Millennium Development defaults on $71 million-plus West Vancouver project loan

This Vancouver Sun story was categorized in the “Sports” section… for some strange reason… Talk about “burying your lead”.

VANCOUVER — Millennium Development Corporation — the developer of Vancouver’s troubled Olympic Village — is in default on a loan of more than $71 million for a proposed West Vancouver luxury condominium and townhouse development, according to a petition filed with the B.C. Supreme Court by the project’s financial backers.

The petitioners claim that Millennium has defaulted in payment of principal and interest due on its mortgage and that they are owed $71,796, according to court documents.

Read the full article in the Vancouver Sun.

Oh, and who’s marketing these things?

The project, Evelyn Living, is being marketed by Bob Rennie — who is also marketing the Olympic Village — as a prestigious enclave on the slopes of Sentinel Hill, near the Park Royal Shopping Centre.

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bob Rennie has hintered at 25% price cuts at the OV

I guess that means they will sell for more Dave?

Oh and those $1650 rentals are now available at $1400 and still vacant. I guess that means rent went up dave?


@Anonymous: Really? Even Drachen admits my predictions were correct. Word for word: "If the market regains and holds over half it's losses (I'd insist on real dollars but because these events will transpire in the next couple of years it's not likely to be a big factor) before dipping below 20% then I will admit you're right." – Drachen October 2, 2008 3:58 PM VHB has been predicting the apocalypse longer than the Catholic Church. Nobody has been more wrong than VHB. He's the poster child for the doom and gloomers than called this market incorrectly for years and years. I think we are now entering the 6th or 7th year of the VHB blog. Enough said. I haven't seen Strataman make many predictions but he definitely had some interesting things to say about building maintenance. He was wrong on… Read more »

fixie guy

@81 Dave Says: "LOL. Try reading next time. If you don’t understand something, maybe just ask."

Ah. Intellectual cowardice + avoidance + arrogance as a rhetorical technique. Same old, same old.


Dave no one here thinks you're right.

Why you ask? Because there are archives. You've been wrong all along.

Drachen and strataman were right, so was VHB


Anonymous: MMm, I think you're right, though, that my numbers are too lean. This is where a tax lawyer or payroll expert would be useful!

As I mentioned, we're making more and netting less than your number, but the difference doesn't quite make sense.

'Course, our year tends to have greater paycheques at the end when we max CPP. So … ???

What is true – RBC would lend OUR family enough that our payment to housing before electrical and upkeep would end up being about 60% of our cheque. And with that money, we could by a much smaller place with no yard, or a place in a much more transportation-costly area. So we would end up with additional expenses not considered – upkeep, transport… and therapy. *laughing*


@Anonymous: Did you do it per year (to get the right tax bracket) and in BC? I wonder if that's what's causing the difference? The most convincing proof for *me* is in my pudding, as it were – my household makes more than 75K/year and takes home less than $5057/month net, even if you add back our source deduction optional contributions for ltd/life! Anyway, for one income for the year I get this: Pay period Semi-monthly (24 pay periods a year) Province of employment British Columbia Federal amount from TD1 Claim Code 1 (Minimum – 10,382.00) Provincial amount from TD1 Claim Code 1 (Minimum – 11,000.00) Salary or wages for the pay period 37,500.00 Total EI insurable earnings for the pay period 37,500.00 Taxable income 37,500.00 Cash income for the pay period 37,500.00 Federal tax deductions 10,370.52 Provincial tax deductions… Read more »



Pope, how about giving Drachen a ban for a period of time? The forum has improved this past week, but these insults are not necessary. It’s even more troubling when he doesn’t bother to read my posts and just lashes out without cause.


"I have to agree that most people that bought before 2000 probably couldn’t afford to buy their own home now. It is quite simple, incomes have not gone up. The only people I know that are making more money now than what they did in 2000 are in RE."

t – are you kidding? Incomes have not gone up since 2000? My income certainly has gone up since 2000, quite significantly I might add, and everyone I know has seen their income go up since 2000. And none of them are in real estate.

The only thing that hasn't gone up since 2000 is minimum wage – but really, if you're making min wage you probably should not be buying a house in the first place.



LOL again… You did this once before with nominal, current and real dollars. You get something wrong and don't bother spending any time checking your facts.

I have politely asked you to read my posts. If you bothered to do that and if you took your time, you would simply find that your assertions are wrong.

You simply don't get it.

Serious question… Is English your second language? If so, I can understand that you might miss the odd nuance of a sentence.

Please think twice before you post.



"Like it or not, such a product is now a niche market in the Lower Mainland."

Tell me where it says "Vancouver" in that sentence you moron.



LOL. Try reading next time. If you don't understand something, maybe just ask.

fixie guy

@ #74 Dave Says: "At least you came back with something interesting." Wish I could say the same. The Kits example was intentional, to see if you'd come back with that objection. Yes, I've heard it before. No bar too low. What about the rest of the data on that link, like Oakridge ($55K), Arbutus ($55K) and Kerrisdale ($62K)? Or were you hoping no one would look? While we're at it: median. That means 50% of households above, 50% below that number. So your (unsupported as always) claim is 50% of Kits households are poor students, and 50% fabulously high income earners, with nothing in the middle? Amazing, it's impossible to tell just walking around there. Special glasses? @ #75 ulsterman: No idea, that debate's been going on for years with theories ranging from wealthy dying parents to meth. Maybe… Read more »



"LOL. Metro Vancouver =/ Vancouver."

You said Lower Mainland, son.

Seriously, are you that stupid?

CRASH JPMorgan-Chase



Oh, and here is a thought…maybe off topic, maybe not…I am just astounded by the number of families who have applied to the Christmas Bureau for help this season. In Burnaby alone their are 1500 families that will not have money for a Christmas dinner or toys for their children. And those are just the ones that have already come forward for assistance.

Think about that because these people represent the working poor which is a growing demographic in Metro Vancouver. They will not be buying homes, they will likely not be renting from wanabe landlords who demand high rents.


I have to agree that most people that bought before 2000 probably couldn't afford to buy their own home now. It is quite simple, incomes have not gone up. The only people I know that are making more money now than what they did in 2000 are in RE. I live in Kits. Almost every new house I see being built in my neighbourhood includes a basement suite and a laneway house. I am particularily shocked to see some of the larger homes being stratified into three or four apartments and sold off. Why anyone would pay 750k for a basement suite is beyond me. I wonder if any of these "developers" have concidered what these changes to the dwellings will do to the culture of the neighbourhood. Families don't live in basement suites.


@fixie guy:

I looked at the median incomes in your link and once again i'm utterly baffled by the low median incomes of ENTIRE households. Even if this was for individuals we would still appear impoverished. For this to be household income is staggering.

I told that rich asians are not supporting this market, so i'm flummoxed as to WHO is. At these levels of income i cannot even see how low interest rates can be the explanation.

Is there an explanation? In most areas of the city, the half the population can barely break the 50k barrier when they included all income earners in the home.

What gives?


@fixie guy:

At least you came back with something interesting.

I would have guessed higher, but Kits is loaded with students, young people and lots of rentals. So maybe not unexpected.

If anybody actually believes people spent 80% of their income on a home, then I have a bridge to sell ya. More likely they have a higher than average income.

Just a hunch though… well common sense.



LOL. Metro Vancouver =/ Vancouver.

Wrong again, son. It's sad how you constantly try to jump on my posts, but fail time and time again. More like pathetic. Just save it until you actually catch me in error.



"it’s almost useless to use Vancouver SFHs as a gauge for affordability. Like it or not, such a product is now a niche market in the Lower Mainland."

Liar, con-man.

"There are currently 386,620 detached homes in Metro Vancouver."

"There are currently 98,599 attached units in Metro Vancouver."

"There are currently 192,264 condominiums in Metro Vancouver."


Over half the housing in Metro Vancouver is single family.

Niche market, pull something more interesting out of your ass.


fixie guy

#67 Dave Says:"Anon, what I said was pretty simple."

Looks like we can agree on something. Your strained reasoning ignores that published figures of household income by neighbourhood already exist. No need to guess, trust you or employ magicthink.

2006 median household income for Kits under $55K? Interesting.


#41: "Troll, your argument is the same old “buy now or be priced out forever” BS… Prices have gotten so out of reach that a person who doesn’t already own a house in Vancouver cannot."

Does it sound like BS when you say it? Sorry, but this bubble is government sponsored. There is no "free market" when the market is the government. How many people are buying first or additional properties without CMHC insurance? Virtually none.

In short, the government determines how much people can borrow, and they determine how much people pay per month – at least for now. They effectively set the price of homes. And 70% of the population and an even larger percentage of voters own homes. So don't expect any changes.



I agree. I think a 'detached dwelling' in Langley is a better proxy for affordability in the Valley.


@Dave: "it’s almost useless to use Vancouver SFHs as a gauge for affordability"

I propose we drop the term altogether. "Single Family Home" with two basement suites is anything but a single family home. Detached is a far better term.

I see using condos as a gauge of the market is valid but not because that's all the median family can afford. Using detached dwellings in the suburbs is a valid gauge IMO because density increases there are many years off. Both these dwellings groups are around for the long haul in their present forms.


@Drachen: I said no such thing. Liar and con-man? LOL. Anon, what I said was pretty simple. The number of households and demand for single family homes well exceeds the availability of single family homes in Vancouver. The low supply and high demand obviously push prices up and only those people with enough income will be able to afford such a home. If 150,000 people are fighting for 50,000 lots, then the income of the people in the 50,000 percentile are the ones who ultimately win out. In this example, the income threshold might be something around the upper 66th percentile. There is nothing absolute about this. It's a first guess estimate at finding a ballpark number. Anyway my point was simple… it's almost useless to use Vancouver SFHs as a gauge for affordability. Like it or not, such a… Read more »