Vancouver Continues To Frighten Vampires and Downtown Condo Residents

First it’s the Pender Place Condominium with its multi-story LED light display, now it’s the BC Place giant TV screen. In both cases, downtown condo residents are huddling in their units and crying uncle against the all invasive vampire slaying light.

OK – maybe it’s not vampire slaying as I don’t think either light installation lets out a noticeable amount of UV light, and we all know it’s the UV that burns away our untanned brethren of the dark.

Anyways, downtown Vancouver is once again screaming out about light pollution. Again. In Downtown. Where we know there’s just forest and nature sounds.

Does Vancouver Hate Art

It seems that Vancouver has a hate on for public art installations.  In 2008 they booted the “upside down church” (actually named Device to Root Out Evil) from their waterfront. A 6 meter (compared to the 200m condominiums) upside down house with a spire was considered too obstructive to their scenic view. Forbid that there might be trees on the waterfront, a small hill, or another condo. Eghads! I’ve personally seen the sculpture – it was moved here to Calgary. It’s very nice.

Now, West Pender Place Condominium in Vancouver has recently completed and the light wall is receiving complaints. See this link for a video. Now, I may be wrong, but the amount of light being created from the installation seems significantly lower than the surrounding street lights and normal business lighting. Already the condo corporation has changed the running from 24 hours to “dusk to 10 pm.”

It’s a positive step that a condominium can be built attempting to better the cultural landmark, and not just exist as a towering concrete and glass monolith. Adding character to each condominium high-rise creates a distinct, unique, and positive benefit to the community. More attempts to add culture to developments should be encouraged.

So I wonder if Vancouver simply hates installation art. Maybe they need the crawling babies of the Zhizhkov TV Tower to metaphorically represent their mood.

When Developers Face Resistance

While I can sometimes fail to be the biggest fan of developers – based on experience; and there are a few that I love and champion with proven track records, a commitment to quality, a stand behind fixing deficiencies quickly and without balking – I admit fully that they can often face significant barriers in getting proposals accepted by the municipality and local residents.

Such has been the case for the Ilkay Development Corporation attempt to build out a 236 hectare parcel skirting beside the Juan de Fuca Provincial Park and sitting on the ocean edge.

It’s a sordid history – the land was bought in a bankruptcy and for a while appeared to be illegal bought (second link) by the developer.

The plan to put in 257 summer cabins (they are not being marketed for year round inhabitation), rec centers, parks, maintenance buildings and helicopter pad is being heavily resisted locally.

Local residence, activist groups, and now a movement from within a local native band – where the band council supports the development – all oppose the development.

Even if the local residents and interests prove strong enough to stop the current development plans (likely and second link) the land still has mineral extraction rights, so if it isn’t developed it could be massively deforested. The land can also be legally subdivided for massive mansions on huge lots. Even if they win against the condominium summer cabin development, they’ll need to fight again to stop other development. Of course, if they can stop one development they may be more likely to continue their fight to stop development successfully.

Where is comes to forested land, lake front land, land abutting a provincial park (and this development has all three) – the development process is always complicated. It’s should be a risk that the developer took into account buying the property.

I’m not in a position to determine if it’s a good development. In south Florida – similar development has been terrible, with beach front upon beach front being privatized. In Alberta, there has been a very good approach to development near and in Provincial parks that had been good to the developer and the community.

In any case, it is likely that this is far from finished, and it is unclear what options the developer will choose to take in attempting to recoup their time and investment if the plan isn’t approved.

Link: Times Colonist Special Report on this story

Strata Fines Resident $25 for Smoking Creating “activities causing nuisance or hazard to others”

The only organization that should be fined for “causing nuisance … to others” should be the board of the Chelsea Gardens Strata Corporation for such a cowardly use of the by-laws.

The Chelsea Gardens Strata Corporation has been dealing with a series of complaints from a unit owner against their neighbour for smoking. It’s implied that the complaints arise mostly when the smoker is on their own patio, and the second-hand smoke drifts into the complainant’s unit. The complaints have been expressed to the corporation in 2009 and 2010, and recently they have been filed with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. It is scheduled for mediation in November 2011.

What I find interesting is the board’s response, at one point, to attempt to address the situation by fining the smoker $25 for breaking the by-laws though “activities causing nuisance or hazard to others.” The role of the board is in part to help the community live together in harmony and mediate the interaction of residents.

I can see how the board may have felt constrained – smoking is not an illegal activity, but they have a serious of complaints from an owner indicating that their health is being impaired by another resident. A $25 fine though seems ineffectual, token, and something that would cause more harm. It’s an action that seems to say to the complainant that the board is sympathetic to the complaint, but the amount of the fine indicates the response is toothless and meaningless. $25 will not pose a fiscal threat that encourages change in behaviour.

I would think that the board actually puts themselves in a more vulnerable role, especially given that smoking isn’t illegal, and they are regulating that activity. It’s a similar situation to those fatty carcinogenic plumes of bbq beef carcass smoke that fill my unit, issuing from several neighbours balconies and patios this summer.

When I buy into a condominium that allows pets, I assume that at least some of my neighbours will have pets and I will bump into them, sometimes on a daily basis. If I buy into a condominium that doesn’t outline in the by-laws a non-smoking policy on exclusive use common property (including balconies and patios), then I assume that some of my neighbours have the right to smoke there – and will take that right up.

For those that think that this comes from a smoker, I am a dedicated non-smoker. Euuugh – smoker breath.

Well Below Assessment BS

I was reading an article about a class action suit (still pending resolution, no allegations proven) against the developer and owners of a condominium project. From the article:

The lawsuit alleges that Jurock and his associates provided purchasers with marketing materials stating the purchase price of each unit was about $10,000 below the appraised value. However, the lawsuit claims, they did not have appraisals to support that claim.

On an unrelated property on Mr. Jurock’s website (on the site as of 17 July 2011) is a Hot Property that is “Listed at only $599,000 (well below assessment)”.

So I asked myself, what does “below appraised value mean” – and came to the conclusion it means “the purchaser is being misled”.

It feels that the use of Below Market Value (BMV) is an attempt by the seller to install a belief that the purchase will generate an instant increase in equity when purchased. It’s the mythical money for nothing argument. Purchase this property, and you will instantly have an asset worth more than you purchased it for.

When in reality, the property is worth exactly what you purchased it for (actually, it worth what you purchased it for minus about 5% for the cost of reselling the property and changing a fixed asset into something liquid again).

And there are questions that the class action suit referenced above raises about appraisals – who has performed them (do they work for the developer), is the appraisal reflective of what is actually inside the unit (which could reduce the value), is there actually an appraisal, how long ago was the appraisal performed, and what is causing the property being sold below appraisal value?

As its own, I find an appraisal should be generally ignored or used as a very small part of your decision to purchase a property or home – and always raises more red flags then it answers questions.

Always purchase only if this is a place you want to live, and if you negotiated a price that you feel is appropriate for the market, location, building reliability, and your love of wanting to live in that home (even if you are buying as an investment property – if you wouldn’t love to live in your investment, then it’s likely hard for someone else to emotionally commit to rent the residence as well).

It is almost impossible (I verge on saying totally impossible) to buy a property that on completion of the transaction magically becomes more valuable than it was sold for.

I guess when I see the term BMV, I think (and sorry to car salesmen, I’m running off of a stereotype here) that the realtor is scuzzier than a used car salesman.