Hollyburn Properties Tries Evicting 82 Year Old Cancer Victim

[SFUVancouver]

I think that housing is a unique commodity. It is impossible to consider issues of housing without acknowledging the visceral link between people's perception of their personal safety and well-being and the security of their tenure in their home. Actions which imperil one's tenure in their dwelling are experienced as massively destabilizing events, regardless of whether they are to the letter of the law or not.

People construct much of their lives around their home and when that is threatened it affects all aspects of their lives. And while the residential tenancy act does put quite a bit of legal power in the tenant's hands many people's experience of the landlord vs tenant relationship is that of overwhelming power vs jeopardy.

Ultimately conflict arises about rental housing because some landlords and rental management companies act as if “it’s just business” when it is not experienced that way by their tenants.

[Yume-sama]

There's a limit to how secure you should feel in something you don't own, or have any control over.

It's no different from renting a car.

You SHOULD live with the expectation that you'll have to give it back, one day

Yeah it sucks to go through the hassle, but that's life, and part of what you assume when you become a renter.

If you want security, don't rent for 40 years. Houses were super cheap at some point in 40 years, and you could have bought one many times over. Then nobody could kick you out.

And you could rightfully stake claim to it as "Yours".

There are a lot of arguments thrown around about whether it's better to rent or buy. Well, if you want a secure place to live "forever", you better buy.

Otherwise, live with the expectation that you'll be moving eventually, and it's not really up to you. If you can accept this, then rent away~

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I tried to avoid commenting on this thread. But, I do believe property owners rights SHOULD trump renters rights.

Is it nice? No. Are they meanie bo beeneys? Probably. Can they? Yes. Will bad press probably make them reverse decision? Most likely.

In the end you can not legislate morality. Though I'm sure some would love to try.

I lol'd at the phrase "activist tenants" in the article. This is why so many people leave their downtown condos vacant

If she has truly been "wronged" then I'm sure the owner will be forced to let her stay, as just about every public institution is sympathetic to people like her.

They are selling a product, and the market will take care of them if they really are abusive owners, or charge too much. People won't rent from them, it's not like there isn't choice.

I wonder if you would be so sanguine about it, were it your grandmother? Regardless, the fact she is elderly and has cancer is incidental to the fact Hollyburn is seeking to subvert the law.

I'm not sure why you and mr.x try to ignore that point, that the landlord in this case is clearly trying to dodge the law of the land which limits rent increases. Furthermore, how do you justify Hollyburn's need for her suite as a manager's suite when there are other empty suites in the building?

Hollyburn knew the legal restrictions on rent increases when they got into the business. If they don't like those laws, they are free to exit the business anytime. IMHO they're also foolish to toss out a long term tenant who pays their rent promptly. From what I've heard those kind of tenants are hard to find.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

There's a limit to how secure you should feel in something you don't own, or have any control over.

It's no different from renting a car.

You SHOULD live with the expectation that you'll have to give it back, one day

Yeah it sucks to go through the hassle, but that's life, and part of what you assume when you become a renter.

If you want security, don't rent for 40 years. Houses were super cheap at some point in 40 years, and you could have bought one many times over. Then nobody could kick you out.

And you could rightfully stake claim to it as "Yours".

Currently, many people do not have either the capital, or the cash flow, to ever become property owners. They are obliged to remain renters for the rest of their lives. Does what you're saying mean that, too bad for them, they'll just have to live with the kind of primal instability of which SFUVancouver so aptly detailed? If yes, then the rights and equalities we as a society (and that includes our forefathers) have struggled so hard for, really amount to very little. And IMO, that's wrong, pure and simple. To say to someone "if you want security, you better buy," is a rather insensitive approach to people who do not have the means to buy. A secure place to live is a basic human right, as SFU said, whether you can afford to buy or not.

[Yume-sama]

I was unaware it's a human right to live somewhere that isn't yours.

I'll be over in a little bit, hope you got some good A/C (being uncomfortable is inhumane, after-all) because I'll probably be staying for awhile. Mind if I take your room? The living room is a bit cramped...

And don't think about kicking me out, I'll call the UN!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I was unaware it's a human right to live somewhere that isn't yours.

I'll be over in a little bit, hope you got some good A/C because I'll probably be staying for awhile. Mind if I take your room? The living room is a bit cramped...

And don't think about kicking me out, I'll call the UN!

Referring back to the post by SFU, Yume, it IS a human right, because, food, clothing and shelter are basic human rights. (In this case we'll assume the clothing and food are yours).

Some people CANNOT buy. They don't have the money. They have jobs that make ends meet and nothing more. Sure it's not the same as having their own place, but a certain degree of stability and security should be included because a HOME is such a primal need.

That's where the law falls short. OK, a landlord sells out, or raises the rent or whatever and you have to leave. But the person who has been there (assuming they've been respectable tenants) should not have to live in a state of panic or anxiety wondering where they'll end up. IMO this is one of the hallmarks of a "civilized" country and society.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think that housing is a unique commodity. It is impossible to consider issues of housing without acknowledging the visceral link between people's perception of their personal safety and well-being and the security of their tenure in their home. Actions which imperil one's tenure in their dwelling are experienced as massively destabilizing events, regardless of whether they are to the letter of the law or not.

People construct much of their lives around their home and when that is threatened it affects all aspects of their lives. And while the residential tenancy act does put quite a bit of legal power in the tenant's hands many people's experience of the landlord vs tenant relationship is that of overwhelming power vs jeopardy.

Ultimately conflict arises about rental housing because some landlords and rental management companies act as if “it’s just business” when it is not experienced that way by their tenants.

Precisely. Thank you.

[Yume-sama]

Life is not always fair. You are not owed everything (or anything?) in life.

If it's not yours, you can't have an expectation to claim ownership of it for your entire life. Simple as that.

It's not a hard concept.

Free houses for all would be super... but you'd probably end up like Greece. Which all of Europe is descending in to...

Now, I did say I don't think it's a "nice" thing to do, or something *I* would do, but that doesn't really matter in the end.

If you want to make it mandatory that you will be a tenant for life, at the same rate, there will all of the sudden be NO rental housing.

It will all have to be government housing, which sounds *great*.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Life is not always fair. You are not owed everything (or anything?) in life.

If it's not yours, you can't have an expectation to claim ownership of it for your entire life. Simple as that.

It's not a hard concept.

Free houses for all would be super... but you'd probably end up like Greece. Which all of Europe is descending in to...

Now, I did say I don't think it's a "nice" thing to do, or something *I* would do, but that doesn't really matter in the end.

I agree 100% that you are not owed anything if you don't own it. And everone knows nothing is fair. But as (hopefully) evolving societies - at least here in Canada, plus a few others - we have come a long way from Hobbesian times when life was, in his words "nasty, brutish, and short."

You seem to be a person with money, so perhaps you cannot connect with this, but, again, as SFU pointed out, there is something fundamentally elemental in knowing you have a home.

Even if you DO have to move, as I said, there should, IMO, be a mechanism in place which will take the anxiety and panic out of it, and keep you in stability mode. Nobody said anything should be free. But there are certain living conditions - often intangible yet vey real - that are the birthright of everybody.

Stability is one of them. You may not have a fancy home, and you may be obliged to move, but it should be set up in such a way that 82-year old ladies with cancer won't wonder where they're going to spend their final days or months, perhaps even a few more years.

[Yume-sama]

Yes, that mechanism in place happens to be mandatory advanced notice, so you don't come home and find your refrigerator on the sidewalk out of the blue.

Imagine the anxiety that would cause~

I have no doubt the media wouldn't even be reporting this if there wasn't some sob story to it. Yes, it's sad. And it's a bad thing to do.

Morally reprehensible, but not legally wrong. And it shouldn't be.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Yes, that mechanism in place happens to be mandatory advanced notice, so you don't come home and find your refrigerator on the sidewalk out of the blue.

Imagine the anxiety that would cause~

I have no doubt the media wouldn't even be reporting this if there wasn't some sob story to it. Yes, it's sad. And it's a bad thing to do.

Morally reprehensible, but not legally wrong. And it shouldn't be.

I appreciate your point, but have a question: is this a "sob story?"

[Yume-sama]

They are clearly trumping it up to be.

If they weren't the headline would be "Hollyburn Properties to evict tenant" as that's the only actually relevant part.

But that's not how the media works

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

They are clearly trumping it up to be.

True enough, but if she could be found similar accomodation at a similar price, it needn't be. Sure, she'll feel disoriented and sad. That's only natural. But she would adjust.

My concern is: are there mechanisms in place that will transfer her to another suitable apartment at a price she can afford? (yes, even if it is a bit smaller)

If there are not, there should be, and that is where an overhaul of the tenant situation comes in. Not everone has 100k jobs (if that).

[Yume-sama]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say she receives government assistance already, and that likely won't stop.

I agree there should be something in place to help people in her situation, and there probably is.

You don't do that in the obvious way of taking away all rights from the property owner, however.

That would result in far more bad consequences than good.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

I'm going to go out on a limb and say she receives government assistance already, and that likely won't stop.

I agree there should be something in place to help people in her situation, and there probably is.

You don't do that in the obvious way of taking away all rights from the property owner, however.

Agreed. Absolutely. Unfortunately, purely business pragmatism cannot always be applied without somebody getting hurt, and that's where my instincts kicked in.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Life is not always fair. You are not owed everything (or anything?) in life.

If it's not yours, you can't have an expectation to claim ownership of it for your entire life. Simple as that.

It's not a hard concept.

Exactly. And I'd even say it's a logical and rational concept. How could you be attached to something that you don't own?

And if we're going to use "housing is a human right" as an excuse, well then you better have the same views when it comes to dealing with all of our homeless. Are we to build free social housing for everyone?

And while we're on this, I absolutely despise the musical RENT. 2 hours of people singing how they don't want to pay rent and work.

Morally reprehensible, but not legally wrong. And it shouldn't be.

Well said. I am on the 82-year old's side, but I don't see any legal wrong doing from the company nor should there be any wrong doing. A moral line has been crossed, but not a legal one.



Renters should not act as if they own the place they are renting. I support renters rights which include:

- a lengthy eviction notice from the owners
- owners required to oblige to their renting contracts, and it is only during this rental contract period that the renter should feel secure
- a max. annual rent inflation rate

But renters right SHOULD NOT be extended to property rights, that the renter believes that they have a right to occupy a space. That's where property rights are trumped.



These laws and perceived renters rights are one of several reasons why there's a shortage in rental housing in the region. Simply said, ridiculous rent control decreases the supply of affordable renting housing. One only has to look at New York...

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by itinerant

A landlord shouldn't be allowed (by law) to evict someone for the purpose of re-renting the same apartment to someone else for more money.

Why not?

[SpongeG]

well I agree with what y'all say but what they are doing is lying to get people so they can charge higher rents - you can legally evict a tenant if you have to do renovations

slapping on some paint and replacing carpet is not justifiable as renovations and most tenants could probably win in court over that

we are lucky we have the laws we have in BC - we might be getting that thing they have in ontario that basically says renters have the first right of refusal to move back into a renovated suite at the same price or with a reasonable increase not 50% or more as some of these buildings are doing...

[jlousa]

Yes lets impose more rental restrictions, because we know there are so many developers building rental buildings. It's not like the city needs to give away the farm as it just to get some built. If we make it even harder then we can kiss those goodbye as well. The harder we make it for landlords the harder it becomes for the renters, it's a simple concept that most got get.

I grew up in the property management business, my father taught me a valuable lesson early on. Never get into residential rentals. I regret not taking his advice, but no truer words have ever been spoken.

[Zassk]

So many of you are thinking of the issue strictly from the perspective of a renter... How about you folks think how you would feel if you became the owner of a rental suite?

Say your Aunt Molly surprises you with two apartments in her will, one of which is vacant and you can sell/use immediately, the other which has an 82 year old living in it for the past 40 years?

What if the market rate for renting goes up by 20% next year? Do you want to be limited by some law to raising it by 4%?

Should your renter have first right to your other available unit in the same building at the same price? Or should you have the right to tell them to go look down at the other end of the Expo Line for a cheaper rental unit?