Saskatoon’s condo conversion policy to change
Monday night’s meeting of Saskatoon city council’s executive committee produced nearly five hours of “discussion and heated debate,” on proposed changes to the city’s condo conversion policy according to a report in this morning’s Star Phoenix. The majority of the councilors in attendance ultimately voted to put the brakes on the trend toward rapid and unrestricted conversions of apartment buildings to condos.
Assuming that the executive committee’s recommendations are approved by city council at its April 21 meeting, certificates for conversions will not be granted when vacancy rates fall below 1.5%, as measured in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Rental Market Outlook reports. The most recent report pegged Saskatoon’s apartment vacancy rate at just 0.6%. If approved, the new policy will not be applied to the applications for 14 buildings that are already in the queue for approval.
Key to the sudden shift seems to be a submission from Dr. Ryan Walker, an urban planning and geography professor at the University of Saskatchewan. Walker, with the help of colleagues from across the country made the case that diminishing supplies of rental housing will lead to further labour shortages in “key worker occupations.”
Read the Star Phoenix story here.
I’m always happy to answer your Saskatoon real estate questions. All of my contact info is here. Please feel free to call or email.
Follow our daily updates on Twitter @SaskatoonHomes.
Norm Fisher
Royal LePage Saskatoon Real Estate
46 comments so far. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:22 AM
A pat on the back to Dr. Walker for getting involveed and making such a tremendous effort on behalf of Saskatoon renters. Using arguments focused on profit rather than compassion is sometimes the path of least resistance when dealing with decision-makers such as city councillors. How brilliant that Dr. Walker and colleagues thought to use this tactic. I can only hope that this will help staunch the flow of condo conversions in the future, so more of our city’s renters aren’t forced out of their homes.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I’m not sure if I agree with this or not. There are some really shabby apartments now that won’t get fixed up. What we really need are incentives that will create more rental housing in the city at prices that people can afford.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Julie,
Yes, thank goodness something other than opinions and unjustified statements by developers has been considered!
Todd,
The city does have incentives to build more affordable housing. It also has incentives for landlords to improve the conditions of their current units.
An amendment to the current policy was proposed for a clause for “special cases” to address housing that is particularly dilapidated or even condemned and therefore conversion would be beneficial. An amendment to review the policy in January 2009 was also proposed.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I was at last night’s council meeting (but left at 7PM, apparently two hours early).
It’s a bloody zoo in there–barely any of the councillors seem to know what they’re really doing. It’s like everyone is on autopilot, and have been for months and months on this issue. I cannot believe that so late into this discussion on condo conversions and vacancy rates, they’re just NOW thinking about reading information from housing economists. Shouldn’t they have thought to seek such information out much, much earlier? And had some of the councillors not been handed the housing study reports provided by Walker et al, they still would have been in the dark when it comes to such important reports on vacancy rates and housing data in other cities (as well as this one)
Shouldn’t they have been seeking out this kind of empirical evidence on housing and vacancy rates MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO?
Ahh, human nature–human beings can be so dense and thick sometimes…
May 14th, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Robin, you’re 100% right.
Municipal governments have been infiltrated by business interests and degraded to nothing more than a lever for public spending in private projects.
Most people in municipal positions of power today are completely disinterested in what their jobs entail.
Don’t worry, Winnipeg has the same problem too. It’s common just about everywhere in Canada as it is a level of government nobody pays enough attention to.
That’s how you get rooms full of self-important zombies taking their cues from each other.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Robin,
I think it’s a research push and pull kind of thing.
As an outsider looking in, it seems like some councillors have been conflicted over which way to turn in the last year since vacancy rates have been declining. They’ve had to listen to a lot of ordinary people with different opinions, and some of those opinions were backed up by the heavy clout of business interests. I’m sure most councillors never thought to gather the type of information offered to them by Dr. Walker. Now he comes along, backed up by colleagues in a certain scientific community, and they take notice because science offers that kind of disinterested legitimacy.
Now, if someone really wanted to, they could probably make an argument pro condo conversions, if they found and presented convincing research
May 14th, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Robin,
For certain, council has had information on vacancy rates and also information on policies of other cities. I think that Dr. Walker presented information that they’ve already been exposed to, but managed to bring it across in a way which helped them make some sense of approaching this from a different angle. Julie mentioned in her opening comment that his presentation focused on “profit.” Years ago, Dale Carnegie referred to this as “speaking in terms of the other person’s interests.” In other words, it’s one thing to say, “this is how others are affected by your decisions” and another to say, “this is how you’re impacted by your decisions.” Dr. Walker was successful in conveying the idea that an open policy is non-progressive and could actually have a negative impact economically making Saskatoon less desirable in the process.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Applause for Robin & Alex.
City Council should have looked at this a year ago.
It might not be investor friendly to limit condo conversions, but on the flip side, landlords had been making money on renters hand over fist for decades. If we have to restrain their ROI somewhat, so be it. They won’t be starving taht’s for sure. It’s not like they could not see this coming. At least City Council is (finally) doing something to try and get a handle on the low vacancies.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Here’s hoping this gets approved on April 21st!
May 14th, 2009 at 10:26 AM
At the very least it finally feels like somebody is listening to our pleas! I feel a little….validated.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Heather,
I think in most instances the recommendations of the “executive committee” are adopted. This should go.
Leslie, Shannon, Robin and anyone else who has been active in this effort. You should feel very proud of the efforts that you’ve made and the results that you’ve achieved. Saskatoon has changed, and it will continue to change but you are the kind of people that will keep it a special place as we move forward. My thanks for your contribution to this community. Way to go!
May 14th, 2009 at 10:29 AM
yippe kai yeh!
My guts were telling me that reason would prevail in our country’s heartland. Send some of that love over to Sam Sullivan, our fair and wise Mayor. Let’s see if our council kills our beloved Sam’s concept of ecodensity in our fair city.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:29 AM
The real winners here are existing condo owners! I’m sure they are glad to see the tap of new condos go dry.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:29 AM
interesting article. back in ye ole days of the early ’80s the vacancy rate in vancouver was very low, so the provincial gov’t stopped the converstion of rental buildings to strata titled condos as the renters were being turfed and had nowhere to go. i remember UBC setting up tents for the students. some smart guy found a loophole in the law whereby he converted rental buildings to 99 year leaseholds. Effectively, you bought the right to live in that suite for the remainder of the lease but had no ownership in the land. The current vacancy rate is again below l% in vancouver.
p.s. enjoy your blog, i’ve given you a link
May 14th, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Hey Maggie,
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the chance to hear of these experiences in other markets. Hadn’t thought of the 99 year lease angle.
Thanks for the link.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Maggie, that sounds like Ward Island in Toronto!
I have a funny feeling like what has been passed may not be enough. They’ve taken a very slim approach to implementing the policy. While other cities require 3%, Saskatoon requires only half that…
I’m not doubting the capacity for the municipal government to start making a few appeasements. Don’t be surprised if somehow all of this is circumvented. I guess we’ll have to see.
House prices are still completely wrong.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Jake,
You make an excellent point, one that I’m sure most hadn’t given much thought to. That wacky “law of cause and effect,” hey? No question that a lesser supply on the resale side will likely add price pressure.
A 1.5% vacancy rate is something that we won’t see often though. Surely we have enough compassion to say “enough” when there are just no options for renters?
I had to laugh when I was reading up on rent controls. The writer of one particular article spoke about how landlords (exempt due to age of property they owned) would turn up to lobby whenever there was talk about eliminating the controls. “We need to keep these rent controls!!”
May 14th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Alex,
I’ve spoken with a few tenants who have their fingers crossed until Monday night. You’re right that 1.5% isn’t particularly generous to tenants but I guess it’s better than nothing.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
There is a misunderstanding…
The original 3% clause (section 3.2) has not been touched. The 1.5% is an “additional” clause.
The policy is as it was but now, additionally, if the vacancy rate falls below 1.5% there will be a freeze.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Sorry, I must be misunderstanding. What then does the 3% refer to?
May 14th, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Here is section 3.2:
When vacancy rates are below 3% and the site to be converted contains more than 100 household units, Council will, in addition to the other criteria set out in the policy, review the application to determine whether the conversion would significantly reduce the availability of rental accommodations in the City.
I may be wrong and I will definitely investigate this today, but the above clause does not refer to a freeze. The new one does.
I don’t know if this means that section 3.2 was completely changed from “if it is 3%, council will review the application” to “when it is below 1.5% there will be a freeze”
or
If the 1.5% freeze is an additional clause.
If you were at the meeting, as Robin pointed out, no one really knew what was going on. Myles Heidt had a completely confused look on his face when the motion was passed and said… “oh, so this vote was for a freeze? I will definitely never support that.”
So who knows? Perhaps the city solicitor… ? I’m thinking that perhaps what I have written above will now be debated as well on April 21st. That’s OK with me though, it will only stall the process/conversions and obviously there is now support for a complete freeze.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Shannon,
Hopefully someone was taking notes.
If I recall correctly, administrators had originally proposed a $10,000 per unit charge when vacancies were between 1.5 and 3%, followed by a freeze at 1.5%, but I have no idea if they were still looking at that proposal. Seems to me that administrators were bringing something else forward before that first one even got reviewed.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I think this is all bs, I cant believe investors have to pay for the city of Saskatoon’s mistakes. They should have made rental incentives years ago. They should have offered rebates to builders years ago to build new apartment blocks. They should have put a rental cap in place years ago. Now that *** has hit the fan the only way they can stop the bleeding is to put this ridiculous freeze into effect. What if an investor had bought an apartment building just a few months ago to convert to condos, and now the investor is stuck with an old shabby apartment building that cant be converted cause this freeze will be put into place? Where’s the fairness in that?. People don’t realize when we fix up this shabby building we are increasing the value of that whole block. We are contributing to economic growth, as we need trades to help with construction and renos. The city should not just put a city wide freeze on conversions, say for example area 2 of Saskatoon vacancy rate is at 3.2% then why can buildings be converted atleast in that area?. They should not just base it on a vacancy average of 1.5% They need to break it down to all 5 areas, and how the particular conversion will effect the vacancy rate. even if the freeze is in effect I think the city should review all application and still have the choice of approving applications during the freeze, depending on the situation with that building and its tenants.
Whatch the housing market take a plunge after this, Saskatoon is jumping the gun putting this freeze into effect so damn soon, they need to take a chill pill and wait this out, as 30% of all conversion units end up back as rentals. With the amount people are paying on rent per month, why not just get a mortgage on a conversion unit and invest in your future, and be paying your landlords bills.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Mr. Investor,
I don’t agree with anything that you say. That’s my opinion.
If you or anyone is stuck with a shabby building perhaps you should fix it up? Right now is not a time to convert that building. If the people who lived there could afford 200K + they would not be renters – they will not be able to buy them. If they are bought and rented out, the rent will be too high – again the previous renters are sol.
If you are paying attention there is now evidence that a low vacancy rate is dangerous for the economy.
Just last week at least 4 of the 9 conversions were approved in an area where the vacancy rate was… holy crap… 0.2%
Perhaps it is the developers/investors that need the pill? Why not wait until people actually have a place to live until you boot them out into the street?
If renters could get mortgages we wouldn’t have renters, don’t you think they would if they could? Is a student who’s income is $550/month for ALL expenses supposed to get a mortgage? Is a woman in her eighties who’s income is $900 – $1200 (that’s rent, groc, util, trans, prescriptions, etc.) supposed to get a job so that they can get a mortgage?
The housing boom has brought in may trades and temporary workers. The students will not give up their apartments this year. The percentage of renters each year who move out of the rental market to buy a family home will decrease because entry level home prices have doubled.
Developers are here to make a quick buck (30 million for example) and then EXIT. I have no sympathy for that.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Its not condo conversion thats creating the problem, is that no new apartment buildings have been built in the past 20 years!. And because our cities population is growing so fast we do not have enough rental units to accomodate everyone. We give tenants 6 months sometimes even longer to find another place to rent before we can evict them. We offer them mortgages 1st if they cant afford it then we have no choice but to evict them. 6 month is more then enough time to find a new place to rent. I will fight the city along with other developers to make sure the city does not go one sided on this, and just give in to the renters and leave the investors out to dry. I bought a building were the owners had left the rent for 1 bed units at 650 sqft in mint condition and the rent is only $400 to $450 a month! thats madness. Now im going to have to increase the rents to reflect more current rental rates which will be around the $750 mark. Now i was not going to raise the rent if we could proceed with the conversion. However if i cant proceed with the conversion i have not choice but to increase the rent by almost double in that building. Does that make you happy?? Either the city lets us convert that building and gives those tenants another 6 months of low rental living. Or its time to pay up and i’ll jack the rent up so i can cover the holding cost of the building until i can covert the building. Don’t get me wrong i don’t want to have to raise the rent, i had no intentions to do so, but if the city wants to play hard ball, then i’ll play hard ball, we all got to survive out here.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Investor,
No offense intended but didn’t you see the writing on the wall? This has been a rather hot topic for months now and it appears that the city is prepared to approve all existing applications.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:42 AM
It’s nice to see people finally coming around to seeing the kind of damage and ignorance people like “investor” spew. Nice to see that I’m not the first to the soap box either
Investor,
Boy, you sure don’t have anyone’s interests in mind but your own! (Perhaps you are one yourself, given your name…?)
You sound like you are thinking solely from out of your conceited values bent on preserving the destructive profits people are making these days.
Put yourself in the shoes of a first time buyer, a renter or someone who actually wants a condominium – a real one.
Can you imagine the dread and disappointment?
Likely not. From the sound of it, you’ve never been good at putting yourself in anyone else’s shoes. Indeed, you likely feel like you are too good to even be obligated to do such – a bad community member is what that makes.
I’ll tell you now, I experienced the deep and heavy burden of knowing the Saskatoon market would run off without me. Where my salary in Saskatoon could have once earned me a fantastic home, now I’m being told by people *without any reason but their own greed to support the notion* that “ownership just ain’t for you!”.
Pompous is all I will call that as I now have a home I do the unthinkable with: I live in it.
“We give tenants 6 months sometimes even longer to find another place to rent before we can evict them. We offer them mortgages 1st if they cant afford it then we have no choice but to evict them.”
[sarcasm]Yeah, we’ve seen some pretty humble discounts on first-crack conversion mortgages. I too am completely perplexed as to why people are spitting in the faces of investors.[/sarcasm]
Give me a break bud, this open hand does nothing to hide the complete ripoff what units of a three floor walkup have become. What’s coming on the market as a condo today in Saskatoon is a joke. You’re stretching every definition and impression to come off with a great chance to screw renters.
“…in mint condition…”
Oh really, let’s take that note into the next point…
“Now im going to have to increase the rents to reflect more current rental rates which will be around the $750 mark.”
Enlighten me on what basis you would increase costs when your sentiment shows that you have no intention to pay back into the building. A building in mint condition.
Unless it needs to be completely rebuilt there is no basis for a rental increase except your own wounded greed.
“However if i cant proceed with the conversion i have not choice but to increase the rent by almost double in that building. Does that make you happy??”
It’s so gratifying to see you reduced to the exact profile I have set aside for investors. The more stuff like this is said, the closer I can hit to the mark without being called down for it. It’s intensely political to get to the truth, but words like this help me.
..As if it were ever reasonable to portray me in a bad light while commenting here for caring, you show outright resentment. You disgust me.
As pressure is justly and duly applied to you lot, your true colours will show through.
Now your sentiment has come to threats and ultimatums for people who deserve nothing but your own loyalty towards them. They pay you.
You don’t represent every investor, of this I’m sure. But most of you are a socially unconscious lot who feel that the people your greed impacts are necessary casualties to your unattainable bliss. It’s a me first attitude we just haven’t been able to snag because it has become taboo to disdain greed today. Perhaps because everyone wants to keep that door open for themselves – who knows?
Some of you are individuals intent on actually producing something, by that I mean: creating something new, rather than repacking ‘poop’ and selling it as new. Some of you may actually have a vision of contributing rather than forcing people to extremes and making a killing.
For you spcifically, “investor”, you are one who has to be reminded: These are HUMAN LIVES and it is no surprise to see you getting neurotic at the lost opportunities.
You have produced a super-concentrated medley of just about every excuse we’ve heard from the right so far.
Nothing you say contributes to helping the economy or communities, just making boats and boats of money for yourself. Leeching from our economy and driving up national debt with your fortunate circumstances.
I commend your wealth, but I do not respect how it drives you.
Investment can take a break now. It’s had a very free run – more than it ever should have been allowed to.
The fear mongers are getting frantic…
May 14th, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Simmer down Alex, I’m not the bad guy. The city is going through what we investors call “growing pains” it will take awhile before more apartment blocks are built and things even out. However the city should not have total control over what I do with my building. If it can structurally be converted to condos then so be it!, I spent millions of dollars buying the building and now I’m restricted with what I can do with it? That’s like you buying a house, and then the city saying you can paint it a cretin color and add on a deck etc.. Its your house you paid for it you with it as you please. We bought the building before all of this non sense started to happen, we will fight the city to show that we got into this investment prior to them making the stupid decision to freeze condos. If you want Saskatoon to remain a small farm town, and no reap the benefits of what big city infrastructure can offer, then move to moose jaw, and buy a $100,000 2 bed house. I want Saskatoon to become like oil rich Calgary. There is so much opportunity for growth and expansion here. I’m working on putting up some high rise condo complexes in downtown Saskatoon, but id rather buy out all the old apartment buildings and convert them 1st before I start building new construction condos.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Sounds like provocation. Not buying it, it’s a waste of my time.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Shannon is right, you’re just laying out a lot of provocation. I hope people like you lose everything.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Shannon/Alex,
Although I do very clearly understand your concern for renters, how do you find that controlling other peoples property and what they do with it is a solution?
I do understand though that we are in mixed economy and that the people of Saskatchewan belive that goverment intervention should be allowed.
Do you either of you belive in property rights? Should the “common good” come before the “individual good”? Who should decided what the common good is?
Alex, you hoping “investor” loses everything really is a reflection of yourself. Take all the enthusiusm you have for communal thinking and social justice and put it to use creating new wealth for those less fortunate. Arguing that others shouldn’t succeed and trying to restrict others doesn’t help anybody. The world of wealth, success and well-being is not a zero sum game. From your comments it seems as though you belive that “investora” success, or mine, or Norm’s or anybody’s comes at someone else’s expense… it doesn’t.
Have a great night.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I am not coming on here to take potshots at Investor, I am a renter, but I am see the other side of the coin. The only question I have is the following:
Investor: When you bought your building, and found out the rents were $400 – $450, why do you feel that this amount is too low? Is it because you are losing money on it? Or is it because you want to make more profit off the investment? Why do you feel you have to raise the rent $300 per month just to reflect “more current rental rates”?
Again, not taking shots at you, as that isn’t constructive. I’m just trying to understand from your perspective, why you think you have no choice. $300 per month is a pretty significant increase for folks.
thanks
May 14th, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Investor/Jake
You see it only from your perspective, which some see as from the “high horse” and looking down. Those growing pains you flippantly mention are people that have no place to live. People that don’e know how they are going to feed their famillies. Should those that have invested in living in Saskatoon – ie the majority of taxpayers – suffer so that relatively few can make millions?
You wonder why the resentment is so palpable – well maybe get off your high horse and go spend a night at a shelter. Get in touch with people that this has financially ruined. Lots of people loved Saskatoon the way it was and have no interest in being the next Calgary. You may live to eat those words when people struggle in the next 20 years for clean water sources that arent full of toxins. People that trade money for health ARE the problem with this society. Most just want a future for their kids. Wealthy people will have the most opportunity to accrue the necessary food/water/shelter for the future. There are lots that may not. So, how rich is rich enough is what I think Thomas tried to ask.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Calloo callay oh frabjous day!
I never expected this: it’s wonderful. Is there anything we can all do to insure it goes through?
BTW, I actually think that Walker’s argument is sensible and reasoned, not pitched to greed. He’s right; if we let the market deal with this, eventually the bottom 20% of the population will leave the city. And that includes all the students, which would be bad for U of S and the city.
And I love the ‘investor’ posts: we’ve got the full hand of arguments, all 8 of ‘em. Quotation marks are what they say, brackets are what they really mean:
1) “conversions fix up shabby apartments” (a coat of paint and new flooring = instant equity!)
2) “conversions raise property values ” (too high for anyone to buy them)
3) “conversions contribute to economic growth” (College Pro painters and End of Roll are booming!)
4) “investors will be left with useless cheap shabby apartments” (that we were planning to market as luxury executive garden condominiums)
5) “30% of units wind up as rentals” (at three times the rent, with the finest finishes 29.99 a foot can buy)
6) “I spent millions of dollars buying the building, how dare the city tell me what to do with it!” (Hey! Let’s repeal the zoning bylaws! The parking lot across from the library would make a GREAT foundry!)
7) “I’m PLANNING on building new construction but but id rather buy out all the old apartment buildings and convert them 1st” (thus cornering the market at the cheapest possible price)
and finally, the oldest and the bestest of the flipper’s mantras:
“With the amount people are paying on rent per month, why not just get a mortgage on a conversion unit and invest in your future, and be paying your landlords bills” (‘Stop throwing your money away your landlord’s mortgage and start throwing it away on MY mortgage!’)
May 14th, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Jake, what I hope for is what he deserves. It is no reflection on me, it is just sensible to hope that the people who have preyed on the now lost opportunities of others get what’s coming.
I think every price gain in the market has been unfounded when people are still making the same wages from (pick your source) many years ago.
Get real, man. Investment needs to be stopped, there’s no merit to it what so ever. I’d rather see inhabitants of homes buy the houses and fix them up for their own use than act like we *need* and *depend* on investors to gentrify cities.
All they do is try to jack up prices and hold their wealth over others.
Not to mention every area created by manic investment activity is an isolated rat race with no character and little community presence.
So, seriously man. It’s not a reflection on me, it’s just you trying to take a reductionist attitude to a very big problem.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Hey : )
Apparently the clause will be replaced, if it passes, which it won’t – so back to square 1.
There has been a lot of new development this week – watch the paper.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Well, just means a few months set back, as builders start to focus on building new units, definitely profitable, as a year ago, condos were selling for half as much as now, and wages have not increased that much (well lots, not double). So I’m sure as soon as some lazy high school kids realize they can have summer wages roofing or whatever, that we could have only dreamed of as kids, that the necessary additional labour will put a lot of new condos on the market over the next few years.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Yeah, I have to wonder when a lot of young people are going to start going into the trades and construction realizing there are really well paying summer and full time jobs out there. Makes more sense to me to go get a construction job or training over getting some liberal arts degree, and half the pay, from the university. Parents should encourage their kids to get out and get some real jobs.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:56 AM
It also seems that we hear about the labour shortage, but just checking help wanted ads, companies don’t seem to be aggressively recruiting construction help. You wonder how much of it is companies like Jastek purposely spending almost a year building a row of town houses behind my place, with a skeleton crew of workers, means the places are worth more by the time they actually finish. The City should step in and make construction outfits finish projects in a shorter amount of time, instead of doing a long list over a long time so that they are worth more when they’re done. Plus it’s noisy to have that behind you 7 days a week.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Tim,
We don’t know how to “boom” in Saskatoon.
It will be very interesting going forward with recent news of doom and gloom in housing. Builders will likely be seeking much larger deposits and trying a little harder to get jobs done quicker.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
I’m happy to see the truth slowing starting to leak out regarding the city councils approach to condo conversions.
Renters allege council conflict of interest
http://tinyurl.com/4qmoaa
Hmmm, I wonder what else a person could find out if they did a little clever detective work…
May 14th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Hoping,
The story falls a little short of a smoking gun though, doesn’t it? They don’t own a half dozen investment properties between them, at least that they’ve disclosed.
However, you’d be right that it would make a wild story if others were turned up. Not only a failure to disclose, but blatant misrepresentation. Given that property titles are public record and available to anyone with a ten dollar bill, I’m going to guess that there’s not a heck of a lot more to the story.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
It’s been a long time since i have been on this site…been avoiding it as it gets me too ticked off at the situations. I’m just waiting until i can move and then i’m gonzo.
I saw this posted by Shannon above,
When vacancy rates are below 3% and the site to be converted contains more than 100 household units, Council will, in addition to the other criteria set out in the policy, review the application to determine whether the conversion would significantly reduce the availability of rental accommodations in the City.
Notice that it says when its’ below 3% AND THE SITE contains MORE THAN 100…what buildings HAVE those….sure some big big complexes but what about hte 30 unit ones that were built in the 60′s….LOL..oh not 100 units so we can pass it.
must…leave…site….
May 14th, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Edmonton allowed all to many condo conversions, they are now faced with low vacancy rates with very high rents, and now there are too many homes for sale and housing prices have dropped significantly, and of course the homeless population has grown significantly. It is a process that needs to happen slowly or you end up with more problems than a little city wants to have. My little house in Edmonton rented for 700.00, it was sold and my rent went to 1250.00 in one jump. I moved to Sk, run right out of town due to rent increases. Bought a nice little house here at half the monthly cost. I could have been homeless there or a homeowner here. Don’t make that mistake.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:59 AM
a condominium conversion or condo conversion is the process of entitling an income property or other lands currently held under one title to convert from sole ownership of the entire property (which often already is a multi unit property) into individually sold units as condominiums. Such entitlement is generally derived from approvals granted by state/provincial and/or local municipal authorities (and often other relevant agencies, such as conservation authorities).Indeed, though, virtually every condominium project could be characterized as a conversion of property that is held generally under one title, to property that is severed into portions so that the title to most such portions (i.e., units) can be held separately. However, the term “conversion” is usually reserved for just those projects which involve changing the title (and sometimes also the use) of an existing structure, such as a multi-dwelling apartment building, row dwellings (townhomes) or a commercial multi-unit rental site.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Having less owners is seems to be the wrong way to go. Owners pay taxes and tend to pay attention as they have a lot at stake. New Orleans is 60% renters and may never recover. This is the extreme but it started about 40 years ago. Owners just moved away over time. The jobs moved as well.