Vancouver’s real estate moguls share trade secrets

April 16th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

To become a real estate mogul you have to love what you do, be able to make quick decisions and have a good relationship with your banker, the Vancouver Real Estate Forum heard from local real estate legends Joe Segal and Natale Bosa Wednesday.

Segal is best known for starting Fields Stores and then taking over the much-bigger Zellers which was subsequently bought by Hudson’s Bay Company.

It was a deal that people called the mouse swallowing the elephant, the 87-year-old said. At the time, one of his stores — which was 6,000 square feet — was beside a Zellers.

Fields was doing $1 million a year in that spot while Zellers, which was occupying 24,000 square feet, was doing only $400,000. “So I figured there must something wrong here,” Segal said.

So he talked to his banker and asked him for $50 million to buy Zellers, which was a lot of money in 1976.

“And I was shocked. He gave it to me,” Segal said.

But his first foray into real estate came earlier — when he had a surplus $100,000 from his retail business that he used to buy a building.

And from there he’s developed a multimillion-dollar real estate portfolio. One property he bought for $600,000 is now worth $150 million, he said.

Segal looks at each project and measures the risk/reward ratio.

“If I can digest the risk I’ll take a shot and I’m entitled to the reward,” he said.

But you have to be able to make a decision, he said.

“If you can make a decision and make it quickly you’re at an advantage,” Segal said. “If you dilly-dally and your banker won’t listen to you, you’re at a disadvantage.”

Bosa, the president of Bosa Development Corporation, the company behind projects like Citygate near the Telus World of Science and Newport Village in Port Moody — jumped at the chance to get involved in Citygate, buying one of the parcels in 1988.

He then bought a second piece before being offered the rest of the development.

“It was a big gamble at the time but at the time I had more guts than brains,” Bosa said.

And he was able to find a banker who would lend him the money on short notice.

“You’ve got to have a nose for it,” the 68-year-old Bosa said. “You’ve got to really believe in what you’re doing. You’ve got to feel it’s going to work. And fortunately it’s worked for me.”

And a little ignorance can be a good thing.

“Sometimes being too smart is not going to get you there,” he said.

“If you study things too much you’re going to miss out.

“Because if you know too much about a deal chances are you aren’t going to buy it.”

What will make the housing boom go bust? ‘Greed’

April 16th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

Ben Jones saw the storm clouds forming over the United States housing market back in 2004. Now, he has a gloomy forecast for Canada

Speculation in Canadian cities such as Vancouver and Toronto is wildly out of control, and the real-estate bubble in this country is overdue for a correction painfully similar to the one south of the border in 2008. As well, Canadian investors who are buying in the depressed U.S. market today are taking much bigger risks than they think.

That’s the forecast according to Ben Jones, at least. Don’t believe him? People have made that mistake before.

When the Arizona-based accountant launched the Housing Bubble Blog [http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/index.html] in December, 2004, he was a lone voice crying wolf about the vulnerability of the U.S. housing market.

Undeterred by naysayers – you try convincing folks back then that not only were home prices going to plummet, but the fall would bring with it a tsunami of financial pain – Mr. Jones kept posting daily roundups of news stories culled from every corner of the U.S., as well as Canada, Japan, Europe, Australia and China, with readers from around the world adding comments about what was happening in their local housing markets.

Almost eight years later, Mr. Jones is still uncovering signs that the real-estate mania is far from over, and news reports from Canada are making on to his blog with unsettling regularity. A self-styled professional skeptic, he maintains that the fallout from the housing bubble is far from over.

China probably has the largest bubble in the world, he says, “and when it blows, it’s going to shake the globe. There have been housing bubbles before, but never all over the world. Every time I hear people talk about the housing bubble in the past tense, I cringe.”

You’ve been posting a lot of stories recently about the Toronto and Vancouver real-estate markets. When you look at Canada right now, what parallels do you see between where we’re at and where the U.S. was when its housing bubble burst?

From what I can tell, the condo markets in Toronto and Vancouver are even crazier. Prices are still going up and the participation of so many foreign investors is indicative of a more vulnerable market than in, for example, Miami in 2004. And that was a complete disaster.

Speculation isn’t a sign of strength – it’s a sign of weakness. I’ve read that in Toronto there are Chinese investors buying entire floors of condos. That’s clearly speculative, and those people will be the first to walk when things fall apart.

Canadians like to think of themselves as cautious people. Why do we want to believe the same fallacies that inflated the American bubble: “it can’t happen here,” “all real estate is local,” “they’re not making any more land,” “home prices always go up” … ?

The short answer is, it’s greed. People want to make money. And they are making money – there’s always a tonne of cash floating around financial manias, whether they’re a stock bubble or a housing bubble.

Is that why Canadians have been so eager to buy properties south of the border?

No one foresaw that Canadians would be crawling all over Arizona and, to a larger extent, California. I went down last summer to Maricopa County in Phoenix to watch a foreclosure sale on the courthouse steps. They had four auctioneers going at the same time, selling houses one after the other for six hours in 116-degree heat. There were 80 people there, buying houses, sight unseen, left and right.

Most of the buyers were professional bidders, talking on their cellphones to the people doing the buying. I could hear the conversations: “Oh, we can fix this up, we can rent it out, I think you’ll get 7 per cent on resale.” It was gambling on a mass scale, right in front of everybody.

But there’s a perception here that it’s low-hanging fruit and you’d be crazy not to put $400,000 down on a house in Phoenix, because four years ago, according to the people who owned it, it was worth $800,000.

We saw that logic at every level of the bubble. But the bigger issue is, $400,000 is still a lot of money – $200,000 is a lot of money. I would remind people that the reason retirees came to Arizona was because houses and land were cheap. If they want to know what the true values of these houses are, I would lean more toward mid-1990s prices.

What advice would you give Canadians buying American real estate?

Six months ago, I launched a new venture called the Joshua Tree Fund, which will invest in foreclosed houses. As of today, I don’t have anything bought because I don’t think the prices are low enough yet. I’ve got too many crazy Canadians bidding against me.

Now, I don’t want to discourage anyone from buying a house, but when I read things about Canadians using home-equity money to leverage up 100 per cent to buy houses in Arizona – well, we’ve all seen the damage that leverage can do. They’re not only putting the cash that they’re bringing here at risk, they’re borrowing money against their own houses in Canada. They’re actually contributing to the inevitable collapse of the bubble in Canada.

So why aren’t prices dropping?

Artificially low interest rates and lower mortgage standards have enabled your bubble to do a head fake and push even higher. The same thing happened in Australia and China. You guys should be further along the road to recovery than us and you’re not. I would chalk that up to your government policy.

Any objective economist should be able to see what’s going on in Toronto and see that it’s a disaster in the making. In the United States, everybody knew that it couldn’t go on forever, but at the root of a mania is the belief that the trees will grow to the sky. In Arizona, for instance, at every level and every step down, people kept saying it couldn’t get any worse – but it did. It was like a bowling ball going down the stairs.

Is the U.S. market close to reaching bottom?

Every time I hear people talk about the housing bubble in the past tense, I cringe. A lot of experts originally said there was no housing bubble. Now, they’ll mention a housing bubble, but those same experts have never really owned up to what it was and when it started. That enables them to say, “Well, we’re back at 2003 prices.”

It’s a disingenuous shrugging-off of what we’re really going through – the largest asset mania on a global scale in history.

What is the so-called shadow inventory?

The shadow inventory is hidden in plain sight: There are millions of empty houses or houses in foreclosure, but the banks and the government aren’t putting them on the market. It’s completely understandable what they’re doing – they’re limiting the supply so they can get a higher price for the stuff they do have on the market.

The end result is that you’ve got people paying more for houses than they’re really worth. You combine that with government efforts to keep interest rates and down payments low, and people are buying into a manipulated market in which prices are artificially high. A lot of the houses that people are buying in 2012 will be in foreclosure in 2016.

So greed, from the top to the bottom, is the underlying theme?

Do you think the Canadians are coming down here because they really like Arizona? Some of them do, but they’re not buying thousands of houses because they feel sorry for us or want to support our market. They’re doing it to make money. There’s nothing wrong with that – I’m a capitalist – but you have to own up to the risks that you’re taking.

If you own a second home, you’re speculating. It’s a lot cheaper to come to Arizona and stay in a resort or a short-term rental than to own the property and come down here one or two months out of the year. It will be interesting to see if we start to hear sob stories about poor Canadians saying they were cheated by the banks and lost their investment properties and their Canadian properties.

What do you make of all the stories about the Chinese speculating with their money by buying Canadian real estate?

I posted the recent story about that Toronto house that sold for $400,000 over asking price. And it was just a bungalow. It really reminds me of 2004 when Californians were spreading across the whole country, buying property left and right, using their equity from the California bubble to create bubbles in other areas, like Las Vegas. We called them “equity nomads.”

China probably has the largest bubble in the world and the fact that they’re using their bubble wealth to drive up prices in Canada is the rolling-bubble phenomenon playing out on a massive scale. If the real-estate market collapses in China, are they going to close on all these condos they’re buying in Toronto? I kind of doubt it.

It’s even more complicated, because the Australians have a pretty big bubble and their resource-based economy is largely dependent upon China. It’s a house of cards: China goes down, Australia goes down and they drag down the market in Vancouver and Toronto, which trickles down to the U.S. That’s the danger people are willing to ignore when things are going up.

But everyone says it’s different here.

Ask yourself, why are the Chinese buying all these properties in Toronto and Vancouver? To make money. Yes, they say they are really nice places, but they say that about every bubble market.

Florida is a really nice place. California has great weather. I don’t think that justifies paying $400,000 over asking. Toronto was a really nice place 20 years ago, but nobody was paying half-a-million dollars for a condo.

Danger of just saying no to depreciation reports

April 9th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

Dear Condo Smarts: Our strata consists of 18 bare-land units in a retirement community located in Oliver.

We have been reviewing the depreciation legislation and just don’t see the point for small strata corporations. Owners are responsible for each of their units, and other than snow removal and insurance, we have very few common expenses.

We have decided to take advantage of the exemptions in the regulations, but don’t understand the procedure.

Mrs. K.R. McMillan.

Dear Mrs. McMillan: One of the most valuable benefits of the depreciation reports is going to be the inventory of common property, common assets and portions of limited common property and strata lots that the strata corporation is going to have to repair, maintain and replace.

There are many strata corporations that have operated with limited function under the Strata Property Act, and the new regulations will certainly require that strata corporations recognize their obligations.

Strata corporations of five or more units are required to provide a depreciation report by Dec. 13, 2013. A strata corporation of five or more units may be exempted, if the strata corporation annually passes a three-quarters vote at a general meeting.

This will require the strata corporation to include the exact wording of a three-quarters vote resolution with the notice of the general meeting and on the agenda.

The minutes will then reflect the results of the three-quarters vote. Remember, a three-quarters vote is based on those who vote for or against the resolution at the time the resolution is passed, and who have not abstained.

For example, your strata is 18 units. Let’s say, at the AGM, 14 owners register in person or by proxy. When the vote is called, nine vote yes, three vote no and two abstain. The result is based on three-quarters of the 12 who voted.

Before your strata corporation votes for an exemption, consider the implications of that decision.

Depreciation reports are going to be a widely used tool to mange risk for buyers purchasing in strata corporations.

Potential buyers and their mortgage providers or mortgage insurers may have a keen interest in a depreciation report if your strata poses risks that indicate a high-ratio borrower may not be able to manage special levies or unknown future costs. The absence of a report will make it more difficult for a vendor to sell their unit in these circumstances.

Also, buyers will use depreciation reports to determine if the asking price is reasonable. The absence of a depreciation report might impose restrictions on the property that limit the ability to sell.

Many retired owners tell me they are planning on their final farewell from the condo, so why should they bother paying for something they won’t use?

Yet they have enjoyed the use of the building components over the years.

Another point: You might hope you’ll live in your condo until the day you die, but the reality is that most people require some sort of extended residential care at the end of their lives. This isn’t cheap. Suddenly the ability to sell the home quickly and for a good price becomes important.

The value of property will be influenced by the condition of the property, the strata’s financial position and the long-term planning for renewals.

These days, potential buyers are assessing their investments from all of these perspectives before they make an offer.

McMillan’s strata has an even greater problem.

The requirement of depreciation reports has caused them to assess their strata, and even though they have been operating as such for 11 years, they are not a bare-land strata as they believed, and the strata corporation is responsible for the building exteriors and all defined common property.

Even in a bare-land and townhouse community, there are still significant common costs in the future. For example, who is going to pay for the replacement of the common water and sewer lines when there is a failure? The strata corporation is, and this is a significant cost.

So don’t be deceived into thinking your risks are small. Before you decide on an exemption, think about the implications and the future of all of those costs.

Source: The Victoria Times Colonist

Proper insurance claims part of maintenance plan

April 6th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

I live in a six-floor mid-rise building that was constructed in 1986. The construction is concrete but the finishings throughout the building are typical drywall and wood flooring installed originally by the developer.

We had an owner change their dishwasher in February and one of the fittings separated when they were away on vacation last week. By time we realized what was happening, half of the units from the first floor to the third floor experienced some water damage to their units.

The strata council has advised that we are responsible for the insurance claims in each of our units and that it’s up to us to sue the person who caused the damages. The council is concerned our insurance will increase. What’s the point of strata insurance if a claim cannot be filed for this damage?

We pay almost $25,000 a year for our strata insurance and we’re not allowed to access the insurance? Our deductible is $10,000 and I would easily project that the total damages are going to exceed this cost once all of the floors and walls are repaired.

Who makes the decision on whether a claim is covered or not?

Jeff C., Vancouver

Dear Jeff: Even if you filed a claim on your homeowner’s policy, it is unlikely your insurer would cover the damages to your hardwood floors, drywall, cabinets and insulation in the walls because they are the insured common assets of the strata corporation which must be covered under the common policy of the strata corporation.

The Strata Property Act creates a specific definition for all of those building components that the strata must insure. They are called fixtures and, in addition to the structure of the building, they include items attached to a building, including floor and wall coverings and electrical and plumbing fixtures. The fixtures are the items that were built or installed on a strata lot by the ownerdeveloper as part of the original construction. These items must be insured by the strata corporation (except for a bare land strata) for their full replacement value against major perils, which includes water escape.

The act defines that the named insureds are the strata corporation, owners and tenants and persons who normally occupy the strata lots. The moment your insurance company was contacted – and it may be contacted by either the strata council or any owner – a claim was opened. Whether or not you proceed with the claim process is irrelevant. Your insurer is now aware of the damages and the risks and, depending on the circumstances, your future insurance could be affected in any case.

Strata council members need to also understand that if they deny a claim or the right of filing a claim and an owner is left with the damages and liabilities, the strata council may be subject to a lawsuit. Claims regarding under-insurance are generally not covered under director’s and officer’s liability insurance.

A routine series of events would include: a) the damage is caused; b) the cause is stopped (shut off the water, emergency services); c) contact is made with the insurance provider, which will send an adjuster; d) the claim is processed and repairs are executed; e) the strata corporation pays the deductible as a common expense; f) the strata council determines if it will recover the deductible from the strata lot, if the strata lot owner was responsible for loss or damage that gave rise to the claim.

There is a serious down side to not filing claims because the strata is not wanting the insurer to know about the damages. It is the insufficient restoration of the damages, especially water claims. Resultant mould, rot and pest infestations are often caused by water damage that is not properly addressed. A part of maintaining property correctly includes a thorough processing of insurance claims and restoration.

Source: The Victoria Times Colonist

Langley 3 bedroom house for rent in desirable, quiet Hunter Park neighborhood. Act now, won’t last! Asking only $1795-4515 199a St Langley

April 5th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

Don’t wait to make this 3 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom 1560 sqft rancher yours today! This pet friendly house is located in quiet a cul-de-sac, in an excellent neighborhood near Hunter Park. Enjoy your privacy on this large 10,000 square foot lot.

The private back yard is fully fenced and perfect for pets or kids (or both!), and anyone with a green thumb. Plenty of parking space available in the single car garage or in the large driveway.

Other features of this 1974 house include 2 skylights, soaker tub in the main bathroom, hardwood parquet and tile flooring, and lot’s of storage space in the shed and garage for all of your stuff.

Walk out onto your spacious deck overlooking the backyard for your morning coffee, or use it for barbecuing in the summer.

The location is superb. A short 10 minute walk to shopping (grocery store, drug store, Starbucks, 7-11, restaurants, library and bank), and close to a spray park, and an indoor pool to keep the kids occupied. Only a 5 minute drive to major retail; Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, Save-On Foods, and Willowbrook Mall.

Close to schools; a half block to the nearest elementary and walking distance to 2 immersion schools, a middle school and a highschool.

Tenant pays all utilities, and a half month’s rent required up front as damage deposit. Available April 1st. Pets OK with approval. Please note that this house is a single level rancher.

Call Joel with Fort Park Property Management today at 604-828-1297 for more details or to set up a viewing.

Non-smokers can change strata bylaws

March 30th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

In a recent column I featured Dr. Stuart Kreisman and his wife. They’re a young couple who discovered that it’s impossible to find a smoke-free condo in Vancouver–at any price. There simply aren’t any for sale. Fortunately, there are other options.

Sharon Hammond, Manager of the Smoke-Free Housing Initiative for the Heart and Stroke Foundation, receives “tons of calls from people in condos wanting to know how to adopt non-smoking bylaws.”

“One in three people have experienced second-hand smoke from neighbouring units,” she says.

Any strata council can implement non-smoking bylaws if three-quarters of the voting members of the strata vote in favour of the change at an Annual General Meeting or Special Meeting.

Of the 29,000 strata developments in B.C. (over 900,000 condo units), only a handful have gone down this path. Given that nine out of 10 condo owners are non-smokers, the numbers are surprising.

So why haven’t more stratas voted to make their developments non-smoking?

It could be that condo owners are concerned about the legality of non-smoking bylaws. When the issue is raised at strata meetings, opponents often suggest the owners will be sued if they ban smoking. The Heart and Stroke Foundation has solicited a number of legal opinions and it’s clear that non-smoking bylaws are legal. Others are afraid that their condos will be worth less in the marketplace if they restrict the number of potential buyers. With smokers making up less than 10 per cent of owners that’s an unlikely scenario. This isn’t just a health issue, it’s a lifestyle issue and healthy lifestyle buildings attract buyers, plain and simple.

There’s some groundwork to do if your strata plans to adopt non-smoking bylaws. Be prepared. Smokefreehousingbc.ca has all the information to build support for the change. Begin by doing a survey to determine how many owners and residents are smokers and how many want to live in a smoke-free environment. Address any concerns expressed by residents and have your proposed bylaw vetted by a third-party advocacy group such as the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C.

Put in a grandfather clause for existing owners. The Verdant bylaw had a grandfather clause with a caveat that made exempted owners from the bylaw subject to the common law of nuisance, which simply meant they could smoke but not disturb others with migrating second-hand smoke.

When the grandfathered owners sell their units, the new owners will have to conform the new bylaw. Over time, the development will become smoke-free.

Sharon Hammond has been working with the City Social Planning Department to look for opportunities to pilot smoke-free housing options in Vancouver. “While it won’t apply to condos, it is encouraging for those living in social housing developments in the city.”

This is part of an emerging trend to provide smoke-free rental housing in North America. Property managers of smoke-free buildings are reporting that in addition to less health and safety concerns, management costs are significantly reduced with lower cleaning, painting, damage and insurance costs. And they have waiting lists of people wanting to live in the buildings.

If these properties are any indication, non-smoking regulations will be good for the bottom line. Lower maintenance costs translate into lower monthly fees and everyone loves lower strata fees. That’s good news for the many Vancouver investors who own and rent out their condos. It’s also good news for buyers.

These developments will attract a premium in the market place. And as more strata developments become smoke-free, it will become the standard and more developers will build smoke-free buildings. And so on.

It’s legal, it’s easy, you’ll save money on maintenance and insurance costs and the demand for smoke-free housing will add a premium to the value of your condo. No-brainer. If your strata council is considering non-smoking bylaws, visit smokefreehousingbc.ca If you’ve already passed non-smoking bylaws in your Vancouver condo development, I’d love to hear your story.

 

Notorious Surrey landlord hit with $115,000 penalty for building neglect

March 22nd, 2012 by Chris No comments »

METRO VANCOUVER — The provincial government has slapped notorious landlord Gurdyal Singh Sahota with a $115,000 penalty for failing to maintain a water-damaged Surrey apartment building despite several orders from the Residential Tenancy Branch.

The penalty against Sahota, a wealthy landlord who has long been criticized for allowing his buildings to fall into disrepair, is the first administrative penalty under the Residential Tenancy Act.

The mostly low-income tenants at Sahota’s 31-unit Kwantlen Park Manor have long complained about structural damage and mould in their building at 12975 106 Ave. in Surrey.

Rich Coleman, minister responsible for housing, would not confirm that Sahota was the landlord hit by the unprecedented fine, citing privacy legislation.

But the complainant in the case, as well as court documents related to her petition, confirmed Sahota is the landlord.

Coleman said he had administrative penalties added to the Residential Tenancy Act so the government could penalize landlords for serious, repeated and deliberate cases of non-compliance with orders.

“This penalty should send a message that we are dead serious about this,” said Coleman. “Ninety-nine per cent of the landlords in this province are pretty good, but you do have some repeat offenders and we wanted to be able to go after them.”

The $115,000 fine includes a maximum one-time penalty of $5,000, plus $500 per day for each of the 220 days that Sihota failed to comply with an order from the Residential Tenancy Branch.

Sahota could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The penalty was applauded by tenant Sue Collard, a former building manager at Kwantlen Park Manor, who in 2010 petitioned the Residential Tenancy Branch, alleging that Sahota had failed to deal with substandard repairs and persistent leaks, rot and mould in the ceilings of several units.

Collard said Sahota’s refusal to perform the needed repairs shows “the complete and utter arrogance of some landlords who think they can keep getting away with it year after year without any consequences.”

Collard said she expects the Sahota family will appeal the decision. “I think they will try to drag it out as long as they can.”

Marcie Lisowick, a tenant with a second-floor suite, called news of the penalty “fantastic.”

“I’m hoping it hits [Sahota] in the wallet and it opens his eyes to the fact that this will not be swept under the rug any more,” she said.

A three-year resident of the building, Lisowick said she has “never” seen any repair work being done. Many tenants resort to fixing problems themselves, she said.

“Waiting for the landlord, it’ll never get done.”

Lisowick, who has a 20-month-old son, is also worried about drug use in the building. “You can smell it,” she said. “We come through our hall and I’m like, ‘What is that?’ and people are like, ‘That’s drugs.’ ”

The $115,000 penalty was levelled after the Residential Tenancy Branch determined in a hearing that Sahota deliberately failed to comply with an order to hire a “building envelope professional” to conduct a comprehensive report on Kwantlen Park Manor — and to carry out all repairs recommended in the report.

During the hearing, a dispute resolution officer for the Residential Tenancy Act stated that non-compliance with Residential Tenancy Branch orders is “standard protocol” for the landlord.

In the decision to issue the administrative penalty, the officer concluded Sahota only began to comply with the order after he was notified that he could face stiff penalties.

The Sahota family has owned several other apartment buildings and single-room-occupancy hotels in the Vancouver area. A Sahota-owned SRO hotel at 2131 Pandora in the Downtown Eastside collapsed in 2007 after heavy rainfall, forcing the evictions of 36 tenants. The Residential Tenancy Branch ordered Sahota to pay the tenants $170,000 and their ruling was later upheld by a B.C. Supreme Court judge.

Poverty activists have labelled the Sahotas “the worst slumlords in the city.” In 2005, the Sahota-owned Astoria Hotel was part of a Vancouver police department sting operation that uncovered extensive drug dealing, welfare fraud and the sale of stolen goods.

Surrey-Whalley NDP MLA Bruce Ralston said the handling of Kwantlen Park Manor amounts to “an outrageous litany of neglect and evasion. The condition of the building has continued to deteriorate while the Residential Tenancy Branch has taken two years to enforce orders.”

Source: The Vancouver Sun

Calgary Landlord Charged $5,000 After Reporting Grow Op; 10 Grow Ops Discovered in Manitoba

March 17th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

A landlord in Calgary told the local news that he has been charged a $5,000 “permit fee” from the city in order to clean up the aftermath of a tenant’s grow op.

The landlord himself made the report to the police, after becoming suspicious of his tenant.  He says the damage the tenant caused to the rental property may exceed $40,000.

That’s why he’s objecting to the city’s addition of a fee, which covers an inspection and supervision of the clean up.  The landlord also will have to pay for an $1,800 fence around the house, according to the report.

The landlord told reporters that now he regrets not just booting the tenant out.  He says he opted to go to the police because he did not want to pass the problem tenant on to another landlord.

In a related story, the RCMP announced that they busted ten grow operations in properties in Manitoba.

The operation was part of the Marihuana Grow Initiative, the RCMP’s national strategy to combat what are mostly organized crime groups that have invaded local  communities.  In a previous statement, the RCMP warned landlords that many of these criminals target rental properties to locate grow ops, and that landlords must use vigilance in tenant screening, and perform frequent property inspections.

Some of the operations were taking place in homes where children were living.

Six of the properties have been deemed unfit for human habitation until they have been inspected, remediated where required and deemed safe. Acting Fire Commissioner David Schafer warned that the volatile mix of chemicals, lights, and unsafe electrical, structural and plumbing modifications that are characteristic of grow ops becomes a significant risk to health and safety, and “can destroy a perfectly good home.”

Mould is another common result of a grow operation.  According to Lorne Weiss, Immediate Past President of the Manitoba Real Estate Association, real estate agents are now required to disclose when a property has been a grow op in case mould or other hazards are still present on the property.  “We are very pleased the RCMP has started publishing former grow ops to protect consumers.”

The RCMP made 1,070 drug seizures across the Manitoba last year, in over 200 communities.  Officers participating in the Marihuana Grow Initiative also uncovered 19 grow ops in properties around Calgary during a three-day sweep.

In one of those operations, the landlord reported that a phony tenant brought a child with him when he leased the property.  Shortly afterwards, the tenant disappeared.

Vancouver real estate at risk if Canadian lending not constrained: TD

March 17th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

OTTAWA – Canadian housing is 10 to 15 percent over-valued, Canada’s second largest bank warned on Friday, as it called for more action to constrain lending growth.

Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Craig Alexander said in an analysis that if the overvaluation were unwound rapidly, the market correction would be three times the magnitude of the housing market correction of the early 1990s.

Alexander said it is more likely that there will be a gradual decline in sales and prices over the next several years unless there is a sharp rise in joblessness or interest rates. He warned against complacency, however.

“We need to acknowledge that a significant imbalance has developed and it poses a clear and present danger to Canada’s medium-term economic outlook,” he wrote. “It also suggests that further actions to constrain lending growth may be prudent.”

At greatest risk is Vancouver, a magnet for foreign buyers, along with the Toronto condo market, and the broad housing markets in Quebec City and Montreal, he said.

“Nevertheless, beyond selected cities, it is natural to assume that it will be a shock to all real estate markets when interest rates eventually rise from their prevailing exceedingly low levels,” he said.

Parallel with the real estate valuations is elevated household indebtedness. The ratio of debt to personal disposable income declined in the fourth quarter of 2011 to 150.6 percent from 151.9 percent in the third, but Alexander said this was due to a spike in unincorporated business and farm income that will probably prove to be temporary.

In fact, he forecast that by late 2013 the ratio will reach the 160 percent peak seen in the United States and Britain before their real estate corrections.

Alexander said the Bank of Canada, which has repeatedly voiced concern over housing prices and household debt, is in a bind because if it raises rates while the U.S. Federal Reserve holds rates steady, that would boost the Canadian dollar further and slow growth.

A majority of forecasters polled by Reuters last month predicted that the federal government would tighten mortgage rules this year. Alexander urged authorities to take a gradualist approach in any tightening.

Source: The Vancouver Sun

B.C. housing starts up in February on higher multi-family dwelling projects

March 12th, 2012 by Chris No comments »

Increases to the number of new multi-family dwelling projects across B.C.’s urban centres nudged overall housing starts up in February compared to the same month last year, according to new numbers by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

While more condo and townhouse projects got underway in cities with a population of 10,000 or more across the province, the number of new single-family detached homes decreased, compared to the same period last year.

In Vancouver, 1,675 new multiple-family dwelling units got started last month, up 38 per cent from 1,211 in February 2011.

In the same period, the number of new detached homes decreased from 203 to 195.

Across all of urban B.C., the total number of housing starts climbed by 28 per cent in February, year over year, increasing from 1,805 to 2,302.

The year-to-date numbers showed increases in both housing categories across urban B.C.

Single-detached starts rose from 739 last year to 808 in January and February this year, while the number of new multiples climbed from 2,957 to 3,546.

“Residential construction activity during the first two months of 2012 is ahead of last year’s levels due to strength in a number of housing markets around the province,” said Carol Frketich, CMHC’s BC Regional Economist, in a release.

She said Nanaimo, Victoria, Abbotsford-Mission, Vernon and Chilliwack also recorded an increase in total housing starts so far this year, compared to January and February of 2011.