Condo owners in Vancouver may find themselves in a minority if 80% of co-owners agree to flog their building’s land for development.
Thanks to Glen Korstrom in Business In Vancouver for the story.
Owners of a Vancouver condominium complex have became the first in B.C.’s history to successfully vote to dissolve their strata corporation and sell their building to a developer without obtaining unanimous support.
On December 12, more than 20 owners voted in excess of the necessary 80% threshold to accept an offer to buy their building, according to Condominium Home Owners Association of BC president Tony Gioventu and Clark Wilson partner Darren Donnelly, who were both at the meeting. . .
. . . Bill 40 lowers the required threshold to 80% from 100% for strata corporation members to vote to dissolve their entity and sell their buildings. . .
. . . Donnelly’s law firm represents more than a dozen Metro Vancouver strata corporations that are in various stages of trying to sell their buildings.
“[Clients’ buildings] tend to be underdeveloped relative to the density that would be allowed, and they are near transit so the development value is higher than the current value,” he said.
“At the other end of the spectrum you have stratas that aren’t necessarily in high-value locations or underdeveloped, but they are facing devastating repair bills.”
Anyone know what the court’s rationale was for 80%? Why not 70% or 90%?
It wasn’t the courts, it was changes to the Strata Act:
“On November 16, 2015 proposed changes to the British Columbia Strata Property Act in Bill 40-2015 were approved by the provincial legislature. These changes will come into effect after related regulatory changes are made, which is expected to occur in early 2016. This amendment, among other things, will make it easier for strata corporations to terminate their strata by lowering the voting threshold required to terminate a strata corporation from a unanimous vote of all strata lot owners to an 80% vote of strata lot owners. ”
http://www.canadianrealestatelawblog.com/2016/04/lawson-lundells-strata-windup-group/
Arguably Victoria coming to the help of developers.
Then again arguably strata Law is a minefield in BC, with the only question being “Who does a worse job: our strata council, or our property manager.”
On the plus side, the Civil Resolution Tribunal is now up and running, offering relatively cheap mediation of strata disputes.
https://www.civilresolutionbc.ca/
Thank you for that clarification. I’d heard it was a court decision based on a local case and therefore assumed there was some actual rationale for the 80% threshold. But as it’s a provincial diktat, an arbitrary ‘wet finger in the air’ figure makes sense.
You’re right in part. It’s a legislative response to a court case.
If I recall correctly, the case involved a few holdouts in a strata who refused to sell. The strata was a wooden townhouse complex in North Vancouver or Maple Ridge that had wood rot throughout, I think, and would have been uneconomical to remediate, making selling for redevelopment the “reasonable” choice.
In Strata land “uneconomical to remediate” is often code for “owners voted repeatedly not to do proper maintenance, or to build up sufficient contingency funds.”
Sucks if you’re a senior on a fixed income with ties to the area and unlikely to be able to afford a shiny new building or the city’s escalating rents. But that’s what Vancouver has become, one big real estate ponzi scheme, quaint ideas like neighbourhood no longer matter when there is a buck to be made.
You don’t think a senior who owns a condo is able to capture the same value uplift as everyone else? They’re generally selling for higher than market value unless the building simply needs to be replaced.
They just don’t want to have to move, and would rather see a building have endless short term fixes than be fully replaced. They don’t have skin in the long game after all.
They “don’t have skin in the long game”? More typical ‘senior hate” so often found on urbanism blogs. If they’re not clinging to the houses they’ve raised their families in, they’re standing in the way of shiny condo towers. What do you think the market value of a nearly 40 year old studio is vs. a newbuild equivalent in the same area? That’s if a builder is even interested in building studios. I guess you think the seniors or others who can’t afford the new replacement should just suck it up and move to Newton?
If they didn’t just purchase recently I’m sure they’ll make much more than enough to rent an even better place for the remainder of their lives.
Why would 80% of people in a strata sell if the prices weren’t above the market price/replacement price of their units?
You’re asking a hypothetical question that doesn’t even have any relevancy. 80% of residents don’t generally sign up for something that’s going to bankrupt them.
Gee, maybe because 80% of the owners aren’t seniors? So if only 5% of the owners get tossed out on their ear with a cheque it is OK? I must say I find it fascinating how posters who drone on about sustainability have no qualms about dumpstering entire buildings (and no, it doesn’t all get recycled despite what Gregor would like you to believe).
Who said those concerned about sustainability have no qualms about dumpstering entire buildings? Got some names?
Didn’t think so.
What is truly unfortunate is that we often replace old decrepit, crappy, energy-pig buildings with shiny, new, crappy, energy-pig buildings. If we built excellent buildings the footprint payback would be worth it.
It’s unfortunate that anyone, seniors or otherwise, are sometimes forced to make new living arrangements. That’s life. It would be more unfortunate if a few seniors could veto smart decisions that affect the majority. See Bryn’s comments below.
I’m glad to see this change personally. There are quite a few older stratified buildings around the city that are not particularly nice, not particularly well kept and not particularly efficient in terms of land use. Why should one single unit be able to hold the rest of the building hostage?
It’s no wonder that rental buildings are frequently destroyed to build condos given the relative simplicity of evicting renters versus trying to get a 100% vote on a strata titled property…