| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: Realtors |
 |
|
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
It may be hard to tell from their brochures and condo ads but professional real estate salespeople and licensees do have a number of important legal obligations in real estate transactions. It’s curious to us how mere merchants have managed to acquire such onerous obligations. Nevertheless, it's important for consumers to be aware of them.
By far, the best place to learn about these obligations is the B.C. Superior Courts website at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/. Use the Search RJD tool to locate judgments revealing why and for how much realtors get sued. Start by typing in ‘realtor and real and estate and fiduciary’ and read what the courts have said about fiduciary duty in 42 cases. Substituting 'misrepresentation' in place of 'fiduciary' yielded a further 73 decisions for us Oct. 28/03.
The Real Estate Council of British Columbia's website at www.recbc.ca is similarly illuminating. Click on Complaints and Discipline, which lists recent council decisions on various types of misconduct, including disciplinary action taken. Scroll also to http://www.fic.gov.bc.ca/enforce.htm for a listing of recent real estate licence suspensions by the B.C. Superintendent of Real Estate.
What we like:
The complaints/discipline forum provides an excellent caution to consumers and we applaud the council for making it available online. We also like the fact that the council seems to welcome complaints about its membership. Simply click on the complaint form at [url]http://www.recbc.ca/pdf/complaintform pdf[/url] and enter the relevant information. If you do, please let us know how it goes.
What we don't like:
We’re very uncomfortable with the results of CMHC’s recent report on leaky condo re-sales and its implications regarding the conduct of B.C. real estate professionals. (Please go to our review of CMHC at this forum for a URL to that report by Nancy Bain).
However, we’re equally if not more disturbed by the council's laissez-faire role in permitting condo pricing that either ignores or grossly underplays maintenance and repair, a factor now understood to represent a significant cost even in new buildings with adequate rainscreen technology. Failure to warn potential buyers of the maintenance/repair obligation peculiar to condos creates a seriously misleading impression both of the property’s actual value and of condominium ownership generally, in our view. For more discussion of this issue, search our entire site by typing in 'maintenance' under Search at any forum.
Real estate personnel play a critical role in B.C.’s real estate market, so we’ll continue to monitor this site.
In general:
We haven't always liked the replies but we've been very pleased by the council’s willingness to answer all of our queries. Please go to Watchdog Forum for the full online discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[Watchdog Forum condo pricing and re-sales thread
For the complete dialogue and debate between www.bccondos.ca and realtors, please click on http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14&sid=9627512b6961197c3bfbd0b666c8b3ce and follow the thread. The discussion includes a crisp retort to Realty Times Editor Jim Adair by Nancy Bain, the brave author of Leaky Condo Re-Sales: Did the Buyer Know?, a wonderfully revealing CMHC study that sent shockwaves through the real estate industry this summer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do I know the person showing me various properties for sale is able and authorized to represent me in a real estate transaction?
Good questions, and there are two questions here. Subtle distinctions under the Real Estate Act between categories of real estate personnel operate to prevent certain of these from receiving what's called a reward in a transaction. To find out if the person you're working with is qualified to take you through a deal, go to Licensee Search at http://www.recbc.ca/search/default.shtml. If you're unsure about the category under which the person is listed, contact the council and keep a record of your reply.
If you're confident the licensee is able to assist you, ask him or her which party/parties s/he represents in the deal. Realtors often represent both the seller and the buyer in a transaction despite an obvious conflict of interest. If so, you'll be required to sign a document indicating that you're aware of the duality. Whether you sign it is up to you. Ask your lawyer about any added risk to the buyer in this type of arrangement, but do so before you make an offer. After may be too late. Be especially concerned about protecting your interest if you're negotiating with an onsite salesperson hired by the developer.
In this province where the doctrine of caveat emptor has been so brutally enforced, it's up to consumers to be extremely diligent before signing a property deal into law. Just ask B.C.'s many bands of First Nations still awaiting treaty negotiations more than 100 years behind most of Canada's other provinces.
Ed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Carmen Maretic, President of Consumer Advocacy and Support for Homeowners (CASH)
During a recent trawl of Hansard, we found this presentation before the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services from Oct. 17/03 by Carmen Maretic, president of the Consumer Advocacy and Support for Homeowners (Society CASH). Do a Find Carmen Maretic search here to find the particulars. Although her presentation apparently had the support of two advocacy groups, we disagree with a lot of it. However, we found the material at para. 1205 revealing:
| Quote: | | To resolve past construction problems and pending actions, which I think is the greatest concern currently, we recommend that legislative changes to the conditions of licensing under the Homeowner Protection Act be implemented to require actions that have been filed against the applicants under any company name be reported and a conditional licence be provided for six months — rather than one year — while the company rectifies past problems under the review of a qualified HPO inspector or claims adjuster, or reaches a financial settlement with the victims equal to the cost of their responsibility for repairs that have already been completed. If the applicant has not reported an action and the HPO discovers one, their licence should be automatically suspended until the situation has resolved as indicated above. |
Although Ms. Maretic is no longer listed as a licensee with the B.C. Real Estate Council, we found that she was at one time a realtor. Go to Home Wrecked by Jennifer Williams in Vancouver magazine online, November, 2000. Get this:
Not all lobby groups are driven by disgruntled condo owners. Realtor Carmen Maretic, a force behind Compensation and Accountability to Soaked Homeowners (CASH), was spurred to action after hearing from many former clients whose condos had begun to leak at great personal expense. Following her conscience, she decided not to sell units in buildings less than 25 years old. Maretic and other CASH members hope to catch politicians’ attention during upcoming elections, and they plan to push for full compensation for all owners of leaky homes.
We were so moved by her efforts, that we decided to ask her about holdbacks. (See our materials on winding up the strata corporation also at this forum). Here's the e-mail we sent:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: cmaretic@realtorlink.org
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Leaky condo sales and holdbacks
Hello CASH,
We're www.bccondos.ca, just up this summer, and we've been amassing a considerable database of leaky condo information ourselves. Of greatest fascination to us at the moment is the fluidity of the condo market despite a second wave of wet, substandard product. For those of us with no faith in the repair or even the repair tracking process, we're wondering how to calculate a sale price for a leaky condo at various stages of a repair - assuming full disclosure on the part of the seller. The B.C. Real Estate Institute has suggested holdbacks, but we're not sure how to calculate a holdback or why this pricing strategy might be attractive. Could you take us through it?
We were very interested in Carmen Maretic's presentation to the house committee on Oct. 17, though we're under the impression that the civil liability review is a done deal. We're directing our own legislative reform efforts at this point more toward the development of self-policing professional organizations like the law societies. There seems to be no penalty for architects/engineers whose designs are negligent. They are free to remove and begin again under a new name. Nor is there any law to prevent an unlicensed home renovator from contracting with a strata council that may have voted against retaining a lawyer in an effort to conserve the repair fund. We also heard from Finance Minister Gary Collins this summer in response to our jabs regarding technical building audits and professional reserve fund studies, which should be registered on title as a matter of course, in our view. Please visit us for more information. We also run a Worldwide Condos forum, where we discovered that Australia, New Zealand, all over the US and now Southeast Asia, we suspect, are similarly covered in tarps. Affordable housing and communistic ownership are beyond the ken of jurisdictions other than ours, it seems.
Thanks. We look forward to hearing from you.
Editor@bccondos.ca |
Note: Very interesting to us that the two most instructive sources of leaky condo advocacy we've found so far have been women realtors. We're thinking, of course, of Nancy Bain and her report this summer on leaky re-sales that brought the leaky condo issue back to the table. (See links at Condo Link Reviews under CMHC).
...Still no reply Feb. 4/04. We'll keep trying.
By Nov. 15/05 we still hadn't received a reply but CASH, sadly, was still going strong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Appeal by top gun litigators denied:
Realtor's duty to disclose leaky condo reviewed by the Court of Appeal
We note with interest a 2004 decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal, Wong v. Real Estate Council of British Columbia, 2004 BCCA 120 in which the court considered the realtor's duty in a leaky condo transaction. Here are a few key paragraphs from that judgment by Madam Justice Huddart:
| Quote: | [6] The original decision of the Real Estate Council has now been reviewed twice by the (Commercial Appeals) Commission. It correctly considered protection of the public needed emphasis in this case. It explained the seriousness of Mr. Wong’s actions at p. 8-9 of reasons:
There is no dispute that the water ingress problems at the building containing the suites purchased by [the purchasers] constituted a “latent defect”. It is similarly beyond contention that Mr. Wong had a professional obligation to disclose this situation fully to potential purchasers. He knew about the problems both as an owner and as the listing agent. The fact that Mr. Wong fulfilled his legal duty to the purchasers is not a satisfactory answer. We are dealing with a matter of professional discipline and not a civil claim: In the Matter of Blaschuk and the Real Estate Act, August 20, 1986 (C.A.C.). Moreover, we agree with the determination by the first panel that “full disclosure is required up-front so that potential buyers can make an informed choice as to whether they wish to purchase a property and for what price.” (p.8).
To the extent there was disclosure in this case, it occurred only after the [purchasers] had made an offer to purchase the units. Further, it took place via provision of the strata minutes which the first panel aptly described as offering simply “clues or a trail” (p.7). Mr. Wong did not refer to or provide the Engineer’s Report at any point; nor did he voluntarily mention the water ingress problems to the [purchasers] or Ms. Lam despite the several opportunities he had to do so. In fact, when Ms. Lam raised the subject in May 1999, Mr. Wong suggested that warranty assistance would be forthcoming (first Commission decision, at p.8).
[7] After comparing his misconduct with the “classic case” of Ms. Lam’s negligence, the Commission found Mr. Wong had deliberately withheld information he knew, or should have known, he had a professional obligation to disclose and that the he recognized disclosure of the information could adversely affect the purchase price. As well, the fact he owned one of the units raised a concern in the Commission that Mr. Wong was prepared to place his own financial interests ahead of his professional obligations. Finally, when confronted with the defect by Ms. Lam, he “essentially attempted to mislead her by suggesting there would be warranty assistance.” (emphasis added)
[8] At p. 9 of its reasons for judgment, the Commission summarized:
In short, we have no hesitation concluding that Mr. Wong’s deliberate actions were far more serious than Ms. Lam’s omissions. The gravity of the situation was only accentuated by the “leaky condo crisis” which continues to prevail in the Lower Mainland. This context underscores the usual importance of ensuring the public interest is protected. All agents should be vigilant in ensuring that water ingress problems are fully disclosed in a timely manner.
[9] The Commission then went on to consider potential mitigating factors. It was not persuaded Mr. Wong had accepted any responsibility for his actions, because he did not testify. They were left (at p.10) with “the observations of the first panel that he was ‘visibly frustrated and impatient with the process’ and accepted ‘little responsibility’ for the purchasers’ situation.” It went on to look at his record, the evidence of his good character, and the civil proceeding, before concluding a lesser sanction was required than the penalties imposed by the first panel. The Commission had earlier noted that Mr. Wong was not disputing the finding of misconduct.
[10] From its earlier decisions the Commission discerned the appropriate range of penalty for failing to disclose material information to potential purchasers was from 30 days to four months. Ultimately, it concluded a penalty at the lower end of the range was appropriate and imposed a 45 day suspension. |
We especially take note, as the court did, of the leading attorneys who represented the appellant, N. Trevethan and C.E. Hinkson, Q.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See also the CBC.ca story of May 25/06, Vancouver realtor fined, loses licence:
| Quote: | The Real Estate Council of B.C. has fined a Vancouver realtor $10,000 and cancelled his licence — its stiffest penalty ever — for misappropriating client funds. Council spokesman Anthony Cavanaugh said the disciplinary action followed an investigation into allegations made against Smrat (Sam) Sharma.
The most serious accusation came from one Sharma's clients, who had made a successful offer on a home on Vancouver's West Side (Kitsilano, Point Grey). Cavanaugh said Sharma had the buyer make out a $45,000 deposit cheque to his own numbered company, instead of putting it in trust with his brokerage.
...Cavanaugh said Sharma is the first realtor suspended under new powers given to the real estate council last year. Sharma will have to wait at least five years before being able to apply to work as a real estate agent again.
Cavanaugh said police are also investigating. (emphasis added) |
The council imposed the penalty as follows:
| Quote: | Penalty:
Smrat (Sam) Sharma’s licence was cancelled and the Council will not consider any application for licensing for a period of five years commencing April 15, 2005, to and including April 14, 2010 for misconduct and professional misconduct as described above after an Agreed Statement of Facts, Proposed Acceptance of Findings and Waiver was entered into between the Real Estate Council and Smrat (Sam) Sharma, and a Consent Order was issued. In addition, as a condition of continued licensing, he is required to pay enforcement expenses to the Council in the amount of $5,000.00 and to pay a discipline penalty to the Council in the amount of $10,000.00 as a condition of future licensing under the Real Estate Services Act. |
Look up your realtor under disciplinary decisions or find out how to make a complaint. There were 26 displinary decisions online when we visited the link May 29/06. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A B.C. condo that won't leak?
Local realtor ordered to pay $20k for promising not to sell former MP a leaker:
See the story, B.C. realtor who sold leaky condo to ex-MP loses lawsuit, posted at cbc.ca/bc July 11/06:
| Quote: | A realtor who assured former Vancouver Liberal MP Simma Holt that she wouldn't sell her a leaky condo but then went ahead and did so has been ordered to pay Holt nearly $20,000. Lower Mainland realtor Ada Van Leeuwen did not adequately discuss concerns about leaks that were raised in the strata council's minutes with Holt, a B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled. The judge said Van Leeuwen "either knew or ought to have known the condominium in Port Moody had significant water ingress problems." The judge found Van Leeuwen negligent and ordered her to pay Holt's repair assessment of $14,527 plus another $5,000 in damages.
...The president of the B.C. Real Estate Association calls it a "hard promise to make" as condos that aren't leaky at the time of sale can develop problems later. Kelly Lerigny also notes that since Holt bought her condo in 1999, more training has been put in place for realtors to identify problem properties. Lerigny also says consumers should check at least two years of strata minutes before buying any property. |
View the full reasons for judgment of Curtis, J. in Holt v. Thomson et al 2006 BCSC 1059.
But wait - isn't it always the buyer's responsibility to read the strata corporation's minutes?
Apparently not. See paras. 13-15 of the reasons:
| Quote: | [13] Several days later, Ada Van Leeuwen received a large binder of the minutes of the Strata Corporation. She testified she telephoned Simma Holt who told her she was very busy. Ms. Van Leeuwen testified it was not her usual practice to read the strata minutes, but to leave that to the purchaser. In this case, she told Simma Holt she would read the minutes and put yellow stickies on the important parts. Ada Van Leeuwen said she read the whole of the minutes which took her four or five hours.
[14] When she took the minutes to Simma Holt marked with yellow stickies and urged her to read them, Simma said, “I am very busy” and she told her there were important things she had to read. Ms. Van Leeuwen agreed Simma Holt told her, “I rely on you” to which she replied, “Yes you can do that but you have to read, you are the one making the decision.”
[15] Ms. Van Leeuwen testified, “When I brought over the minutes I told Simma buildings 1, 2 and 3 were under investigation but the property manager told me if a problem was found as in 4 and 5, water ingress or structural damage, both would be taken care of by Home Warranty and Richardsons (the builder). |
A promise is still a promise no matter how outrageous:
A B.C. condo that won't leak? See the conclusion at para. 29:
| Quote: | | [29] I find Ada Van Leeuwen failed in her duty to her client Simma Holt. She told her she would not sell her a leaky condo and that is exactly what happened in circumstances in which Ada Van Leeuwen either knew or ought to have known the condominium had significant water ingress problems. (emphasis added) Ada Van Leeuwen was well aware of Simma Holt’s desire to rely on her judgement in the matter. I find it unlikely that Ada Van Leeuwen fully discussed the specific concerns raised in the minutes with Simma Holt. I am satisfied that if Simma Holt had properly appreciated those issues, she would not have proceeded with the purchase. Having told Simma Holt she would not sell her a leaky condo and would protect her interest, Ada Van Leeuwen had a duty to make the specifics of the risk Simma Holt was undertaking very clear to her, not just to urge her to read the minutes when she knew Simma was very busy and not inclined to. (emphasis added) |
What about the New Home Warranty program? How reliable is it?
Not very, apparently. Again, see para. 29 of the reasons:
| Quote: | | Furthermore, Ada Van Leeuwen had decided that it was safe to rely on the New Home Warranty program, yet she was unfamiliar with its terms and did not fully explain the nature of this reliance or its risks to Simma Holt. Ada Van Leeuwen told her the property manager had said that if the problems were water ingress or structural damages, they would be taken care of by the builder and New Home Warranty without discussing how reliable such representations might be. I find Ada Van Leeuwen negligently misrepresented to Simma Holt the state of the condominium being purchased, and that her interests were properly protected when they were not. (emphasis added) I also find that Simma Holt was reasonably relying on the advice of Ada Van Leeuwen who had encouraged her to do so. I find Ada Van Leeuwen liable for the damages caused to Simma Holt by her negligent misrepresentation. |
We'll keep an eye out for the appeal. Please check back soon for updates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What can you tell me about the involvement of much-hyped realtor Bob Rennie in the Chandler Tribeca Lofts et al dispute?
Many, many thanks to the wandering watchdog who reported the Chandler condos scandal that emerged this summer, including a link to the 15-page order by B.C.'s Acting Real Estate Superintendent and the story, Partnership ordered to cease selling condos, by David Baines of the Vancouver Sun, posted at Discover Vancouver Bulletin Board as part of a series beginning July 12/06. Here's an excerpt from the Baines story dated July 4/06:
| Quote: | The B.C. Financial Service Commission has ordered a partnership to cease marketing units of four real estate projects after one of the two partners sued the other. FICOM executive director Alan Clark, acting as B.C.'s superintendent of real estate, issued the order Friday after George Dengin alleged that his business partner, Mark Chandler, misrepresented the status of the projects and failed to account for the sale of dozens of units.
The projects are Garden City Residences, which consists of two mixed-use towers in Richmond; Hamlin Mews, a 21-townhouse development at 37th & Oak; Tribeca Lofts, a 52-unit condo project at Richards and Nelson; and H+H, a 22-story condo tower at Homer and Helmcken. The projects are being marketed by Rennie Marketing Systems Ltd., which is owned by Bob Rennie. (Note: Most links to the developments listed above were "temporarily unavailable" when we checked Aug. 9/06. Please check back soon for photos and other updates).
Clark said disclosure statements previously filed in connection with the sale of these projects fail to reflect the fact that one partner has sued the other, that the properties have become encumbered by various mortgages and liens, that Chandler may not have placed deposits from purchasers in trust, and that Chandler may have sold one or more units to more than one purchaser.
The partnership was formed in 2003 after Rennie introduced Dengin, who was his stockbroker, to Chandler. Unknown to Rennie, Chandler had been charged with 13 charges of fraud, theft and forgery in Arizona. In May 2003, he entered into a plea agreement and was ordered to pay $189,500 in restitution, placed on three years' probation and deported to Canada. Chandler's lawyer, Don Haslam, has dismissed Dengin's allegations as "misguided and misdirected."
Chandler and Chandler Katsura Developments, Inc., are both Home Warranty insured licensees, according to HPO's 1999 list. When we searched the term, Chandler, on Aug. 9/06, we got four hits. Wonder if the insurance will be enough to cover buyers' losses? |
For more background, see Partnership dissolved into acrimony, litigation also by David Baines in the Sun June 27/06, which states in part:
| Quote: | Not mentioned is the fact that Dengin is a former Vancouver stockbroker who had his licence permanently revoked in 1987 for serious trading infractions. In 1990, he appealed that suspension and it was reduced to five years.
...In his affidavit, Rennie alleges that Chandler has failed to account for five units in Hamlin Mews, 17 in Garden City, nine in Tribeca, and at least 36 at the project at Homer and Helmcken. He also cites several other instances of "unusual or apparently dishonest conduct," including the sale of each of two units in the Tribeca project to two different purchasers. And what seems impossible in today's superheated real estate market, he says Chandler has advised him that instead of making millions of dollars, the partnership will actually lose money on the Tribeca and Hamlin Mews projects.
"In my view, it is unlikely that [the partnership] ought to be losing money on these projects," Rennie says in his affidavit. "They are being sold at between $450 and $500 per square foot. There is no way that the combination of land cost -- reported to be approximately $100 per square foot -- and construction cost -- even at today's extremely high costs at approximately $250 per square foot for a low-rise development -- ought to consume that entire sales price, even accounting for contingencies and overhead." |
We'll continue to follow this story. Please check back for updates.
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1121#1121
Last edited by editor on Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:30 am; edited 20 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Local 'hero', condo realtor Bob Rennie - Update:
BC Business
Magazine Subscription
Long walk home
Bob Rennie's knack for real estate has taken from lower-income East Van kid to millionaire condo king. But, as he tells Monte Paulsen during a stroll around his hunting grounds, he's heading back to where he came from.
March, 2008
| Quote: | The shadow now looming over Yaletown is cast by the simple fact that many of the working couples who might have been able to buy a home there in the spring of 2004 can no longer afford to do so. Real estate prices have roughly doubled in those four years; wages have not. As a result, one of Rennie's best-known marketing slogans - Live where you work, Work where you live - have become a mirage for many downtown workers. ...
Part of what makes Woodward's so striking is the ghost town from which it rises. In the spring of 2008, nearly every building that faces north across the 100 block of West Hastings Street remains shuttered.
"They've all been bought up," Rennie says as we stroll past the row of vacant storefronts. "A lot of the Downtown Eastside - and all of these properties - they've all changed hands."
This, too, is a consequence of the Woodward's sale, albeit an unintended one. ...
... City records show that among the buildings sold in 2006 were 22 residential hotels with a combined total of 1,178 rooms. Hundreds of low-income tenants have since been evicted. Housing advocates warn that if such evictions continue, Vancouver will host more homeless people than athletes by the start of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. (emphasis added)
"I think the Downtown Eastside has a love-hate relationship with me," Rennie says with a sigh. (-- pgs. 44-45) |
More on that 'Yaletown shadow':
| Quote: | | Note in our photos of March 29/06 at various reconstruction rehabilitation renovation projects along W. 7th Avenue at Oak the familiar green tarps complete with white capping over several highrises - 431 Pacific and Parkview Towers - 289 Drake St. - across the sparkling blue Burrard Inlet. |
So what's the secret of Rennie's 'success'?
| Quote: | "If you look at *Concord Pacific (see below), they bought that, and they started by selling condos to offshore buyers who bought Vancouver for investment. ... (emphasis added)
Rennie helped (his pal, magnate Peter) Wall plan what is now Yaletown Park: three condo towers standing over a cobblestone plaza. ...
"Everybody said, 'The market is over! Bob's crazy! He's got people lining up to buy condos. ... The Vancouver Sun declared that the city's "condo-buying frenzy" had "hit an unprecedented fever pitch." (-- p. 44) |
So how come an estimated 18,000 units in all those 'red-hot' condo towers are EMPTY?
cbc.ca
Robertson picked as Vision Vancouver mayoral candidate
Higher taxes for owners of vacant condos, NDP MLA proposes
June 18/08
| Quote: | During his acceptance speech Robertson said he will focus his campaign on the issues of affordable housing and making Vancouver a more environmentally friendly city.
On Monday morning, Robertson said in an interview on CBC Radio that one way of tackling the housing problem might be to make the owners of Vancouver's 18,000 vacant condo units pay business property taxes, rather than residential property taxes. That would encourage them to rent the units, thereby increasing the number of rental units available in the city, he said.
Robertson was also critical of the increasing level of homelessness in Vancouver and said the city should set a goal of ending homelessness in the next decade. |
Say, wasn't there a condo sales scandal involving Concord Pacific not long ago?
| Quote: | Vancouver Sun
Local Real Estate Industry's Friend with Occasional, Well-earned Pangs of Guilt and Shame
Sun alleges reporter's condo deal damaged his and newspaper's integrity
Jeff Lee
Jan. 22/05
| Quote: | Vancouver Sun reporter Wyng Chow destroyed his own integrity and put the newspaper's credibility in jeopardy by accepting a benefit from a developer he was covering as a real estate reporter, the Sun's lawyer said Friday.
In a final argument before arbitrator Rory McDonald, Donald Jordan said Chow, 56, crossed the line when he mixed a personal dispute with Concord Pacific Ltd. with his job as a business reporter. And he said Chow's acceptance of a "deep discount" on a condominium he bought from the company in 2001 showed a "lack of a moral compass" that justified the newspaper firing him last month...
...(Chow's counsel Carolyn Askew) accused the newspaper of engaging in a selective attack on Chow, a 32-year employee, instead of addressing the basis of a telephone tip to editor-in-chief Patricia Graham that included an allegation that Chow had received a "sweetheart deal."
The anonymous tipster complained the newspaper was overly positive in reporting on real estate matters, and accused it of tailoring coverage to drive advertisers to its Homes section. The tipster named Chow as an example of what was wrong with the newspaper's business coverage (emphasis added) (-- p. H2) |
|
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1122#1122
Last edited by editor on Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:54 pm; edited 11 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ReMax West Van licensee suspended from practice for 70 days, fined $15k and sent for tough re-training sessions:
Here's the summary of issues posted at the open, informative, pro-consumer B.C. Real Estate Council's website Dec. 29/06:
| Quote: | | Bella Daniels, representative, while licensed with Masters Realty (2000) Inc. dba Re/Max Masters Realty, West Vancouver, (a) misconducted herself within the meaning of section 31(1)(c) of the Real Estate Act in that she (i) misrepresented to another licensee that there was an accepted offer on a unit to be sold which she knew was untrue, (ii) permitted an unlicensed assistant to perform activities on her behalf for which a licence was required; (b) was negligent within the meaning of section 9.12 of Regulation 75/61 under the Real Estate Act in that she: (i) failed to identify an unlicensed assistant in her advertisements contrary to the Council guidelines; (ii) failed to deliver a Contract of Purchase and Sale and Notice and Disclosure to her agent in a timely manner; (c) was incompetent within the meaning of section 9.12 of Regulation 75/61 under the Real Estate Act in that she (i) distributed advertising to the public in which she published the name of the owner of the units to be sold without the consent of the owner; (ii) acted as a limited dual agent in two transactions in which she was the buyer without withdrawing as the agent for the sellers and without ensuring that the sellers were afforded an opportunity to seek independent legal advice or advice from another agent. |
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1345#1345 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
