit because of the HST…. OUCH!
July 20th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Mr. Bear,
I often wonder, at what point do owner throw up their hands, walk away, and sell a building for land value (minus demolition costs)?
How often has this been done? And will this happen more now that the government-backed loans are gone?
July 20th, 2010 at 8:25 am
@No Longer Looking:
We’ve already seen worse, and will see worse. Remember that despite the labels, the Ontario Liberals are in many respects the counterparts of the BC NDP (the Ontario NDP has lost a lot of union support to the Liberals and the latter want to hold on to it). Thus the soft approach.
Expect the gloves to come off when BC public sector contracts come up for negotiation. With the Owelympics over the government has no more need to put on a happy face and would save money should its employees go on strike. And they have no votes to lose over it.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:32 am
@Teddy Bear: They have that, but it doesnt last forever. There has to be a reasonable time frame. Eventually, every building will leak, its not a question of it, but when.
It does seem kind of bogus that they do a crap job fixing it when its under warranty and then it leaks again later.
Is it safe to assume that this owner hasnt owned this place since it was new? It would be pretty amazing if she hasnt built up >45K in equity since the 90s.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:46 am
#9 Mc B, thats 45 thousand per unit, not 45 divided by 71 units. I reported two weeks ago of a case in Ladner where an older couple I ran into told me that the special assessment they received within weeks of moving in was 60++ thousand based on square footage….they had a small one bedroom, the larger places got much bigger bills. The building in question was a four bldg complex….total cost 13 million. The repair costs on a 71 unit building would be in the millions-divided by the number of units, apportioned by the sq ft of each unit.
They asked me what to do…I said get a lawyer and start sueing the previous owners and the real tard for failure to disclose patent defects etc etc.
I have seen many leakers being repaired ( note I didn’t say fixed because the remediation is never completely water resistant). The problem is never fixed with a one time application. The problem is in the design, not the materials, that has been the problem all along. I recognized this for a paper I wrote titled ‘Building Tommorrows Ghetto’s Today’ way back in the early eighties when the first condos of this design were being built on West 8th avenue. The paper was ‘poo pooed’ by the Appraisal Institute at the time, but I have had the last laugh on that score and the jollies keep rolling in. One building ‘The Gall….’ ( you know the one) had the drop ceilings in the hall ways collapsing under the heavy water weight before a single occupant had moved in.
The envelopes were failing before the construction was even finished. The reason it was so obvious that there was a problem was because prior to cladding water intrusion had already begun. I have heard that this is an issue at OV and it has been reported that interior pipes are wet and soaking into insualtion and concrete…only a matter of time before the wet seeps through and becomes obvious on the interior and exterior walls….by then the problem will have gone so far as to be a disaster requiring an entire tear out. If the concrete is wet, then so is the steel, if the steel is rusting then only demolition can solve the problem, not a ‘reverse mortgage ‘ as Rich ( the big cunt) Coleman has suggested.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:49 am
PS I wanted to add that leakers will never stop leaking. I have seen many ( as have you all) being ‘fixed’ for the third and fourth time.. Never….ever buy a condo with a history of leaking. 100% of the time it continues to leak and becomes a ticking time bomb for the new gullible owners.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Vancouver city council stopped at airport in Mexico while travelling on junket.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl.....a-10692772
Mayor insists that the monkeys hidden in his pants are in fact city counsellors.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:23 am
@VHB: “even more interesting is that the new housing demand didn’t shift into the ‘used’ market”
Well there are still additional taxes on commissions, closing costs, and other services used to purchase property. Add it up and it’s some thousands of dollars. If I were thinking of buying or selling, even if it was an existing property, I would have been trying to close before the end of June, all other things equal.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:28 am
A legal question about the leaky condo foreclosure. Let’s say the condo was bought for $300K with a $200K mortgage left on it. Now if the owner walks away and strata council forecloses and tries to sell the unit, what happens to the mortgage if the sell price is not high enough to pay off the mortgage + special assessments?
My understanding is that strata council’s lien has priority over the mortgage? Given that this is now a leaky condo with a pending special assessment, I think the strata council would probably be lucky to sell it at $150K if it can even sell it. So what happens to the unpaid mortgage balance in this case? Since it’s a foreclosure and there isn’t enough money left to pay off the mortgage, I can’t see the bank voluntarily removes the mortgage lien against the property.
I understand that the mortgage is recourse and bank can go after the borrower. However if the borrower is broke and/or find ways to just avoid paying (eg. flee the country back to home country in extreme case), can the bank actually go after the new buyer for the unpaid balance since they didn’t discharge the mortgage lien against the property?
I remember a case a few years back where a developer together with a lawyer took all the buyer’s purchase payments, instead of handing it first to the bank to pay off the developer’s mortgage and the developer went back to India a very happy rich man. The developer’s bank then went after all the new owners for the unpaid developer’s mortgage.
Could something like that happen in this case? Would new owners/vulture who buy into this kind of situation be in for a shock?
July 20th, 2010 at 9:33 am
hi there, great blog and great bloggers here. I have been following this blog since two months now trying to make sense of RE here. I moved here from Poland with my wife and two kids 7 and 5 three months ago. Right now I am renting in Burnaby but I dont like the place so much. I was just wondering if you guys could give me some ideas as where are the best places to settle here, not too far away from downtown (drive for work). We clearly intend to rent first and check out the areas but dont know where to start. thanks for all your suggestions.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:33 am
@jesse:
Or just demand that the Agent cut the HST off of their commission or you will find an agent that will. With falling sales I can see alot more commission slashing than just the HST. RE Agents have had it far to easy for far too long. Time to start slashing commissions to get the business, can’t wait to see that.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:35 am
@new comer:
If you have a choice, run away from here before you get stuck here. Real estate in BC sucks- ridiculously overpriced and shitty quality. Add to it ongoing overpopulation of areas such as downtown Vancouver.
Look at other provinces. Also Yukon and NWT, incomes are higher there (depends on what your occupation is).
July 20th, 2010 at 9:41 am
@davers:
Davers, I am from Europe originally and until we’ve moved here in the 90′s, I have never ever heard of such a thing as a leaky building.
I agree every building requires maintaining, and it costs money as nothing is free, however, what is happening here is simple example of unpunished sabotage and extortion. People have to pay for the obscene assessments (the RE is expensive, therefore assessment has to be too), or – walk away from your home. If you don’t have the money, borrow more and enslave yourself, and if you don’t want to borrow – walk away from your home and destroy your credit rating. Without credit, you can’t go on vacation, or anywhere for that matter – without CC, one is pretty much screwed.
Ancient Babylonians knew what is right and what is wrong, yet here, you are told by a politician in charge to go and borrow against your equity and feed greedy extortionist pigs who will not stop. Or lose your home. Simply disgusting.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:47 am
@DaMann: “Time to start slashing commissions to get the business”
I’m not normally going to defend Realtors BUT…
1) The large agency firms take a pretty big cut
2) There are a lot of agents fighting over an ever-decreasing slice of pie
3) Who do you think has the upper hand when agreeing to a listing contract? The number of listings per Realtor is up and they need to choose which listings they accept carefully. If the place doesn’t sell, both the seller and Realtor get nada.
That said, Realtor contracts are absolutely negotiable. Here’s a trick I have seen work many many times over:
Realtor presents offer $X. Figure out their commission and how many hours they have worked on your sale. Figure out a fair hourly wage after they pay their firm, then tell them you will only accept an offer $X+N, which means they reduce their commission to make up the difference. Don’t think they’ll do it? Well, you’d be wrong. Happens all the time as long as they get a fair wage in the end.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:48 am
@realpaul:
Why should they stop the leaking when they the leaks are an endless source of income? Is there a law in place? No. And everyone is pretty much conditioned into believing that leaks are something normal, and that you should expect to pay about 100 k for your condo over 25 years just to fix the leaks. And some more, to repair the roof, and plumbing, and…
P.S. I do not see rental buildings in the West End covered with tarp. It seems they do not leak. Hm. How can that be…
July 20th, 2010 at 9:51 am
@new comer:
If you are content living in an apartment, Kerrisdale has tons of places for rent. Rent around here is really reasonable – I pay $850 for a 1 bed. 2 beds in the same bulding go for around $1100-1200. I’m sure three beds are similarly priced. There are tons of places for rent here. It’s a bus and a train (about 30 minutes) from DT. Not sure about houses though. Probably more expensive given the area.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:52 am
@space889: “My understanding is that strata council’s lien has priority over the mortgage?”
If another buyer wants to take out a mortgage, typically the new lender will require all liens to be cleared. Who pays outstanding bills is irrelevant but it would be difficult to get a new loan if they aren’t settled beforehand.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:54 am
@Teddybear:
“Ancient Babylonians knew what is right and what is wrong, yet here, you are told by a politician in charge to go and borrow against your equity and feed greedy extortionist pigs who will not stop. Or lose your home. Simply disgusting.”
Nothing disgusting here. If you make a mistake by entering into a legal agreement that is bad for you, then (surprise, surprise) it is bad for you. There are many stupid things one can do, and it is actually great when people get punished for their mistakes. Otherwise we would be doing nothing but mistakes. I did not buy a shitty condo for a ridiculous amount of money, so why should I be declined an opportunity to watch how my fellow citizens who are careless and stupid get punished for their mistakes? Without this I am guaranteed to never have a chance to buy a quality housing product for a reasonable price. And it would affect not just housing.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:02 am
@Anon:
I agree, in a way. Yet, I’d rather see the builders and politicians pay dearly for deliberately setting up the (ignorant and naive) people into this mess. When you buy a new car, you don’t anticipate the seat would fall through the floor in five years time, do you? If that would happen, well, nobody would blame the buyer, right? And we can only imagine what would happen to the car manufacturer (bankruptcy, law suits etc)
July 20th, 2010 at 10:04 am
So, Rich Coleman suggests taking out equity to pay for repairs…
Nice try. Banks won’t do refi’s on leaky condos. These owners should have applied for a HELOC long before all this started (if that was possible) and the market shifted on them. If any of these owner bought leaky units unknowingly, then I feel for them since the system is designed to protect the developers, agents and the sellers themselves.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:06 am
@jesse:
Some fair points about commissions but let’s not forget that over the last 7 years their commissions have DOUBLED and their work load has arguably been cut in half. 7 years ago the commission was on a $500k house in a slower market, now it’s the same % commission on a $1 million dollar house and they sold it by simply sticking a sign on the lawn. 7 years ago I would agree with you but over the last 7 years they have been making obscene amounts of money with little effort or education and training.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:11 am
You will have a difficult time selling a unit if there is any lien registered against the condo corporation. Happened to me back in the 90s back in Onterrible. Any liens have to be disclosed in the estoppel certificate and most people won’t purchase a unit until all liens are cleared. Luckily, our Condo Corp won the legal battle after years and years and I sold my place and moved out of my townhouse a short time later.
The leaky condo thing just won’t die, eh….it’s like one of the undead, rising occasionally from the grave to suck the blood of the living. A friend of mine had a leaky condo in a low-rise he bought back in the 90s….I think it cost each unit owner around $20k to “fix” the problem….lucky for him the Government offered interest-free loans at the time, IIRC.
By the way, I would describe his place as a stucco-clad “California-style” design which seems inappropriate for the BC climate, but then what do I know?
And so it goes….
July 20th, 2010 at 10:15 am
#18 S, CDN mortgages ar 100% ‘recourse’ instruments where the borrower is on the hook for the entire amount. In the event that they can’t find the borrower the court would order the sale and retain the proceeds for the listed creditors. I believe you may be wrong with postion…the first mortgage states that the lender has first position..all other creditors ( except for workmans liens) take hind tit..including second mortgages and strata councils. In the event that a buyer is ripped off by the developer who failed to transfer title after the sale ( quite common) and runs off to India ( common occurence) then the owners are resposible for all debts. There are two differant statutes at play here unrelated to the other. The bank may seize the property but you have to find the developer and prove fraud has been committed. Any way you slice it, you want to make sure you’ve dealt with a professional at completion…this is only one of the reasons you should use a lawyer and not a real tard for advice.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:19 am
@Teddybear: I think the reason leaks are more common here is because many buildings are made from wood. I am willing to bet buildings in europe leak too but it isnt as much of an issue because there isnt wood that would rot and cause problems.
The main reasons buildings are made from wood here is because it is cheaper and has a higher tolerance to earthquakes. I am not sure of the details but I would bet siesmic standards are far higher here due to the increased risk of earthquakes.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:28 am
The building in which I rent leaks frequently. The cause is poor workmanship on the plumbing. There is not rainwater seeping in.
My unfortunate landlord is going to be on the hook for tens of thousands because the strata just decided that it is necessary to replace all the plumbing in the building.
Currently the elevators are in the process of being replaced. They cannot be repaired becaue the builder installed discontinued parts. Apparantly this means that an entirely new mechanism must be installed. Landlord on the hook.
But I don’t care because I’m renting the place. I don’t have to pay for any of this.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:31 am
@Teddybear:
Nope, what’s happening here is the result of buyers willing to pay ridiculous prices for crap. Why should developers build quality when they don’t have to?
People have learned nothing from the leaky condo scandal of the 90′s. Zippo. Nor from the bust in the US. Such buyers get no respect or sympathy from me.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:33 am
While this is unfortunate to the people living there, part of being a responsible home owner is keeping funds in reserve, or obtaining additional insurance coverage for these type of special assessments.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:37 am
@new comer: I guess it all depends what you want. Do you live in north or south burnaby? I grew up in north burnaby near brentwood mall and I quite liked it. Brentwood elementary is a good school, but the high school I went to (alpha secondary) is a bit on the full side these days and there are probably better high schools out there. That being said I am sure you would be ready to move and maybe buy when your kids go do get to the high school age. I think a decent house around there rents for 2000-2500. 3 Bed apartments can be found for around 1300-1500.
If you dont like north burnaby then I would say Rediculous seems to have a good sudgestion and you could check that area out and see what you think.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:39 am
@davers:
I see plenty of wood 3 story buildings built in the 40′s, 50′s 60′s and that have no issues what so ever, and they are 50 to 60 years old now. The wood bullshit doesn’t wash, it’s cheap materials, design, crappy workmanship and cost cutting that is the problem. I still shake my head at how the developers get away with it.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:45 am
http://finance.yahoo.com/famil.....amp;ccode=
Unfortunately, that’s not what I am seeing from the Private Client Service website looking at the recent Dunbar sales activities. Again, more than 50% are still selling over ask, especially for lots wider than 50ft. No wonder, as reported by Yattermatters, that a house on Point Grey rd sold within 5 days at 8M.
The deflationists out there like Pretcher would have your believe that deflation is here to come and will sink all boats. It’s just outright lies. The ultra-riches was bailed out in 2008 and the common folks are the ones that carry the debt, not the super-rich. They have lots of money to invest in those very high-end on the West side.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Almost every tower and low rise, if it hasn’t yet, will experience leaking problems. So many of the buildings I’ve looked at have issues. Usually it is a massive headache to get a vote of approval on the repairs so the issues drag on for years and years. Have you all seen the HUGE stucco complex on the corner of Nanaimo and Broadway likely built in the 90′s? The entire back side of the building was falling off. Looks like they are doing a patch job on it. I heard from my realtor the other day that the Buchanon buildings built cerca 2002 in the Brentwood area have leaking issues. My neighbors just moved from City in the Park in the New West area, because they said that those relatively new towers have leakage issues.
So your not safe buying anything built in the 80′s, 90′s or 2000′s. Buyer beware. I got screwed on the tower I bought into, but thankfully I still came out ahead thanks to rising property value. Never again will I buy a condo in Vancouver unless the building is 100% solid… I am only aware of a few newer buildings that I would buy into. Safest buying a house.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Anyone ever heard of a leaking house that cost $50k to fix? I haven’t. I’ve heard of a few leaks, but the solution was always either a new roof or a minor wall fix, or some drainage issue.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:02 am
@davers: No kidding. Wood is not the issue. Its the design and the other materials used. Perhaps using stucco over a sealed vapor barrier in a temperate rain forest isn’t the wisest idea.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:03 am
@900kCrackHouse: and the 50K is usually the medium to low end of the scale for repairs to your crappy beaverboard condo.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:16 am
@davers:
I see no wooden buildings in Yaletown, yet I’ve enough seen tarp around high-rises to last me a lifetime. Wood is used all over Canada and USA and other then here, in Lower Mainland, I haven’t heard of leaky condos. Here – it is deliberate maleficence!
Patriotz, at the beginning of the 90s majority of condos were affordable! How can you blame people who unknowingly paid normal, affordable price for a condo in a brand new building, which was deliberately built to leak so it became an uncapped source of income for builders/repair companies? I don’t blame them.
Newcomer,
find yourself a nice 2 bedroom in Kerrisdale, and apply for co-op housing. With two kids you are going to find nice accommodation in a year or so (unless you immigrated under sponsorship by a relative or a church). You can find info here:http://www.bchousing.org/ and here http://www.affordablehsg.com/howtoapply.php.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:22 am
@new comer: Welcome to Vancouver, newcomer and fellow Slav! I was born in Big Old South Slavistan, but was raised in Vancouver.
Where in Burnaby are you living currently? What (approximate size, number of bedrooms) are you renting and how much is your monthly rent? This information will help the rest of us give you the advice you seek.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:22 am
@Teddybear:
I don’t. Read my post again. And take note, normal price for condo is 100x rent.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:27 am
http://globaleconomicanalysis......io-of.html
Funny how some people was bashing Vancouver the other day and claimed how Paris or London are better cities in terms of liveability. Check out the above. France appreciated 133% from 1997-2010. Sweden appreciated 167%. I don’t know what the heck happened in South Africa. Ireland, after the 10% drop, is still up 187%. Canada, on average, is only up 69%. Vancouver, as you’re aware, is up around 110% from 1997 to 2010 and that still can’t keep up with the average France or Sweden appreciation. Mind you, if France averages 133%, how about urban center like Paris? You bet it will be a lot higher.
As I have said again and again, it’s all about the timing. The fact that Vancouver is up 100% is no guarantee that it won’t go up 150% before falling back down to earth. Why don’t you bears stick out your tongue and provide some concrete timeframe as to when Vancouver will drop back to realistic level?
Also, please explain to me why Sweden, France, etc, managed to go up even more than Vancouver in the last 13 years?
July 20th, 2010 at 11:29 am
OK. Percentage is not enough. Please go to http://www.globalpropertyguide.....ce-History for the exact average price in Stockholm.
Thanks.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Rate hikes not seen triggering housing price collapse
July 20, 2010 | 13:29
http://money.canoe.ca/money/bu.....32954.html
July 20th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I am living not far wawy from metrotown, renting a house for 2200 per month plus utilities, 3 bedroom house estimated at 1.2million CAD I heard. Thanks – newcomer
July 20th, 2010 at 11:37 am
@patriotz:
Ok. I agree. The thread was about a building from the 90s, and that is what I was referring to in most of my posts today.
For people who recently bought a 500k condo in a 20 year old building with no CRF other than legal minimum, well – I have absolutely no sympathy either. I went to an open house in my neighborhood last July: 2bdr/2bthr 1000 sq feet $500k condo in a cute little building of 10 suites (with broken gate, original and worn out carpet, original doorknobs and broken intercom. The realtor was acting all mighty and important until I started asking questions about CRF, maintenance fees, engineering reports etc. They had only $10,000 in the CRF! And fair enough, there was a FTB fool who ran into the bank and fell for this “incredible buy” and low interest rates.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:52 am
@Teddybear:
“P.S. I do not see rental buildings in the West End covered with tarp. It seems they do not leak. Hm. How can that be…”
The bedbugs absorb all the moisture
July 20th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@Whitebear:
It’s called gambling. If you buy now and it’s the peak you lose your life savings you put into your house. Worse you owe the bank what they lent you too!
Do you expect people to pay 70% or more of their income to fuel an increase in the housing market? If everyone spends their money on property the rest of the economy will suffer and wages will stagnate.
July 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Do many of the downtown towers have leaking issues? I haven’t seen that much leaky condo work being done down there. Only in the burbs where it is all over the place.
July 20th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@Teddybear: Yaletown was built during the boom. AKA slap it together and sell it as fast as possible so you can do it all again. I wouldnt call the leaks deliberate, just caused by lack of proper care.
To say that they intentionally make them with leaks so that another company can get business fixing it doesnt make a whole lot of sense. It also tarnishes the builders reputation.
Many buildings that have leaks are caused by the poor workmanship that you cite, but it is a matter of cheap materials and rushing to get the job done, it isnt intentional.
This is the main reason all new buildings have to (by law) have a 2-5-10 warranty supplied by a 3rd party. This way even if the company goes bust the building is still insured.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
@davers:
Not intentional??? If I don’t do a proper job because I am in a rush and want to save material and wages and make enormous profit, that is not an intentional screw up? What are you, 12?
Ever heard of this SOB – Molnar, for one, built leaky condos and then started another business – repairs of the condos, the ones he built!!! Who cares for reputation, one day he is a builder, the other “restoration professional”. Same mobster under different name.
I’ve heard of CD player and TV having a warranty, but a building??? Well sure, if they are built as consumer products, which they obviously are here in Lower Mainland, and people are hypnotized into believing that is a norm, yes, why not! Board a ship, go on a cruise, and there – in the middle of an ocean, a ship starts leaking since its warranty has expired right on time. Is that acceptable? Of course not! But here, anything is possible, because people just shrug their shoulders and have excuses for any type of criminal behavior or fraudulent activity. Go and pay half a million for 900 sq feet shoebox in the sky, and $100 k on top of that to feed pigs who built it in rush and “not intentionally” screwed up. Come on!
July 20th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Presumably independent engineers have to sign off on a construction after it’s completion? Or is that not the case?
July 20th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@Jonathon: I ride a motorcycle, it’s a Suzuki.
At the end of this month, 2 (TWO!) of the local Suzuki motorcycle dealers are closing their doors. One of these places was in business for many, many years (Modern Motorcycling), the other was in business for just a couple, but is a part of an empire (Jim Pattison Suzuki).
I spoke to the owner of one of the remaining shops recently and asked his opinion about the situation. He told me the business right now is at it’s lowest EVER.
He’s been doing this for couple of decades now and the state of motorcycle industry in BC is in disastrous shape. People have no money to buy and the banks won’t help either.
But hey, we have confident consumers, right?
I have no idea how is car business around here etc, but I see a lot of great financing offered for cars, which cannot be said about bikes. I guess it makes a world of difference.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Oh yeah, we forgot that somebody has to PAY for all the infrastructure that goes along with the leaky condo building boom :
http://www.theprovince.com/Uti.....story.html
Eat it, taxpayers!
July 20th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
More great news for the place where “everybody wants to live” –
Abbotsford is Canada’s murder capital for second straight year!
http://www.theprovince.com/new.....story.html
WE’RE NUMBER ONE! WE’RE NUMBER ONE!
July 20th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
@ davers
The leaks might not be intentional but a system rigged to favour and get out of the way of developers certainly merits the accusation.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
But that’s alright – we’ll get the missing revenues from gambling:
http://www.theprovince.com/new.....story.html
July 20th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
@new comer:
It depends what you like. You can get 3 bedrooms for 2.2 K just about anywhere in city, but in come places that will be a house and in other places not. I would recommend that you spend a weekend with Craig’s list and a bicycle. I live in East Van, near the Drive and I love it, but other people might hate it.
(By the way, please keep spelling your name as two words, all lower case, so people don’t get us confused. I’ve been here four years now, waiting for the right time to buy, and it still has not come.)
July 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
@Anonymous:
It seems like Vancouver is the last place on earth to figure out we’re in the middle of a global recession. Poor V-Rock, always late for the party! (or as I prefer: so far behind we think we’re in the lead!).
Restaurants are getting hammered too. Spoke with a local merchant with friends who have restaurants, and most of there business has been halved in the last six months – year. Have also noticed a strange “value menu” trend popping up at a few of the places I frequent (if like “fuel” on 4th, they haven’t already drastically reduced the entire overall concept).
But of course that would never make the papers – got to keep everybody “confident”!
July 20th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
There was a lot of debate in the web about leaky condos and who is/was responsible for what. This is what I found from COLCO – Coalition of Leaky Condo Owners:
” Wasn’t the building code responsible for the leaky condos?
or
I heard it was caused by a change in the building code, is that true?
The building industry wants you to think the building code was at fault. That would relieve them of the responsibility for this disaster. We believe that the “It’s the building code” chant was a loosely coordinated and planned propaganda campaign put together by the people and organizations responsible for the leaky condo disaster. They want to deflect blame and attention from themselves and a lot of people bought into it.
The truth was clearly stated in the second Barrett Commission report. In the section on the building code, the commission wrote: “Numerous presenters, including strata council representatives with commissioned engineer studies, architects, engineers, and warranty providers, told of building envelope failures as a result of poor or inappropriate design and shoddy workmanship. Not one example was brought forward where such buildings had been built to code.”
The last sentence is worth repeating “Not one example was brought forward where such buildings had been built to code.” The Barrett Commission comments further “There has been no evidence that building envelopes, constructed according to the building code, will fail.”
After 59 Barrett Commission sessions and more than 300 presenters, there is still no evidence to back claims that the Building Code caused leaky rotten condos.
COLCO inspection agents have read through nearly 100 engineering reports and, in every case where a forensic engineering report was completed on a leaky rotten condo, the report cites multiple building code violations. The Barrett Commission report notes one complex that the remediation report alleges 469 building code violations (!!!!!) in a project built by Andre Molnar.
COLCO has challenged the developers, the construction industry, CHBA-BC, UDI, and others to produce a leaky condo that was built to code. They have yet to meet the challenge and we expect they never will.”
Therefore – intentional!
July 20th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
@Whitebear:
Whitebear, I’ve seen that chart from Mish.
It’s fallacy to make the assumption that indices in different countries could peak at the same levels. Every country is under different circumstances and Europe has seen its fair share of creative lending. Cherry picking that sort of data without looking at affordability as well as local and national economic factors doesn’t support the notion of a peak, simply that it is overpriced relative to historical metrics.
With respect to Vancouver:
The reason why real estate is topping out now in Vancouver is because of interest rates bottoming out and now creeping up, however slowly.
The proof is in the pudding – sales down, inventory up, MOI is up.
Affordability is the key metric, and it is clear that Vancouver is hitting a wall. The same occurred in early 2008 (well before markets crashed in September/October). Affordability peaked and buyers were tapped out. So inventory rose sharply and prices eased, then fell sharply once the recession hit.
Interest rates hit the floor, so people (accustomed to debt) bought in like the idiots they are and drove up prices (and drove down affordability again).
And here we are, with mortgage rates that have actually eased (because 5-yr rates are down) but with sales continuing to stagnate and inventory that remains stubbornly high and growing even in the light of expiries.
Since 2008, credit contracted in the USA, but did not contract here – it continued to expand.
Jonathan Tonge had a nice explanation as to why we are headed in the direction that we are:
http://americacanada.blogspot......is-in.html
http://americacanada.blogspot......dence.html
Could things stretch out a bit further? It’s possible, though not probable given that confidence is waning, and in light of RE sales figures.
The only measure of increasing affordability that is plausible is a lowering of prices now. It’s already occuring, which suggests to me that the top is already in.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
@new comer: New comer, I strongly recommend you to check co-op housing. Like most of us here, I am also pissed off by the ridiculously high real estate prices but the “basement rentals” is what I really hate in Vancouver. After paying higher than normal rent for a two bedroom condo for three years (it was a nice place though), I found a nicer three bed room townhouse in a co-op in Burnaby recently that will cost me three hundred dollars less than my condo rental. I initially thought that co-ops are only for low income families but it is not true. Some co-ops have income limits but there are many which are available for everyone. Apart from very reasonable housing charges (rents) the best thing about co-op is security of tenacy as there is no landlord. Take a look at the co-op housing directory http://www.chf.bc.ca/pages/directory.asp, shortlist a few you are interested and eligible, make some background investigation and apply now as good co-ops have long waiting lists. You do need to watch out for a few that are badly managed or maintained. Nominal application fees are there but they are well worth investing.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
@AlmostPerfect: Hi AlmostPerfect. Thanks for the link. Do you have any recommendations on good housing co-ops in the Burnaby / Coquitlam / East Van / Westside Vancouver areas? Thanks!
July 20th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
@Teddybear:
Hammurabi had the death penalty for building houses that collapsed and killed someone, but I don’t think he had it for houses that let sand in.
It’s the right and duty of the state to enforce product safety for houses or anything else, but quality is another matter. Ultimately it’s up to the buyer to ascertain the quality and repair history of any property they consider buying. It’s not that difficult and it’s not that expensive. The fact that many buyers don’t even check condo minutes or hire someone to do a cursory inspection speaks volumes. Not to mention the condo presale contracts that buyers sign without even reading.
Certainly the government should be doing more to design and enforce building codes, but the ultimate power and responsibility lie with the buyers. They can go on strike indefinitely and the developers can’t.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
@900kCrackHouse: Sorry, I do not have enough information or experience for making recommendation for others on specific co-ops. I made the decision for me using 1) area and the elementary school 2) outside looks (how well the building and the surrounding area is maintained), 3) observing the community by taking evening strolls a few times, 4) talking to the co-ordinator and a few members of the co-op and to the tenant who was leaving the unit that I occuppied. You can start with the directory, some co-ops have their own website with photos, use google maps to make a virtual tour etc. Good luck!
July 20th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
@patriotz:
What do you do when a suite in a building becomes uninhabitable due to the rot and mold? You are homeless, and in debt. The roof could have fallen on your head as well, at least family could collect life insurance. This rot and mold has been the case with 1819 Pendrell St., Vancouver. The strata can not collect the money for repairs – they know the reasons why – owners can’t sell for the reason mentioned, not even after the realtors with low ethics put the most spectacular spin advertising the neighborhood and the suite with its granite counter tops and stainless steal appliances (as if you can get those ordinary white ones any more), and even provide misleading building info to lure naive FTBs into living nightmare. Oh, during my days when I was regularly attending strata meetings I learned of a very special skill – writing minutes without revealing too much information. Carefully chose words, do not mention too much… I remember – we had a bed bugs infestation, and the Property Manager did not put that into the minutes.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
@Teddybear: An intentionaly leaky condo has things done for the purpose of making them leak. If I build a condo and am really lazy and incompetent, then it will probably have problems, but I didnt intentionally make it leak. If I drill holes in the walls and put the drainage pointing inwards then that is intentionally making it leak.
You are confusing poor standards with intent. In order to intentionally make a car break, you have to intentionally build in defects that will make it break. If you just use cheap parts, then it will probably break, but thats not intentional.
If you think using cheap labour and materials is intentionally making the building leak then every building in the history of the world that used anything less than the absolute best materials available will leak and it was intentional.
I am not trying to defend the developers who use poor building practices, but you seem to think every building should stand forever and never have any problems.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
@AlmostPerfect: Thanks for the details. I was always under the impression that there were income restrictions on the co-ops, but you say that many do not have these income restrictions? How much of your weekly time are you expected to donate to the co-op? Also wondering, how do renovations work? Do they keep the units updated? Or are they still decked out with 1970′s carpet? How long was your wait to get in after applying?
July 20th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
@Teddybear:
You are essentially making the same point as I have made before. Condos are risky due to lack of “owner” (the only real owner is the strata) control and lack of transparency. Due to this they should trade at a lower price/rent multiple than purpose built apartments, which have a single owner who does not face such problems.
And yet people pay a price/rent three or more times that of purpose built apartments. When people are willing to burn that kind of money right from the word go, how can one expect any kind of regulation to do them any good?
July 20th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
@900kCrackHouse:
Funny how many people believe this. In fact the whole point of almost all co-ops (I mean the non-profit ones, not the ones where units are sold on the market) is to have people of differing income levels living together. Thus some units in the co-op have income restrictions.
I lived in a very nice co-op years ago in Calgary, in fact nicer than any place I’ve had since. Right across the river from downtown too.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
@davers:
No, I don’t think every building should stand forever. They are not falling down here either. Yet, people are slammed with assessments as if they are being rebuilt!
Did you even read what I copy/pasted from COLCO? The builders are allowed to build and violate the code, they have zero or very little liability and the owners, when faced with leaky disaster and obscene bills, have no recourse in most cases.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
@patriotz:
Whether or not a co-op has an “income ceiling” depends of what program it is/was funded by. Some co-ops have maximum income limits, some don’t.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
@900kCrackHouse:
>>>I was always under the impression that there were income restrictions on the co-ops, but you say that many do not have these income restrictions? How much of your weekly time are you expected to donate to the co-op?<<<
Pretty much all co-ops have income restrictions but they are reasonably high.
The income restrictions you may be thinking of which ARE quite low apply to the subsidized units not market units. You have virtually no chance of getting a subsidized one anyway as the people in them tend to stay until they die.
About 4 hours a week is expected of you in terms of participation on any one of their committees.
Also keep in mind that you must purchase a share upon approval, usually between $1500 – 2500.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
@Best place on meth:
CORRECTION:
About 4 hours a MONTH is expected of you in terms of participation on any one of their committees.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
@900kCrackHouse: Income ceiling for co-op depends on the specific government scheme they are funded.
See http://www.chf.bc.ca/pages/about5.asp#ceiling for details.
As far as participation is concerned, I do not think there is anything measurable in weekly times. It is too early for me (less than a month) but I have not been asked to spend any time yet. As far as I know, meeting attendance is mandatory. I do not think participation is a source of worry. In fact I am looking forward to it as an opportunity to get involved with the local community.
Renovations depends on the co-op management. Our co-op seems to be nicely maintained, they had all the plumbing replaced last year. Yard is nicely maintained and the co-ordinator says that windows may be replaced next. But I also heard the rumour that contingency funds are running low after last renovations so nothing may happen soon. I may find out more in the next meeting. Carpets are not great, I am trying to get it replaced. Since I am getting such a big break on my rent, I am willing to spend some money. Right now I bought a big area rug for my living room and thinking of doing some renovations in basement. Considering $3600 savings in annual rent and that I will be staying here for three years at least, a few grands is not a bad expense even though I may not get anything back when I leave. Who knows, I may never leave if the insanity continues for ever.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
@Teddybear: Yes, many builders suck. They break the rules. I wasnt saying they are all perfect. I was saying that they dont intentionally make the things leak.
If there was a way to make all buildings leak proof cheaper than any building practices today I then there wouldnt be anymore leaky condos being built. That is the answer. They do what they do because it is cheaper.
It all comes down to money. If buyers care more about things like what colour the floors are than the quality of the building then what kind of builder is going to spend extra to make the building to a higher standard. Probably a builder that is going out of business.
Until buyers refuse to buy the cheapest crap on the market then builders will continue to make buildings as cheap as they can get away with.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Hey Pope, you know I love the site, just a couple points:
1) The “In the Forum:” column on the right hand side of the screen is annoying, I liked it better without.
2) The condo list tracker, great idea but the numbers are all over the place, am I the only one who doesn’t get it?
Keep up the good work!
July 20th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
@Best place on meth: 4 hours a month is the bare minimum; for a well-run cooperative, to keep costs down, residents need to do more work themselves. Otherwise it deteriorates, they end up having huge renovation costs down the road, or they pay someone else to do the work/admin for them and costs go up.
The truth is many people in coops treat it like a cheap rental and if they get too much pressure to carry their share (which usually doesn’t happen), they simply leave.
Typically many cooperatives will receive a subsidy from CMHC for incomes below a certain limit. To get into such a coop you need to be below this threshold; if this increases later you need to pay a surcharge that that brings the charges closer to market rent. Add in the time you need to spend with board meetings and other upkeep jobs and it’s probably not much different from a rental but you get a better guarantee of stability (which is one of the reasons people buy).
I think there are some market-rate cooperatives around and they trade at a discount, but you need to be approved by the board before you can buy. These market-rate cooperatives are actually expensive compared to renting if you do the math but the small discount is enough for people to buy into them for the stability.
I’d check out CHF for a list of cooperatives. Actually, for some, it helps to go to the open house and introduce you and your family. They really look for community-minded people and, if you happen to be such a person, they will bump your name up the waiting list. It’s not first-come-first-serve because the cooperatives generally need to be very picky when choosing members. It can also help to apply from time to time to the same place as they generally don’t like sifting through hundreds of applications (that tend to be out of date anyways) and they may just interview you right away to avoid the hassle of calling up a bunch of dead ends.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@AlmostPerfect: “contingency funds are running low after last renovations so nothing may happen soon.”
There are grants available for cooperatives for doing renovations but the process is sometimes a bit confusing. It may be worth it to hire someone to help with this process. It also underscores the importance of paying into a properly funded capital account, something that most owner-occupiers don’t do and perpetually underestimate maintenance costs as a result. Being involved in a well-run cooperative brings the true costs of ownership to the surface.
Say what you want about CMHC, but its efforts in cooperatives have produced some wonderful and supportive communities in one of North America’s least affordable cities. Imagine CMHC actually fulfilling its mandate by producing affordable and sustainable housing, unlike their other endeavors in mortgage insurance and MBS that end up decreasing affordability by inflating asset prices.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Teddybear, I’ve heard stories from contract service providers and strata council members about the horrible construction practice on new buildings, so I’m not buying the whole ‘buyer beware’ write-off either. Where’s the history on a new build? If you have building codes, make sure they’re adequate and enforced or get rid of them. If a developer has a reputation for building junk, don’t grant the permits. Anything less is theatre.
Davers: “Until buyers refuse to buy the cheapest crap on the market then builders will continue to make buildings as cheap as they can get away with.”
LOL,cheapest possible & blame the buyer? Too funny. Dry buildings get erected elsewhere at a fraction Van’s going rate so colour me amused.
July 20th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
“Good thing I just locked in my variable rate mortgage
”
http://www.realestatetalks.com.....p;start=15
Then why are still here?
July 20th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
@fixie guy:
Yes, blame the buyer. As long as people are willing to buy shoddy condos for 3 times what they’re really worth, they will keep getting built.
The only thing that will get governments to take action to enforce real standards for condos is when people refuse to buy them. Until then, they have no reason to do anything. Too many people are making too much money from the present state of things.
July 20th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
@Bubble Lad:
hahaha…..Abbotsford, who the hell lives there anyways. I bet those hillbillies out there have nothing else better to do, that’s why they either kill each other or just take their own lives. Good riddance, why don’t we just nuke out that entire town out and start from scratch. There are other dumps that the BC government should nuke out, they include Maple Ridge, Coquitlam, Surrey, Cloverdale, Aldergrove, and parts of Burnaby. Either that or just shove the bums from East Hastings, pack them in a bus, have an autopilot taking them into Brown Town Curry Surrey or Korean Town Port Coquitlam, and just blow them all up.
July 20th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
@fixie guy: Developers build to make money.
Developer A builds a place on the cheap. Prices in a 10% profit and puts them up for 500K each.
Developer B builds a place with good materials and people who knwo what they are doing. He also prices in a 10% profit and puts the places up for 600K.
The places have similar finishings and are in the same area.
Guess what, developer A sells out in 2 months and starts up on the next project. Developer B takes 6 months to sell them all and cant start a new project until then.
What incentive is there for developer B to make good quality places if it doesnt make him the same kind of cash developer A?
July 20th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@davers:
Transparency is the answer. We need a group that analyses developers and their product the way that Consumer Reports and JD Power do for cars and TVs.
Potential buyers can look up a developer’s history of building, the number of leaks, infractions, lawsuits and perhaps even a satisfaction survey of buyers from their earlier projects. I don’t this would be too expensive and personally I would fork out $50 for access to such a report before plumping down several hundred grand.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I understand all that guys, you’re belabouring the obvious and essentially arguing against consumer protection in principle. Here’s the thing though, passing a set of building codes carries with it an implicit guarantee of quality at some level. If it’s all really theatre then City Hall is complicit in what amounts to false advertising. The codes mean something or they don’t.
By your arguments what incentive is there for manufacturers not to put sawdust in baby food, sell cat as chicken, worthless elixirs as medicine? You have a valid point but I suspect most people don’t want the clock turned back to the 19th century. Knowing that that current codes are theatre, buyers with above room temp IQ have no excuse not to go the extra distance but that doesn’t excuse the municipal puppet show.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Looking up the developers’ track record is a good idea in theory but in practice the developers use numbered companies when registering the properties – it is extremely difficult to find a clear concise record of who has done what. Seattle had the same difficulty at one time but has since made the practice illegal – a developer’s numbered companies have to link back to the owner. That would be an easy fix for B.C. as well but none of the politicians, provincial all the way down to municipal, want it done.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
A little bit off-topic, but here’s a potential revenue stream for cash-strapped local governments.
http://thedailywh.at/post/8156.....ngs-public
July 20th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
New Listings 225
Price Changes 125
Sold Listings 135
July 20th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
@fixie guy:
No we’re not. We’re saying that it is essentially up to the buyer to evaluate the quality and value of a product. If the buyer has complete disregard for quality and value, no government regulations will help them. We are not saying, however, that regulations should not be enforced.
This is a different issue from product safety and transparency. However the issue of transparency (i.e. what you get) for a condo is rather more complicated than for a can of Coke.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Bizarre day for press releases from the ever slimy folks at Vision Vancouver. Exposed titties are now allowed on all Vancouver beaches.
http://www.vch.ca/Utilities/Se.....submit.y=8
Meanwhile the Vancouver Health Authority has deleted all referances to the feces laden water of local beaches and the infected sand along the shores from their website. That time of year?
So how did Tourism Vancouver drop the ball and kept a mention of the beaches being closed on a regular basis from raw feces and hospital waste in the water? Titties stained with fecal matter… thats Vancouvers image….yummy eh? Don’t sit on any needles, the sand filters aren’t calibrated to pick them up and there are plenty in the sand..they just don’t get reported by the Van health Authority who’s publicity seems to be controlled by the Shitty Hall queens.
Is that it….is it because Greggy and Megs are gay that they are just loving the idea of swimming in bum juice that they don’t want to make it go away. Is that Greggy’s happy place….covered in fecal matter. Or is it that his fantasy is to degrade women by flinging shit on them and the naked/filth symbolism drives his masturbation frenzy?
Is it just me? I have no idea what drives people to lay around in the cecal soaked sands of English Bay…I guess I’m a zero tolerance for laying or swimming in feces kind of guy.
Meanwhile, according to the Fisheries and Oceans lawsuit against BC and the Shitty Of Vancouver, there is 800 million liters of raw fresh shit flooding into the sewage outfalls along the city coast line EVERY DAY. Have fun at the beach kiddies.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
@Supraboy:
I would rather nuke that cesspool of greed and stupidity known as Hong Kong.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
@Supraboy: Here’s the hilarious part Supra, that “dump” you speak of Abottsford made it to the top 20 list of most unaffordable places in the world. Kinda squelches the “everyone wants to live here” logic you use for high prices in Van huh?
July 20th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I agree to an extent with the caveat emptor approach – I mean, I wouldn’t buy into an Onni building even if given money to do so, and I’m not into taxes baling tons of folks out on this – but at the same time, there’s got to be *some* way to keep this utter crap off the market. Whether it be leaded paint or leaky condos, when you have basic standards in the marketplace, the marketplace adjusts to those standards. The utter waste economically and environmentally makes me ill.
I’ve lived in old purpose-built Lower Mainland rentals that haven’t leaked a year in their lives. A friend in Scotland, in a very similar climate, owns a suite in a place that’s 250 years old: she thinks the “leaky condo” thing is darkly hilarious and assumes our building code is cardboard and saran wrap. I have a really hard time believing there isn’t any before-market check on shoddy workmanship that might work. If it’s not the building code, then it’s got to be the inspectors.
Whatever the fix is, I’m sick of it not being done, already.
July 20th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I also totally agree that you can’t just blame the buyers! Buyers are not engineers and cannot be expected to know everything! that’s just not realistic.
hell, by Patriotz reasoning, we don’t need any consumer protection laws because people will always avoid the bad products. But how the hell would consumer know? Just from looking at a finished building, there is no way the average person can tell it is good quality or not. Even hiring specialist at probably a few grand to do a complete inspection might not reveal all the problems since it’s not like they can actually poke through walls and everything is done right and such. A lot of stuff can only be found during inspections while the building is still going up.
As for checking for history of the builders, well what’s to prevent a builder doing a few good high quality buildings and then start building crap for higher margins? That’s what’s been happening in China. Phase 1 of the development is really good quality, word gets about how good the developer is, people rush to buy from high quality developer, and phase 2 and onwards, things go downhill.
I agree that we should not be going back to 19th century. Consumer protection laws serve a common good in that it ensures protection for the average person at a low cost. If people can’t rely on basic standard being met then you have China where anything you buy can be poisoneous, literally anything, doesn’t matter whether it’s low price, high price, domestic made, foreign made, etc as everybody tries to make a buck however they can and people getting hurt is just acceptable collateral damage. Is that really how you want to live? Not being able to trust anything you buy? Veggies, meat, coffee, milk, bottled water, coke cola, clothing, toothpaste, etc? Because that’s almost how it works in Asia, it’s buyer beware as product safety enforcement can often be bought for a price. Are you going to blame the buyers who got sick after buying food that was contaminated or sprayed with chemicals to make it look better or cheaper? because they should have known the food they bought was bad and should have them inspected and test it before they bought it?
There is a reason why consumer protection laws exists in every developed country. Because it works at a low cost and prevents lots of damages and wasted resources to correct the problems afterwards!
July 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
@Patriotz, “If the buyer has complete disregard for quality and value, no government regulations will help them.”
As far as I’m concerned a leaky condo is not a matter of quality but rather a faulty product. We’re not talking about leaky fixtures or poor insulation here. Why have building codes if they either aren’t good enough or aren’t enforced well enough to prevent this?
July 20th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
@patriotz: And how exactly do you propose the average buyer do that? How would they know if the building they are buying into is good or not?
Just saying people should do research and such before buying is easy. But how about you actually list some ways for the actual buyer to actually do it? If you don’t have any realistic way for the average person to do it then I’m sorry, you should just get off your high horse and stop sprouting buyer beware.
I seriously doubt a lot of the buyers who buy to live want to buy a leaking condo or think it’s ok their condos will leak after 5 or 10 years. Yes they don’t ask a lot of questions and such, but that’s because it’s not normal to assume with modern technology and a prevous leaking condo crisis that the new buildings will leak so quick, and that government allow shoddy workmanships and defects to slip through like a water through a sieve. That’s points to a problem with the governments and regulation and general builder ethics, not problems with buyers.
And if buyers did ask, who should they ask? The builders? They realtor? or independent engineer/inspectors who will charge $100+/hr and probably can’t tell them with any certainty about the building quality since they aren’t going to be paid to supervise the construction process. So what should the buyers do to ensure a quality building is build?
Also if all buyers just don’t buy condos due to safety, then where the hell are all those people going to live? Don’t tell me that there is enough housing to house a few hundred thousand new people in lower mainland with existing non-condo housing stock in the last 8 years if everyone refused to buy a new condo due to safety/leaking concerns.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
As I predicted the battle lines for the war on public sector greed has begun. Gee I wonder if this was on the agenda at the G20, cause there seems to be a pattern forming here. Britian, Europe, US and now the front line has been drawn in fortress Ontario. Public sector greed has raped the tax base, the egregious wages and benefits have expanded for nine years, finally busting the game wide open. Britain has stated that the wages within that government will be reduced 33 to 50% , I say thats only a good start for Canada. We are top heavy with parasites. The money should be going into childrens hospitals and the like instead of asking the public for charity in excess of taxation. Unions should be ashamed for ripping off the childrens hospitals, but of course….aren’t
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le1646088/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le1646654/
July 20th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
RP, this one’s for you:
“Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.
… It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 — with annual 12 percent raises — and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.”
July 20th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
@chip: Bell is next to Maywood. No wonder Maywood outsourced all their govt workers!!
July 20th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@davers: Along the lines of what Davers is saying, yes, all builders today basically compete on price. Lowest cost wins. It’s now the default mode of operation in housing construction. A large part of it has to do with the declining real wages, and decreasing housing affordability. If a basic house cost 2x salary, you could conceivably afford to throw in another 1x for a super duper quality build.
I watch the Holmes Inspection show on HGTV sometimes, and it’s interesting to see how terrible these boom houses and boom renovations (and flippers) are built. And the one thing he keeps saying, that you have to agree with, is that builders are perfectly capable of building quality houses (“like they used to”) IF ONLY buyers insist on it and are willing to pay extra.
Builders have access to quality materials and trades and construction techniques needed to build a quality house. Buyers have to start placing an emphasis and value on real quality (not the marketing type). Right now, their main concern is cost, and corners will be cut.
Based on quality of construction, it is very hard to justify paying such a premium for buying a condo. You can inspect your unit all you like, if there is problem with the roof, or with the western side if the envelope, or plumbing, or elevators, you’re still responsible for the repairs.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@space889: “So what should the buyers do to ensure a quality building is build?”
If an engineer being paid $100/hr or whatever can’t give you confidence, NO amount of regulations will either. To answer this question, pay $2000, hire a GOOD home inspector, and ask for a massive discount to account for the inherent risk of buying a part of an asset with tens of millions of dollars worth of capital expenditure.
I agree with patriotz. Given there is risk in owning property, there better be a reasonable discount, enough that if there is some major deficiency your return will suck but you won’t have your clock cleaned. The sooner people realize this again the better.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
@space889:
No condos were built at all prior to the mid-70′s, and there were lots of places to live.
If people simply quit buying condos, developers would have to go back to building purpose-built rentals. The reason they don’t build purpose-built rentals is that they can make way more money selling condos for ridiculous prices.
You can argue about principles all you want. The fact is that neither governments nor developers are going to do anything about this problem until buyers simply wake up and STOP BUYING CONDOS, or at least refuse to buy at other than a price that reflects what they are really worth, which is about 1/3 present prices.
If condo prices fell this low, developers would be begging governments to bring in building regulations with real teeth to get people buying again.
If the people who buy condos don’t give a rat’s ass about getting their money’s worth, why should government or industry care about them? If you want the government to do something for you have to demonstrate that you have a clue about what your own self-interest is.
And at present prices and quality, your own self-interest is obviously to rent.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
@Devore:
Dead wrong on the “willing to pay extra” part. Houses can sell ONLY for what someone is willing to pay. The reason quality houses aren’t built is because people are willing to pay inflated prices for crap. If they weren’t, quality houses could be bought for reasonable prices.
Take a look at the houses in Montreal. There is no physical reason why houses here have to be more expensive. The only thing that makes them more expensive here is that people are willing to pay more here.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
@chip: Sounds like New Westminster…
http://www.royalcityrecord.com.....story.html
The manager of a pool makes over $100K with pension, the manager of a park makes over $100K with pension, firemen who work 4 days a week and get an average of 2-3 calls a shift and all moonlight make over $100K with pension.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
I have no sympathy for owners of leaky condos…its all buyer beware…hell, even auto dealers say “don’t buy a car that was built on a monday cause it’ll be a lemon”…sometimes shit happens…don’t expect anyone to bail you out because life threw you a lemon…here are some RE examples for you…
My parents built their dream home…the payed a premium price for energy eficient windows that were recomened by BC Hydro(keep in mind this was back in the eighties)…their was only one company maufacturing the windows in vancouver at the time…they investigated the company with the BBB, and the company was endorsed by Hydro…the windows should have saved enough energy cost to pay for themselves in ten years, but nobody said that they would last that long. A few years later all the panes started cracking…the business had closed up and the BBB and Hydro…well, they weren’t at all sympathetic.
Another one…
My uncle bought a brand new house in Surrey. My father is an electrician…went over to install some new light fixtures for my uncle only to find that the developer had not put the proper sized electrical box in the house…how did the house pass electrical inspection you ask? Here are some senarios:
1) The inspector was bribed by the contractor.
2) The more expensive, correctly sized box was installed for inspection purposes, and after inspection was removed and replaced with a less expensive incorrectly sized box so that the initial box can be used in the next developements inspection…
my dad corrected the code violation for my uncle cause that’s what families do…but my uncle had no recourse…just like leaky condo owners should. They have a great sob story…but who doesn’t!
July 20th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
They make more than the private sector:
“According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits.”
They work less:
“As Cato Institute Director of Tax Policy Studies Chris Edwards notes in a recent paper, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, private-sector employees worked an average of 2,050 hours in 2008, 12 percent more than the 1,825 hours worked by the average public-sector employee.”
And they know it:
“Lower quit rates indicate a lack of better job opportunities elsewhere. Indeed, as the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards points out (see pages 92-93), BLS data reveal that the quit rate is significantly lower in the public sector than in the private sector. Between 2001 and 2009, the public sector layoff and discharge rate is only about one-third of the private-sector rate. ”
http://reason.org/news/show/pu.....tor-salary
July 20th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
@jim:
I live in New West, I’ve often noticed that they seem to have dozens of parks staff…and now they’ve implemented some hippy “living wage” thing-everyone MUST make more than $18 per hour (even the kids at the petting zoo??) I also heard that New West is the most heavily taxed city (for property taxes) in BC. No wonder….when will the revolt in Canada begin against highly paid public service workers, I wonder.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
@patriotz: Agreed in principle. But if you want quality construction in today’s (ok, maybe yesterday’s) environment, you’d have to pay extra for a builder to use better quality materials and labor to spend more time doing it right.
There is much negotiation room in any contract, you could negotiate yourself a quality build for same price, with lower profit margin for builder, just like you can negotiate down the price itself. But not when a builder can give you the finger and go pick from a dozen other jobs, just like conditions on offers get dropped in a bidding war scenario.
It’s the boomtime mentality amongst buyers that drives quality down while raising prices. A discerning buyer can only stand on the sidelines and wait for sanity to reassert itself, or pay even more to do it his way now.
July 20th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
U.C.O.I
We the undersigned are Members of The United Confederation Of Idiots herby with this petition demand that Pope no longer allow the bears to rate comments.
Alexcan
Newcom,
vanpro
Dav
Pat
Vomit
Aaron
Rob
July 20th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Anyone who bought since the eighties is a greater fool. Especially the chump who bought my house. Big Red Machine on the move nutslaps. Bear with me.
July 20th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@Devore: Yes you have to pay more for quality construction but to compensate, pay less for the land.
July 20th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
@patriotz:
It has already started in the Public Service Agency according to the relevant fact sheet
http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/psec...../facts.htm
July 20th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
is it just me or anyone else out there itching for the next rebgv stats package right after the last one is released? My facebook posts are dependant on it!
July 20th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Yay! VCI made reddit!
http://www.reddit.com/r/canada.....vancouver/
July 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
New Listings 225
Price Changes 125
Sold Listings 135
Huge sales day today
July 20th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Oh poor private sector crybabies…
When times were good, you laughed at the public sector salaries..
Every idiot who could swing a hammer was making money in construction…
Every booth babe in mining was pulling in six figures…
Every oil and gas jockey was raking it in with nothing to spend it on but hookers and blow…
You had almost 9 boom years to put something away..
Stop whinning about the public sector joes who have had the same mid level salary for years with 3% inflationary increases at best..
Don’t worry…another boom time will eventually come and then you can go back to laughing at the “low” public sector salaries..
Oh an next time, try to do something right in the private sector..
I am tired of bailing you “efficient” and “productive” folks out with MY taxpayer dollars…especially you GM, Air Canada, the big five, etc…
July 20th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“Oh poor private sector crybabies…
When times were good, you laughed at the public sector salaries..”
Here! Here! Bravo! Well said!
July 20th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....umble.html
July 20th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
jesse Says: “If an engineer being paid $100/hr or whatever can’t give you confidence, NO amount of regulations will either.”
.
Regulations give recourse.
No one has yet to answer how to reliably determine, for example, a new bad condo from a good one. “DON’T BUY BAD CONDOS” is not an answer. The closest so far was build your own house and act as contracting consultant. I was told of a recent downtown building in which the entire heating/cooling system was essential botched from install and didn’t match the approved build plans, resulting in exorbitant utility charges. Never heard how it was eventually resolved but as you can imagine the contractor blamed the sub-trades blamed the engineers blamed the architect and it was headed towards a lawsuit. Tell me again how buyers should of caught that in a pre-sale?
The city’s only concern is greasing the wheels of real estate, they don’t give a damn past approving the project and collecting the taxes. Other cities seem to be able to get this right so ‘impossible in principle’ doesn’t quite hold water as well as the local condo envelopes.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
@Crybabies: How much longer until this happens here? not soon enough
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....82376.html
July 20th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
@Crybabies:
“Oh an next time, try to do something right in the private sector..
I am tired of bailing you “efficient” and “productive” folks out with MY taxpayer dollars…especially you GM, Air Canada, the big five, etc…”
You can’t bail out the private sector because your money originates with the private sector. You’re just returning it after taking a cut. And as the examples from Greece to California show, your cut has jumped by up to 50% per capita in the last decade.
The rest of your argument makes about as much sense as the swimming pool manager on $100,000 a year.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
@fixie guy: “No one has yet to answer how to reliably determine, for example, a new bad condo from a good one”
I think you’ve already pretty much answered your own question: you can’t really tell. With regulations providing recourse, what does that really mean? Suing a potentially bankrupt developer? Liability insurance? Warranties?
Ideal is to have the developer document every stage of development with material trackbacks. I actually saw this done for an SFH reno job. All steps of the reno process were documented complete with all receipt for material purchases and inspection reports. If you wanted to, you could determine with a high degree of certainty the quality of this particular house. Even still, maybe some of the materials were defective and there will be problems later. There are no guarantees but with this property, besides seeing the work first-hand, that’s as close as you’re ever going to get.
That there are no guarantees and that walls and paint are too easily used to hide past sins, means purchasing most property is inherently risky. No matter how much regulation or accountability is put in place, someone is going to foot the bill for incompetence. If it’s through warranty/insurance, the buyer ultimately pays. If it’s through no-interest loans or slush funds, it’s the taxpayer.
If I come across a property without adequate documentation or warranty, I’ll be wanting a hefty discount. Ultimately I think that’s the most fair; all the other schemes are effectively punishing those who are competent.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
@chip: Here! Here! Well said Chip old boy old stick. The problem is not necessarily city workers per se, although they are perhaps the most obvious and egregious group of over paid pooch pumpers. The problem is generations of unions and spineless politicians. Which is why this is coming…
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....82376.html
Quite ironic that crybabies would claim responsibility for the burden of having to bail out GM et all when in fact GM employees and city workers are both overpaid union employees that both can be farmed out for a third of what they are paid. GM employees had their day of reckoning in 2009 and I suspect that the bell will be tolling shortly for other unions. This isn’t 1950 anymore.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
@Crybabies: “Stop whinning about the public sector joes who have had the same mid level salary for years with 3% inflationary increases at best”
Not everyone in the private sector works in the oil patch or as a games programmer. You make it sound like everyone in the private sector was making 6 figures. The income data say otherwise.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
“No matter how much regulation or accountability is put in place, someone is going to foot the bill for incompetence.”
It seems to me that if the inspectors are on top of things then incompetence should lead to a construction site being shut down long before a sale takes place. Maybe it is unrealistic for some reason that I’m unaware of, but shouldn’t good regulation and oversight prevent most serious problems?
July 20th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
@jim:
Good point about GM. Few in the private sector supported such an egregious bailout, which screwed the legitimate bondholders and handed the company to union workers making over $70 an hour. It’s actually a perfect example of the sordid relationship between government and unions, with the productive sector paying for it all in the end.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I love it when the public sector / private sector debate gets going. Nothing like working people picking on working people. Lets all help ourselves in the race to the bottom. Our masters love it and eagerly enjoy the fact that this distracts us from reality, something like sports and drunken long weekends. I really thought this blog went beyond this, I was wrong. I currently work in the private sector for significantly more money than I made in the public sector. I worked significantly harder in the public sector. Could Real Paul or some of the other anti-worker people please explain this to me? I’d really like to know.
My example isn’t set in stone and is only my own personal experience, but blanket statements of public/private are nothing more than stereotypical and have little basis in fact.
I hate government as much as the next guy and realize we need constructive change, but if you have nothing to offer, other than unjustifiable critique towards many people who do care and work for their money, move to Northern Somalia or somewhere similar. Hey, you don’t even need a passport, how great is that!!!!
July 20th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
@vibe: “but shouldn’t good regulation and oversight prevent most serious problems?”
Aren’t all construction projects inspected to code now? What happened in the early to mid ’90s when the code itself was flawed? While regulation may sound good, for something as complex, diverse, and innovative as building construction, it would be difficult to keep on top of it.
It’s worth reading the Barrett report on leaky condos from a decade back; he commented on exactly what is being discussed here.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
@chilled: Ok, put the bong away, I think you’ve had a little too much tonight. It sounds to me like you were actually raised with work ethic which is probably why you went nuts in the public sector and left. Either that or you worked harder than everyone else and they fired your ass for making them look bad. “I worked considerably harder in the public sector…” Why? It’s not like you had to… did you ever look around you at your co-workers? Were they working as hard as you? no… why? Because it was the public sector, thats what they do there.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
What is going on around here tonight? Looks like a sock-puppet party and I wasn’t even invited…
July 21st, 2010 at 2:27 am
@chip:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:29 am
@chip: Let me try that again.
A truly ignorant comment, suggesting that the author knows not the first thing about the nature of modern political economies and how wealth is created.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:39 am
@chip:
You know, chip, you’re entitled to your opinion and your ideology, but not to your facts. For ideologues, facts are inconvenient.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfa....._than.html
By the way, an hourly wage of $75 would equate to an annual wage of $150,000.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:51 am
Via Mike Shedlock’s blog, we get this insight into the China housing bubble. I know nothing about the blog that he cites–Israel’s Financial Expert–but the story seems legitimate to me. If what is alleged here is even partially true, China is in for a gargantuan real estate (and economic crash). It’s no wonder that the Chinese government is satisfied with parking huge amounts of cash into US treasuries.
So what effect will the pending collapse of China’s RE bubble have on Vancouver RE? I think that it may provide a bit of a boost as terrified officials (and the gangsters to whom they provide patronage) will be seeking a safe haven for their ill-gotten gains. There is anecdotal evidence that Chinese foreign nationals have been net sellers of Vancouver RE over the last 12 months, repatriating money to invest in the booming RE market back home. The trend may reverse as the Chinese market collapses. All I know for sure is that I’m loading up on popcorn. This should get interesting.
http://globaleconomicanalysis......using.html
July 21st, 2010 at 4:46 am
@oneangryslav2:
“The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.”
As I said, they pay $70 an hour. Whether it comes in your salary or grossly inflated benefits, that is the cost to the company and it’s the benefit that accrues to the employee.
What don’t you understand about this?
July 21st, 2010 at 4:53 am
@chilled:
Chilled, I see where you’re coming from. But expansive government is a real problem in the West today. Not only are ever-growing bureaucracies putting us in the red, but the ‘work’ they do usually ends up crowding out the private and productive sector.
It’s not divisive to point this out. It’s common sense.
July 21st, 2010 at 7:03 am
Vancouver Bank Employee: “The senior executive explained that the banks have leveraged up the Canadian citizenry to unsustainable levels.”
http://wp.me/pcq1o-16U
Here a banker gives precisely the same warning that a small minority (us included) have been sounding for some time — Canadian citizens are dangerously overly indebted. The unwinding of this debt, as implied by the banker’s intent, will lead to a deflationary wave, where consumers have far less money at hand. The Canadian asset class most vulnerable to such a change is real estate, and Vancouver’s RE is the most vulnerable in the country. – vreaa
Rob, a Vancouver bank employee, wrote an e-mail to Garth Turner that was discussed at greaterfool.ca [19 July 2010]. Here’s the extracted anecdote -
“I am a certified financial planner working for an excellent Canadian bank in Vancouver. Although the mantra by branch managers to the Account Managers and bank staff is still (to quote what I heard from one of them) “park your morals at the door”, what is important is that there is acknowledgment at the top of the house that things will begin to change. I had a meeting yesterday with a senior executive out of Toronto who said some staggering things that I thought I would NEVER hear from anyone in the top echelons of the banking industry. He explained that executives have been meeting together and advising the board of directors that what the bank has been doing for the last 5 years to generate profits cannot continue. He explained that the banks have leveraged up the canadian citizenry to unsustainable levels. He said that going forward (here is the best part) we have a MORAL obligation to provide the right advice to Canadians regarding their spending habits, budgeting, retirement, investing and borrowing desires. I was shocked! This was the first time I had heard a Banker expose the truths of what is going on in Canada right now and take ownership of the fact they have been dangling the carrot and enticing the population into perpetual debt.”
July 21st, 2010 at 7:47 am
@vreaa:
How sweet. After making the speech, the executive felt warm and fuzzy for meeting his/her ‘moral’ obligation. Next, he/she takes a peek at the bank’s bonus targets then calls another meeting to dangle the carrot further.
July 21st, 2010 at 7:54 am
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/briti.....homes.html
“Hot” opportunity in Tsawawssen.
Quick access to electricity for your grow-up and fry your brain at the same time.
July 21st, 2010 at 8:16 am
@fixie guy: Condo buying tip #1: don’t buy a pre-sale.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:04 am
@patriotz: uhm…what’s the population of the Metro Vancouver in the 70s? What’s the population right now?
Second there already has been a buyer’s strike on condos. Right after the big leaky condo problems in the mid-90s. I remember seeing a news report where the developer just couldn’t sell their unit despite huge price drops and throwing $10K+ in furnishing including this new novelty consumer product – big screen plasma/LCD TV. I also remember a stat that said there where something like 7000 condos in downtown Vancouver that were just sitting on the market and couldn’t be sold.
So what did government and industry do? They came out with the 2-5-10 warrenty and rainscreen technology. when I was looking at condos in 2002-2004 timeframe, these were the big selling features in presentation centers. Concord Pacific has nicely made technical drawings and models explaining how the new rainscreen technology will prevent water penetration in their towers, etc. So don’t say buyers didn’t protested. It took at least 2 or 3 years of this before people started buying as they thought that leaking condo issues were resolved (helped along by plenty of media reports saying the same thing over and over again).
However that didn’t solve the problem did it? and now we are talking about leaking condos again. Can you put this on the buyers 100% for not insisting on quality products? I don’t think so. Buyers already said we don’t want leaky condos. However builders keep building them. While telling one or two buyers not to buy works, however if everyone stops buying that will cause other problems as well (eg. lack of housing).
Building purpose rental building might not be the answer either to solve all these problems. It will help but it will not solve all the problems.
Lastly as I said, building a high rise is a long and complicated process with lots of specialized knowledge. The average buyer is not going to be able to properly analyze which building is quality built and which is not. Nor will an inspector for the simple fact that they aren’t going to be paid to supervise the entire construction and they can take apart walls, etc to inspects what’s behind the walls. That’s why hiring an inspector, even at thousands of dollars, is not going to be much help.
The only way to really minimize this kind of problems is with tough regulation, tough inspection, and extremely tough punishments and no more building through numbered companies. Well you can say people can should just not buy until these kind of solutions are in place, is that realistic? Are the world going to simply stop while we wait for this to be resolved? I would say no.
Using a simple analogy, imagine if the car industry operated the same way as Vancouver RE where auto-makers can get away without penalty for problems with their car. Would it be realistic to say no one should buy cars until auto-makers only bulid quality car? That if people who drove Toyota cars was injured due to the faulty breaks that it was their fault for not doing their homework and buying a Toyota car? If you truely believe that it’s the car buyer’s fault in this case for the same reason as it is condo buyer’s fault then there is nothing more I can say other than I wouldn’t feel any sympathies for you if you were harm by some cheaply made in China/Asia products because hey, you should have to known better and not buy the product in the first place!
July 21st, 2010 at 9:05 am
Devore, since functionally there’s little difference you should throw in new houses and townhouses. Never know what went into the walls there either. The smart ticket appears to be live in your car or don’t cheap out by settling for that half million dollar 700 footer, everyone into the Shangri La! Problem solved.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:23 am
Co-ops have their pluses and minuses. You do share ownership and maintenance responsibilities with a bunch of other people, and there will inevitably be disagreements and clashing personalities. This article covers some of the issues with co-ops:
http://www.househunting.ca/van.....story.html
Consider carefully whether it would be right for you and go in with your eyes open.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:28 am
“I see where you’re coming from. But expansive government is a real problem”
The population wants expansive government. Whenever there is a problem, the demand is: “The government needs to do something to fix this”.
The result is programs and bureaucracies: social housing, environment, healthcare, bailouts, CMHC, meals for kids, child tax credits, and on and on and on.
The public hates taking personal responsibility for anything. The result is expansive government. Like it or hate it, its what the population wants.
The population wants it because without it here is what would happen: Pollution killed your crops? forget environmental laws and inspections and hire a lawyer and sue the polluter, sick? you better have insurance or lots of savings, Police assaulted you? forget about a complaints process, hire a lawyer and sue them.
I personally am in favour of all of the above. First, private legal action is more effective and efficient regulation than one-size-fits all statues and bureaucracy. Second, if people had to pay for their own problems, believe me the would not be paying 9 times income for real estate. There would be too many other, more pressing expenditures to plan for.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:31 am
@space889: It should have said that inspectors CANNOT take apart walls, etc to inspect what’s behind it.
PS, what happened to Strataman? I was so looking forward to read more of his condo stories!
July 21st, 2010 at 9:32 am
By the way, when people call for an end to government programs and bureaucracy, a significant consequence is that it falls to private citizens and their lawyers to enforce rights in court. This is because when you eliminate government agencies and bureaucracies there is no one to regulate and prevent torts from occurring.
It is left to the private sector (through lawyers) to sort out the injuries, wrongs and liabilites after they happen.
As I said, I’m in favour of downloading such functions to the private sector. The threat of lawsuits can act as a deterrant just as well as regulation its supporting bureaucracy. It also will certainly reduce taxes. But that won’t matter to you after you get your lawyers bill.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:41 am
@VRENGD: and who will pay the lawyer fees which are extremely expensive? This sounds nice in principle but is it doable for the average person?
Maybe you have the money to spend on a lengthy court case but I bet the average person don’t. Also, ever tried to collect the damages from a lawsuit? Have fun trying to do that against someone who don’t want to pay? It’s not going to be easy.
You want to see what happens when there isn’t much regulation and you settle things by sueing? Go to any developing Asian nation and find out for yourself. Sure you can sue in a court of law but guess what? Even if you win, you are still going to lose. Lots of examples if you ever bother to read any local newspaper/talk to averge person in HK, China, Taiwan.
Simple example, how is sue SanLu the tainted milk powder manufacture going to help the parents of sick/dead children in any way? Is the money they won going to bring their dead kid back? Or make their severely sick children healthy again? You honestly believe sueing people after the fact is really better than preventing it from happening in the first place?
July 21st, 2010 at 9:47 am
@fixie guy: Not necessarily. SFH is easier to inspect, and you will own the whole property and have access to it. If you’re having it built new, you can be on site every day, have a professional evaluate periodically and check out city inspection reports. You can step in and say “this is shit, tear it down and do it properly”.
As for Patriotz point, while he is technically right, it is ultimately buyers who drive the product, but it is herd mentality. Changing this at the margins, by demanding higher quality (at a higher cost because of demand) is very painful. It’s like being an early adopter. I agree, if the crowd, en masse, demanded better, there would be change, but that is not realistic in a bubble phase, too many idiots buying sight unseen, question unasked.
So at some point, we have to trust someone. Trust that it was done right. Trust that it was inspected properly. Trust that defects pointed out were in fact fixed, not plastered over. Because we can’t do it all ourselves. For your part, you have to spend good money to hire a good inspector, and a good builder (if you’re building/renovating). The rest is really out of your control. You can demand better until you’re blue in the face, if you can’t back those demands up, and enforce them, you’ll get nothing.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:52 am
It should be noted that inspectors CAN take apart walls to look behind them, and what’s ,ore they can instruct the builder to remove sections of wall in order to facilitate this process.
I know this from personal experience with Burnaby inspectors…and they did not pick up the replacement costs of the walls either! If you are constructing a building, it is your responsibility to make sure that all your plumbing and electrical has passed inspection BEFORE you wall it up…
July 21st, 2010 at 9:52 am
@VRENGD: You just answered why your suggestion wouldn’t work in the real world. How many people would comtemplate paying hundreds of thousands of dollar to sue for justice if even after they win, they get nothing but legal bills? What you are proposing is basically justice for all as long as you can pay for it, which is really no justice.
If I’m a rich guy/corporation and I know you have limited means and the only way for you to get justice is through lawsuit which you can’t afford, guess what? I’m going to be stepping on you a lot because I know you can’t afford justice. If you do sue then I will just use my wealth to drag it out, make it expensive for you that you can’t even continue all the way if you wanted to do.
This is the same as private medicare. Sure if you have to pay most medical bills out of your own pocket, you might be more responsible to avoid injuries and such, and it reduces gov’t expenditures. However it doesn’t change the fact that if you can’t afford it then you will just have to acceptable the fact and suffer/die from a curable disease because you don’t have enough wealth. Is that really the kind of society you want? If sh*t happens and you can’t afford to pay then you just have to live with it? Like in Michael Moore’s movie on US medicare where someone have to pick which finger to re-attach because they can only afford to pay for one?
July 21st, 2010 at 9:58 am
@space889: You’re assuming regulation would have prevented it in the first place. Do stringent food regulations prevent spoilt food cases in Canada and US? Are people who die from such brought back to life by the bureaucrats asleep at the wheel? Are the companies responsible fined punitively or put out of business due to their bad reputation?
We find that even in cases where this responsibility is downloaded to government agencies, those same agencies are quickly coopted by corporate interests, and even the regulations themselves are written by them, in a large part to act as a barrier to entry for new competitors. And the official seal of approval, settlement of cases, and promises of changed processes and procedures put consumers to a false sense of security. Why is Maple Leaf meats still even operating?
While it’s nice to think this system is better than the alternatives, and it may very well be, but it’s still a crappy system, with no hope of changing it (too much inertia and built in incentives) aside from throwing more money at it, in reality it is no panacea, and just exchanges one set of problems for another. And hey, instead of placing blame closer to home, you get to blame the fat lazy government bureaucrats for not protecting you while the corporatist system keeps making money hand over fist from your misery. Win win all around.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:05 am
@anon: For city inspectors, yes. I’m talking about buyer hired inspector for when they purchase a unit. The buyer inspector cannot just take apart walls to inspect what’s behind it. I should have made that clear.
That’s why I think simply say it’s all buyers fault is wrong because buyer inspectors do not have the same access or privilage as city inspectors. While buyers can insist on quality, getting it is totally different. Without strong enforcement from government, a buyer of a condo even after it is build is not going to be able to tell if the condo building s/he is buying into is really high quality.
Another example, people always complain about MS Windows and how it is so poor quality compared to Apples/Linux/Unix. Yet after almost what, 10 years of complaining, alternative OS, etc, people are still buying Windows and having the same complaints. Sure you can say just switch to Apple, Linux, etc but is that realistic for a lot of corporations and people? I know for me is not because all the games I play only have Windows version and all my data are only Windows. So I can’t switch because the switch cost is just too high.
btw, I also saw a program on Chinese TV where they invited some experienced inspectors to talk about house inspections and common maintenance. One important point that one of the home inspector made is that when they are inspecting homes, they are not legally allowed to touch/move any of the current owner’s items. The extreme case he gave is that if he opens a closet, he’s not legally allowed to put his arms in and move the clothing aside to view what’s behind it. If he did then he could be liable for a lawsuit and the owner can throw him out! That’s something he said most people did not know and that home sellers/realtors use to their advantage by strategically placing furnitures, belongings, etc to cover up problem spots.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:12 am
@space889:
In theory, the money you save in taxes (you no longer pay for government bureaucray) will go to pay for private insurance and to lawyers to enforce your rights when you are wronged.
Incidentally, this is why the private sector always calls for less government. Instead of paying taxes, you pay the private sector. More money for businesses. In the end it is all about the money.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:26 am
@Devore: I didn’t say government agencies is better and will prevent all problems. What I’m saying is that having a strong set of regulations that help prevent problems is far cheaper and more beneficial to society and people than have to sue after problems occur. Also it’s easier for an informed and engaged electorate to enforce an effective system at a lower total cost than a private one that’s enforced via lawsuits on individual basis.
You are right that regulators are the first to be bought by corporate interests and tend to be lax as shown by the case of Maple Leaf. However, the government agencies is still accountable to the people and it’s much easier for people without means to get justice in such cases than through lawsuits. We have MPs who are supposed to act on people’s behalf and can compel government agencies to take action to correct/punish the offender. Thus people without the financial means (eg. seniors) have at least this avenue to appeal. If everything is done purely through lawsuits then people without the means will not be getting any justice whatsoever and you basically have a tier society, one set of rules and living for the rich, and one set for the poor.
All this requires an informed and engaged electorate to properly function off course which again is debatable.
My point is that basic neccessities of life should have a basic standard of quality that’s enforced by the government because this in the long run minimize cost to the society. To have the individual be responsible for everything they need to buy to live is not a good way to go about it. Can you imagine that you have to do safety testing on all canned/packaged food you buy? How would you inform the general public if you do find problems? Post it on the Internet? Guess what? if you do that the company will immediate slap you with a lawsuit for libel and have it taken down. There is a reason why most product recalls are done by government agencies not indivudals because the individual is extremely easy for the corporation to muzzle over. Without consumer protection agencies and everything resolved by lawsuits, it’s even easier for corporations to cover up problems.
Also if you get sick from tainted products and the only avenue of justice/compensation is via lawsuits, then what about people can’t afford to sue? Don’t they deserve justice as well? That the manufacturer can get away without paying damages if people can’t afford to sue, is that really the best way?
Off course you can say well if I only buy quality products from trusted vendors then I don’t need to do all this testing because I only buy quality products. Well Maple Leaf was considered a quality product with like 80% market share before the tainted meat scandel broke. Was all those who bought Maple Leaf’s taint meat be considered to be at fault for buying the tainted meat and deserve no sympathies because hey they should have done proper inspection before they bought/consume the item? if you say yes then again there is nothing more I can say. But if you say no, it shouldn’t be considered those people’s fault for buying the meat then how is replace meat with condo in the argument invalidate the basic principle behind the argument?
July 21st, 2010 at 10:33 am
@VRENGD: uhm for the average person who makes $40K a year, how much saving is there that they can use to buy insurance and pay lawyers? Also, you think it would be easier to get money from insurers who are famous for finding excuses to not pay? Look at US private health insurance and all the excuses and ways they come up with for not paying for treatment even after people have paid huge amount of premiums year after year with no prior claims?
And how does having insurance to pay after the fact better than preventing it in the first place?
You are right, it’s all about money right now and I think that’s where we differ. I believe it shouldn’t be all about money but doing what’s right and best for the general society as whole, which includes generating efficiencies and economy of scales in areas of basic life neccessities. This does not mean the individual is relieved of all responsibilities however. However it does mean that things can be done in a centralized efficient manner by people with specialized knowledge rather than by everyone who has to know about ensuring safety for everything they buy.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:04 am
Hey guys, if you want to look inside the walls the simplest way is to take off the switch and plug covers. There is no restriction and no damage.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:05 am
@space889:
If he does not overpay for real estate, he would have a nice contingency fund saved up.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:08 am
VRENGD, having watched a friend falsely accused of murder driven to bankruptcy through the courts, only to be forced into a false admission of guilt to a lesser crime, I can only laugh at the suggestion. That was just a small community police department, an individual is going to sue Monsanto, British Petroleum or Ledcor? Let me know how that works out if you or your descendants still have a quarter for the call.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:42 am
@space889: “What I’m saying is that having a strong set of regulations that help prevent problems is far cheaper and more beneficial to society and people than have to sue after problems occur.”
That’s what building codes are designed to do. If you want to try to improve building codes, contact a city counselor to see what’s involved. I don’t think it’s as simple as increasing regulation; there is no complete set of inspections like in the food industry for building quality; there are too many variables involved.
Like it or not, buying and building property today has inherent risk. No amount of regulation is realistically going to get away from that. The best you can do in the meantime is refuse to pay a high price for a risky investment or if you do overpay be prepared to take your lumps. Better yet, rent and let some other schmo take the hit or build the house yourself.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:50 am
@space889: “for the average person who makes $40K a year, how much saving is there that they can use to buy insurance and pay lawyers?”
If they overpay, they indeed will have no money left to clean up the mess they got themselves into. If they don’t overpay and save for such eventualities, they will be OK.
We also have bankruptcy legislation for those who cannot properly manage their finances. At some point we need to allow individuals their liberty and use their failures as an example to others. I think where the line is drawn now is for the most part reasonable.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:08 pm
@fixie guy:
Well, big government it is then. As I said, the population wants it, so we have it.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:12 pm
@jesse: I agree with what you say. I don’t believe in absolving individuals of their responsibilities anymore than absolving governments of theirs. I think we have a really bad regulatory environment right now with very lax enforcements and punishments. I also agree people should educate themselves more about condo living, potential issues, and in general get more educated with actual real knowledge before buying something that costs $300K+.
However I don’t believe all blames should be put on the buyers when their buildings leak and that they don’t deserve any sympathies. This is just blaming the victims and letting the real criminals off the hook. Regardless of how much/little buyers do their due diligence, it doesn’t excuse the almost moral and ethically bankrupt behavior by those in the RE & construction industry. To say this kind of behavior is ok simply because buyers were too greedy or stupid or willing to overpay for crap just doesn’t sound right to me either.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
@Devore:
“You’re assuming regulation would have prevented it in the first place. Do stringent food regulations prevent spoilt food cases in Canada and US?”
This argument is basically “do laws prevent crime”? Prevent? No. Act as a deterrent? Usually.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:21 pm
@chip:
No, you did not say that “they [i.e., GM] pay $70 an hour.” Here is your direct quote:
@chip:
You’re either obtuse (which I doubt) or being exceedingly disingenuous. There is a clear substantive (and not only semantic) difference between the statement that you did make–in which the worker is the subject–and the statement you claim to have made–in which GM is the subject.
As you asked me, I ask you “what don’t you understand about this?”
I understand that you and I have very different philosophies with respect to the ideal level of involvement of the state in the economy, but a certain level of honesty is necessary for debates to be at all productive.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
@fixie guy: fixie guy Says:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:08 am
VRENGD, having watched a friend falsely accused of murder driven to bankruptcy through the courts, only to be forced into a false admission of guilt to a lesser crime, I can only laugh at the suggestion. That was just a small community police department, an individual is going to sue Monsanto, British Petroleum or Ledcor? Let me know how that works out if you or your descendants still have a quarter for the call.
++++++++++++++++++++++=
Ha!! Right on dude. The delusional don’t get it and actually believe you can sue the police for “false arrest.” Too much TV I guess?
A lesser comparison is the Realturd, pissed of with the industry critics, who says, “if you think you got screwed over, file a complaint.”
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
For those who have been there, like your friend, have thier own stories. Unfortuanately society is conditioned to believe that those that fall victim to the system, “probably deserved it.”
July 21st, 2010 at 12:25 pm
@space889: “Regardless of how much/little buyers do their due diligence, it doesn’t excuse the almost moral and ethically bankrupt behavior by those in the RE & construction industry.”
For sure. As Dave Barrett said when he released his report, “Shame on them.”
If you want protection from these types of occurrences and unscrupulous practices, get a decent warranty with the building. Car companies offer it as a matter of course but they have their long-term reputations to care about (which many builders don’t care too much about). Given the number of brand new F350s and SUVs I see Joe Homeowners driving around, buyers who many claim don’t know better should know all about the concept of warranties. I think there is some argument for beefing up the warranty requirements the government has put in place. Maybe the concept of “bumper to bumper” needs to be considered for housing.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
“@chilled:
“The delusional don’t get it and actually believe you can sue the police for “false arrest.” Too much TV I guess?”
The correct way to procede in court is to plead malicious prosecution or abuse of office.
If you think such causes of action are delusional, ask the guy who recently won a $1.5 million (if memory serves) judgment against CRA.
A word of advice: it is better to seek legal advice than to jump to conclusions about how the law will or will not solve your problem.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:59 pm
@fixie guy:
“No one has yet to answer how to reliably determine, for example, a new bad condo from a good one.”
If it’s new, look at the developer. Look at previous projects they have done and see if they have had problems. For example, I wouldnt buy an Onni building no matter how cheap it is. BOSA isnt great, but they could be worse. Do some research, this is possibly the most important purchase of your life, put some damn effort into finding out what you are getting.
If its used, again, check the developer and get all the meeting minutes from the past 2 years. Get the place inspected by a home inspector. Do some research rather than saying how much you like the stainless appliances.
It is true there is no 100% way to tell if a building will leak, but there are hints out there. Dont try to tell me that its a total coin flip if you are getting quality. You can buy a crappy car, and it might last longer than a quality car, but odds are, it wont.
“Tell me again how buyers should of caught that in a pre-sale?”
Anyone who buys a presale deserves whats coming to them. First of all, many of them plan on flipping the thing, because buying a condo that wont be ready for 2 years doesnt make much sense when there are plenty of already built ones on the market. Second, have you read a presale contract? They basically say “we can change whatever you want and theres nothing you can do about it.” The only reason presales sound like a good deal is if you think prices will rise dramatically in the 2-3 years before they are built. If you believe that, you’re a speculator.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I thought Bosa had an excellent reputation?
Most of the listings I’ve seen proudly hilight the fact if Bosa were the developers.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
You people think you are such geniuses, but you are just paying. Someone else’s mortgage, hahaha not so smart now are you?
July 21st, 2010 at 1:27 pm
This is ridiculous victim blaming. No one deserves to be taken advantage of, no matter how little effort they put into protecting themselves. Does a person who walks down a dark alley deserve to get mugged? Does a girl who drinks too much one night deserve to get raped? I can’t believe some of the posters here are advocating for such a dog eat dog society.
Does the contract say that the condo might leak in a couple of years and cost you tens of thousands of dollars or worse? Even if the buyers are gambling on the market this has nothing to do with whether they should be protected from faulty workmanship. I don’t have much sympathy for presale buyers who lose their shirt because the market tanks, but that is a completely different issue.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:30 pm
@Anoymous: Bosa is a brand name.
Mercedes supposedly has a good reputation but cars would turn off while driving on the highway. Perception is not always reality. Given how fast a developer can lose a reputation and go out of business (see what happened to “reputable” developers in the US), I would never assign much premium based on name and past reputation alone.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
@SamanthaD: i live in a co-op townhouse and pay 1/3 the monthly cost of owning a leasehold townhouse across the street. step out of your little bubble young lady, not all renters are paying someones mortgage.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:47 pm
@south_slope: And quite a few homeowners are desperate to have renters in the basement so they can pay the rent to the bank too. It’s all relative.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:52 pm
@SamanthaD: Hi Sam, could you please show me one rental listing in Metro Vancouver that would cover the P&I and maintenance/strata fee assuming 10% down and a 35 year amortization? Thanks!
July 21st, 2010 at 2:07 pm
You all gave me a lot of chuckles today regarding building codes especially if you are talking condos. I can take you into every condo complex in the city and show you hundreds of building code violations many of them major.
FACT: City Building inspectors rarely if ever inspect a developers construction project.
Point out a building code violation even a major one to a city inspector and they will say the building is signed of by the project engineer so we don’t get involved.
The project engineer works for the developer.
If the developer wants a change even if its a code violation the engineer will do it or never have a contract again.
You will NEVER get another engineer to side against the developers engineer or they will be black listed through out the city. Definitely 3rd world is what we have!
July 21st, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Here’s an interesting quote from an article in the National Review regarding the social utility of homeownership. The article is written for the US context, but the parallels make it apply to our situation as well:
http://article.nationalreview......UyZmI4YmQ=
July 21st, 2010 at 2:32 pm
On a slightly different topic…
The other day I was out at the Westwood Plateau Golf & Country club in Coquitlam and I witnessed something truly amazing. Driving along Johnson between David and the club there were so many “open house” and “for sale” signs that my wife commented “what’s going on?? It’s like every third house is for sale!!” … and she wasn’t even exaggerating. If anyone doubts that something big is happening with RE in the lower mainland then I highly recommend taking them for that drive.
The only explanation I could think of was that the whole community had seen the light and were trying to dump their places en mass before it was too late… unfortunately I think they missed that boat.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:33 pm
@vibe:
Simmer down a tad. You are over reacting a bit. The poster is right, anyone who buys a presale deserves what they get. For one, there is absolutely no logical reason to purchase one. NONE. ( if it were 20% cheaper to buy a presale then I could understand)Second, people buy presales in a matter of MINUTES. Yes they deserve what they get. It’s a poker chip and nothing more.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
@south_slope:
south_slope Says:
July 21st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
@SamanthaD: i live in a co-op townhouse and pay 1/3 the monthly cost of owning a leasehold townhouse across the street. step out of your little bubble young lady, not all renters are paying someones mortgage.
=========================
X-nay on the po-oc say, eh?
July 21st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
@Googles:
Too bad the drive would be out of the way for me… a picture would be wonderful to see. Any volunteer? (Oh, thanks in advance)
July 21st, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@Googles: Googles Says:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:32 pm
On a slightly different topic…
The other day I was out at the Westwood Plateau Golf & Country club in Coquitlam and I witnessed something truly amazing. Driving along Johnson between David and the club there were so many “open house” and “for sale” signs that my wife commented “what’s going on?? It’s like every third house is for sale!!” … and she wasn’t even exaggerating. If anyone doubts that something big is happening with RE in the lower mainland then I highly recommend taking them for that drive.
The only explanation I could think of was that the whole community had seen the light and were trying to dump their places en mass before it was too late… unfortunately I think they missed that boat.
===========================
Too bad Westwood wasn’t closer to the PNE. The signs would thus say “parking, $5 per day” and would generate more cashflow than the realturd banners on the front lawn. LOL!!!!
July 21st, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@SamanthaD: hmmmm.. Let’s do the math here. my rent can’t even cover 80% of the monthly interest payment of the “proud owner” of my condo unit is feeding his bank. I am not even talking about any principal payment, condo fees and property tax.
I am more than happy to be dumb if my decision to rent can leave more me money to invest in somewhere else other than “the housing market that never goes down”.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:47 pm
@specialfx3000:
On second thought, scratch my idea. The picture would not justify the experience of driving through it.
Add this as a new tourist attraction. BC Tourism’s slogan: “You gotta be here”.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
@vibe: “Does a person who walks down a dark alley deserve to get mugged?”
What if they pull out $100 bills and wave them in the faces of junkies? Do they deserve to get mugged then?
July 21st, 2010 at 3:07 pm
No one deserves to get mugged. No one deserves to be the victim of the crime, but those who engage in reckless behaviour deserve some of the blame.
So it’s not a question of “deserving” to have a crime inflicted on them, but rather whether or not they also receive some of the blame. There was a kid who vandalized some gang property and the gang members shot him and killed him (paraphrasing a story someone else told me). He did not deserve to be killed; however, he deserves some of the blame for his death because he was an idiot. It does not minimize the crime committed by the others, and it does not make him “deserving” of death, but he certainly should be blamed, and one should take far less pity on him than on someone who was randomly killed by gang members.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
DaMann, the discussion is about leaky condos. Just because someone buys a condo without due diligence does not mean that they deserve to get a leaky condo. It may mean that they don’t have a legal claim for recourse, I honestly don’t know. But how do you justify saying that they deserve a faulty product? If I go to a casino and gamble that doesn’t mean that the casino can lie and say the slots have a certain payout when they don’t. The casino can’t shave the dice. They can’t use a stacked deck. Just because someone makes a bad decision doesn’t mean that anyone can then take advantage of them to any extent that they want. Your argument is completely illogical.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:17 pm
VancouverGuy(a), so do you think the gang members shouldn’t be prosecuted? What is the practical outcome of assigning some of the blame to the victim in this case? Should the gang members get a lighter sentence because it wasn’t entirely their fault? If not then you really aren’t blaming the victim in any meaningful sense.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:21 pm
188 C, Westwood Plateau has only three types of owners.
1) those new immigrants who have been sucked in by the discounted price by thinly argued realestate agent representations. These people usually are very short term residents and move within a year (18) months after arriving in Canada when they find out hoe far into the bush they are and that the schools and general community is a shithole.
2) Immigrant grow op proprietors who use the discounted price and the general level of vacancy in the community ( because everyone is short term and theres a lot of transience) to hide and develop pot farms in family style houses one usually wouldn’t expect to see them in. I have seen streets where two to three grow ops are common. There are possible one hundred or more in the development from my ascertation. Walk down the street and you can smell the skunk and see the condensation against heavily blocaked up windows.
3) Off shore owners who have been misled by realtors and don’t know that the first two factors are dynamics of the area.
These three features of the WP are obviously coming together and increasing the number of listings from the average of above market highs to really really obvious. Pros’ in the biz have known about this for years. I was involved in doing the off shore marketing for the project and things were new and strange from the very beginning. The agents that are selling the new immigrants into the area are happy because they know that they’ll have another two commisions coming soon when the naive newcomer realises they’re surrounded by yahoo’s, bears, bush and bud rip offs.
#174 D, Wrongo dude, any pro can tell you off the plans which designs are leakers. The reason this crap gets built is corruption and incompetance. If your building doesn’t have a peaked roof, has flat inset windows without weather flashing against a stucco finish and exposed balconies that don’t drain, you’ve got a leaker. This typical Vancouver design leaks 100% of the time. Somebody was down on wood in an earlier post….dude…wood is the best material in this climate, it swells when wet and seals the envelope…..wood is good…..stucco and lath is bad.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
@vibe: There is a 10 year warranty on the envelope of a building as I understand it. This is required by law. If it leaks before then, you’re covered.
I still dont get presale buying. You cant even look at the place before you buy it. The contracts are so in favour of the developer you are practically asking to get screwed by signing one.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Thx Strataman, I recall a similar post of yours on RET. The City of Vancouver, again, essentially doesn’t give a damn what you get, yet in the form of permit approval make it appear otherwise. Throwing the criminals behind that system out on the street is Step 1.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:27 pm
@VancouverGuy(a):
“No one deserves to get mugged. No one deserves to be the victim of the crime, but those who engage in reckless behaviour deserve some of the blame.”
This is a better analogy:
If you drive a car without wearing a seatbelt you are partly responsible for the injuries you suffer in an accident.
If you buy a condo in a city known for leaky condos and you fail to protect your self by negotiating a commensurately lower price or building representations and warranties into the contract, you are partly responsible for the damage you suffer.
In other words: where there is a known risk, you are foolish not to protect yourself against it and you are partly responsible for the damage you could have avoided had you acted more prudently.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
“Driving along Johnson between David and the club there were so many “open house” and “for sale” signs that my wife commented “what’s going on??”
was like that too in 2008.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:38 pm
The difference is that the other driver has no control over you wearing your seatbelt. Whether or not a condo building leaks is fully in the control of the developer. Your analogy would be more like if the condo owner carelessly stores valuables in a way that allows them to get damaged by the moisture. The developer isn’t to blame for that damage since the owner should have stored them better.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:43 pm
@Googles: I’m very familiar with the stretch of road you’re talking about. I count signs from David up to the top of the hill where you’re forced to turn left. Today’s count was 36 (including a couple of recent solds). It was the same story back in 2008 but the count then was often over 50. Obviously, it’s a bunch of rich Chinese folk, but does anyone else have any interesting details on what’s happening up there?
July 21st, 2010 at 4:06 pm
@vibe:
The fact is you are buying a product that has not been built, how can you inspect what has not been built? Would you agree that someone who buys a condo site unseen, never has it inspected, then finds out it’s a leaker sort of deserve it. So if you buy a presale that has not been built it’s impossible to have inspected. So you are sort of setting yourself up for a fall. OK ok, I will meet you half way, no one deserves a leaker, but they also DESERVE no sympathy what so ever for buying a presale.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:07 pm
@Strataman: But… but… all engineers are professionals and a professional cares for nothing but upholding the ethical standards of their profession! This is shocking news!
July 21st, 2010 at 4:16 pm
@VRENGD: “where there is a known risk, you are foolish not to protect yourself against it”
Indeed. I don’t think there is any doubt blame is on both sides. But if I CHOOSE to walk through the “Tunnel of Sharp Spinning Knives” without first donning plate mail armor, then cry when I get slashed, sorry. That the “Tunnel of Sharp Spinning Knives” is unscrupulous and evil does not in any way absolve my responsibility in the matter, seeing as it was an absolute choice. Me avoiding walking down the street to avoid being hit by a drunk driver is not always a practical choice but buying a condo most certainly is.
Go ahead and fight to bring dishonest developers to justice but until then I will protect myself and treat dishonest developers as a fact of life.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:21 pm
@DaMann: “how can you inspect what has not been built?”
1) Regular inspections and tours of the site with your own engineer.
2) Exit clauses in the contract in case there are code violations or obvious deficiencies in quality or specifications.
Put these in the God damn contract and budget for third party inspection expenses. Will developers sign a contract with such clauses? No bloody way. There are plenty of other fools who will sign the “standard” presale agreement. But that’s the type of thing you should be doing — and what many investors do for other types of construction — if you want close to zero risk in purchasing a property.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Speaking of leaks, if you thought the Gulf oil spill was bad…
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/.....10chinaoil
July 21st, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I’ll agree with that, as long as the lack of sympathy doesn’t lead to a lack of redress. Although, depending on the circumstances I personally would have sympathy for certain people even if they don’t deserve it.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Please stop beating me. Thank you.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Hey Rob, thought you said you would not be trolled again, and here you are replying to casanova.
That’s just pathetic.
“Business is actually pretty busy, but I am trying to make some changes. Blog traffic isn’t indicative of business, after all.”
We believe you, it’s just the other 10,000 realtors in Vancouver who are slow.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:15 pm
New Listings 194
Price Changes 144
Sold Listings 104
July 21st, 2010 at 5:19 pm
@paulb.:
Thanks, Paul. I know you spend enough of your spare time doing the stats for us but since you have an interest in the North Shore do you have any comments on what’s happening there? We’re moving back in November and I’m curious how the market looks.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Realistic intrest rates in Brazil as rates there pass 10%
http://www.foxbusiness.com/sto.....is-points/
It seems that Canada has to grow a set when it comes to identifying the screaming price inflation in this country. Instead we just raise taxes and support higher pay and perks for the slovenly leaches on the government payroll to put off the inevitiable reckoning.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:34 pm
@ startaman #182,
Just curious but is a project engineer an “actual engineer”…are they governed the same way as say a mechanical or structural engineer would be…I am an engineer and if I fuck up and through negligence or oversight cause damages to property or life I can have my certification taken away, and/or be fined or even jailed if the damages are significant enough…
This may be a solution to the problem…if the “project engineer” is responsible for the outcome it will change the balance from “doing whatever the contractor wants or losing your career” to doing what is safe and correct to code or you stand to lose money, freedom, and your career….
just a thought
July 21st, 2010 at 6:58 pm
@vibe:
Pre-sale buyers are entitled to whatever level of redress is given to them in a freely agreed upon contract, just like anyone else.
If people freely choose to sign contracts that let developers deliver just about anything they want, that’s their fault and their problem. Remember again that they have a week to get out of the contract no questions asked. They are already getting special treatment.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:59 pm
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.....51311.html
Yes, yes, but where do I hang my cat-o-nine tails and can the neighbours hear the screams?
July 21st, 2010 at 7:02 pm
@realpaul:
The bond market disagrees with you. Have they wimped out? If you’re right and they’re wrong, you have the opportunity to become the next George Soros. It’s your move.
July 21st, 2010 at 7:12 pm
@chip:
Classic ranch meets medieval England – very nice. The stone bbq also doubles as a rack.
Meanwhile, the beekeepers have put up new photos.
Fabulous toilet, the tenant can pretend they’re on the red-eye to Montreal.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.....61334.html
July 21st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I came 12 months ago, I saw, I was disgusted, I got the hell out…End of story.
July 21st, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Current inventory anyone?
July 21st, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Hey vreaa,
Great quote for you on Garth’s post tonight:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Where’s the rich foreigners to buy up the Okanagan?
http://www.news1130.com/news/l.....the-strain
Okanagan real estate market feeling the strain
Experts say buyers can enjoy significant discounts
July 21st, 2010 at 8:59 pm
patriotz, “Pre-sale buyers are entitled to whatever level of redress is given to them in a freely agreed upon contract, just like anyone else.”
I’m not talking about people getting upset about floor plans being changed. Do the contracts have a liability waiver in regards to leaking buildings? I doubt it. Either way, having a contract doesn’t mean you can break the law. If the government wants to ensure through building codes that all condos are built to a certain standard then the contracts have nothing to do with it. If the government wants to hold developers accountable for these issues then they can.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:09 pm
@Jimmy:
Rich foreigners don’t have time now for Okanagan they buy a big time at the Costco, Superstore and Walmart. I buy 3 shirts my husbah buy 3 shirts.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:32 pm
@Best place on meth:
Best place on meth Says:
July 21st, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Speaking of leaks, if you thought the Gulf oil spill was bad…
++++++++
I’m grateful the slideshow skipped the poor oily fella being scrubbed down buy people in zoot suits. One holding him down, another with his hands around the fellas beak, a third with a turkey baster hydrating and the last rescue worker with a soapy sponge.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:43 pm
#216 P. what would be interesting is to find out how many billions the CDN governement is spending anually to keep the speculators( like Soros and myself) out of that market. Switzerland recently admitted to going through 14 billion so far to play the game. Switzerland has far deeper pockets than Canada so I have to assume that we will find out sooner than later what the true nature of our ‘bond’ is really worth. The international ‘stimulation game’ has run its course. Debt exceeds GDP in every western country, only the governments willingness to play fast and loose with public debt is keeping the facade shaking but upright. It is indeed an interesting call as to when our government can’t afford to buy its own paper. When that wall is hit, the change between government to private capital will be ugly. Thats not the bond market you hear talking, thats your own tax dollars standing on the seashore like Canute, pushing vainly back at the incoming tide. Over to you.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:49 pm
#221 Jimmy, I like where the article alludes to ‘savings’ in the ‘six figure range’. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha. Savings are discounts on established pricing. The RE market in the OK was never anything buy cheap money chewed up into smoke and blown up some fools ass. When the bottom is eventually established ( and it isn’t clear that its even close to a bottom by the look of the growing inventory and cratering prices) then you can bargain for a deal, right now its called ‘catching a falling knife’. Nortel was a screaming buy at $60 after it fell 50% and fools rushed in with their hair on fire. Nortel is worth zero today. Thats what can happen to bargain hunters in a falling market.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Patriotz, the governments game plan is to turn the clock back by deleveraging all asset classes, including the cost of government ie: wages and benefits also RE and savings. Until then they will have to keep a lid on the market forces…..who will win, the market or the manipulators? I’m a ‘Occams razor’ guy and assume that the ‘invisible hand’ will raise up and slap the brittle untruth into the next dimension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam‘s_razor
Behind the scenes:
“Roubini Global Economics submits that “Our core scenario is thus that once national balance sheets are repaired through a protracted and gradual deleveraging of household and public sectors (following the relatively rapid deleveraging of the financial sector, particularly in the United States), excessive deflation and inflation fears will [both] subside. There are certainly financial storm clouds to [still] worry about—not least because of sovereign debt concerns in the Eurozone.”
July 21st, 2010 at 10:13 pm
@realpaul: “I’m a ‘Occams razor’ guy and assume that the ‘invisible hand’ will raise up”
I thought Occam’s Razor was that the BoC were being run by brood of reverse vampires.
Never change, realpaul, no matter what they try to slip into your soup.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:57 pm
@oneangryslav2:
“…and handed the company to union workers making over $70 an hour
You’re either obtuse (which I doubt) or being exceedingly disingenuous. There is a clear substantive (and not only semantic) difference between the statement that you did make–in which the worker is the subject–and the statement you claim to have made–in which GM is the subject.”
Whoa, guy. Who is being obtuse? The union guys ARE making $70 an hour and GM is paying them $70 an hour. Whether it’s in the form of salary, health insurance, pension payouts or bushels of wheat is totally immaterial to the point that the govt DID hand the company over to workers who receive this amount in compensation.
You can twist yourself up into a confused knot over the real meaning of ‘pay’ or ‘make’ but those costs are real. GM workers ‘earn’ (those quote marks are for you) twice as much as the guys at Toyota but the govt still decided to hand them the company while telling the bondholders to go to hell.
(It’s this kind of crap that’s making banks and companies sit on their mountains of cash. There’s a storm of unease out there and one is going to start spending until the government wises up.)
July 21st, 2010 at 11:03 pm
@vibe:
The first property I bought in Vancouver had a leaky roof. I had to fix it myself. There is no statutory condition in RE contracts that the property can’t leak. If the buyer wants redress, it has to be in the contract.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:06 pm
@chip:
No they’re not. Quit lying. There are people on this board who understand finance and you’re not going to BS them.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:29 pm
@jesse: This sounds awefully like the job of the inspection department at city government! Which also can do the job at a cheaper cost and easier way than having every buyer paying for a full time engineer inspecting the constructions by themselves. I’m sure there are engineering firm who would love this as they can make a lot more money this way. However total costwise, I think the inspection department is the best setup. Off course whether it works properly or not is another matter.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:32 pm
@chip:
Dude, are you illiterate or something? Individual workers did not receive that much compensation. It is the total amount paid out to all currently employed and retired workers, divided by the number of currently employed workers. To say they are *making* $70/hour is to misunderstand (or to lie).
July 21st, 2010 at 11:34 pm
This article is dated 2008. Back then, GM claims that it was paying its workers $77.75 per hour in wages plus benefits (although the union disputes that number….even if it’s 10% lower, it’s still close to $70 per hour.) Not sure what the wages & benefits are now post GM’s bankruptcy.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/.....m-caw.html
GM wage comparison misses mark, CAW head says
July 21st, 2010 at 11:39 pm
@patriotz: as pointed out earlier, just because it’s not in the contract doesn’t mean you have the right to do something.
Simple analogy, your employment contract probably doesn’t have a clause saying you can only work a maximum number of hours per day or per week, or that the employer can prevent you from leaving the company premise until the job is finished. Does that mean come some project crunch time, your employer can demand that you work 24/7 in the office until the job is done and that you are not allowed to go home?
You might say ok then I exercise my right to quit. But if your right to quit on the spot isn’t in the contract then wouldn’t the employer refuse your resignation and sue you for economic loss for failing to work?
July 21st, 2010 at 11:54 pm
@Jimmy:
From the article:
“GM has calculated that a Canadian autoworker gets $77.75 an hour”
Two points:
1. That 77.75 is their “charge out rate” This is equivalent to what a contractor would get paid if directly (most have to go through an intermediary) – so it includes benifits, pension, union management and possibly HR. If I had to guess take home is probably only ~30/hr.
2. “GM calculated”; this is a company in distress
Similar to Steve Jobs throwing a few other phone companies under the bus in a recent press conference about the iPhone4.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Not sure about the chargeout rate, but the article says autoworker gets $77.75 per hour:
“GM has calculated that a Canadian autoworker gets $77.75 an hour, compared with $47.50 an hour for workers at the Japanese plants in the U.S, the Globe and Mail reported Friday. Closing the gap is very important, a company spokesman told the paper.”
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:17 am
It’s not brain surgery:
http://www.uaw.org/page/wages-and-labor-costs
The claim workers ‘get more in benefits’ than they get in base wages is tales for dummies. From the same page:
“In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds.
It takes big cajones to claim workers are ‘compensated’ the training required to do company designed tasks. I don’t know how many here have worked the line like me (many, many years ago) but you don’t get a basic paycheck and then an equal or greater bag-o-cash with it. In fact you don’t even get the paycheck after dues. And you don’t get to demand overtime, the company offers and it’s a tool to keep staff rolls down. My non-union employer of the last decade also provides a health care plan as a competitive hiring tool and pesters the hell out me to join the pension and stock plans.
BTW, I’m pretty sure the last round of UAW negotiations decimated the wage structure too. I’m no big union fan, haven’t been in one for decades, but I’m even less of one for ignorant propaganda.
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 am
hahaha bears…
wait for the summer they said…
wait for the HST to kick in, for the Olympics to be over, wait for interest rates to rise..
well, the big show is over, the HST is in, and the bank is increasing rates, ever so slowly…
and yet still a balanced 50% sell list ratio…
oh bears, you will be waiting another decade for your dream crash
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 am
off topic ( but I bet this will fall into the leaky bucket in a few years )
OV rental prices all over the place
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.....;bedrooms=
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:31 am
@space889:
My point is that if something is not in the contract, and there is no statutory condition, there is no obligation to do something. Contracts are primarily about obligations. A commits to obligations to B in return for B committing to obligations to A.
There is an obligation in common law for a dwelling that’s sold to be habitable at time of sale (unless specified otherwise), but that’s about all. The onus is on the buyer to check out the property before sale, or to get the seller to commit to whatever obligations the buyer wants in the sales contract. And if the seller won’t commit, there’s no sale.
And comparing a contract for delivery of a tradable asset to employment (which is the delivery of a service in real time) is pretty off base. For starters, the latter is full of statutory conditions underlying all employment contracts.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:00 am
213 “Just curious but is a project engineer an “actual engineer”…are they governed the same way as say a mechanical or structural engineer would be”
Yes they are all registered P.Eng with the association, which to my knowledge has never seriously gone after or reprimanded any engineer that is part of a large consultant firm that works for major developers. The association generally chases individual engineers who for whatever reason are not part of the “in crowd”.
The professional association covering BC Engineering is a joke.
I have met several engineers from various specialties that have with drawn their services due to shoddy workmanship and have had there own Association of Professional Engineers black list THEM, NOT the ones doing the lousy work.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:24 am
@Strataman:
Oh they have, if the aggrieved party was important enough. Remember “Cave-In Foods”.
But don’t expect it for you.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 am
@space889: “owever total costwise, I think the inspection department is the best setup. Off course whether it works properly or not is another matter.”
I don’t think it ever can. City inspectors are acting on behalf of their employers, the City. There will always be fundamental clashes between the City’s and your best interests, even if the system works smoothly and it’s legislated up the wazoo. I would still get advice from someone who is working for me directly or I get what I deserve.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:07 am
patriotz Says: “My point is that if something is not in the contract, and there is no statutory condition, there is no obligation to do something.”
Your point is BS. Google “contract law” and “reasonable expectation”, and turn off Fox.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 am
@fixie guy:
The only reasonable expectation a buyer has with relation to RE is that the property is not subject to extraordinary hazards like being a former grow op/drug lab, UFFI, site contamination, severe structural problems, etc. But as far as ordinary maintenance issues go it’s caveat emptor.
If you know of any judgments in BC that have said otherwise, please share them with us.