Greetings All!
Now this one requires some background.
Bill 8 is the Strata Property Amendment Act 2009 and seeks to replace the current regulation and laws around operating a strata.
With respect to Northumberland, a lot of the difficulties there have to do with the regulations around stratas.
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
HOUSE BLUES
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to rise and respond to Bill 8, the Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009, at second reading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Unfortunately, I had a meeting a while ago, so I missed all of the minister’s opening remarks. But I think he said something about this being a scintillating subject and that we could all look forward to being kept awake this Thursday afternoon. Well…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
An Hon. Member: Not anymore. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Not anymore. Snooze time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But when I was constituency assistant in the ’90s in Maple Ridge — and I’ve said this many times — of all the issues I dealt with, some of the worst, the very worst, the most difficult to deal with, had to do with stratas. It’s unbelievable in some respects, I guess, the amount of angst, the contentiousness, the absolute rancour that occurs over some of these kinds of disputes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess it speaks somewhat to our capacity, or lack thereof, as members of our society to get along with one another. But whether you’re in a strata, in a condominium or in detached housing, if you live in a subdivision or you live in Vancouver, there are often contentious issues between neighbours, whether it’s the trees on either side or barking dogs or whatever it is. I certainly wouldn’t want to suggest that it’s only strata property owners that have considerable problems. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Nonetheless, they are considerable. Because of that, there has been a lot of effort on the part of those involved to come up with some better solutions than what we have so far. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A review of the act was promised back in 2003. It didn’t happen. I don’t know whether that’s because the government didn’t want to mess with people that are that upset or whether it’s just that difficult to come up with legislation that is workable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government did come forward in the spring after last year, about a year ago, engaging in private and confidential communications with selected developers, property managers, lawyers and others. They came up with the bill, the Strata Property Amendment Act, Bill 12, in the spring of this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But that one died on the order paper, and we proceeded forth with the election. The government said at that time — I think it was the 31st of March, so only days before the House rose — that the government was committed, if re-elected, to bringing it back. And wow, they followed through on that commitment and are bringing it back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just wanted to read, if I can find it, what the Minister of Finance at the time said. He said: “We should go out and invite feedback from organizations rather than pushing this bill through to a conclusion in a rushed manner. I certainly invite that feedback in the weeks and months to come.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, I guess that a lot of folks are saying at strata property associations that that didn’t happen or that they did get constructive feedback, perhaps, but it didn’t have any effect, as such. So we are presented with what we have, and other members have spoken to the lack of consultation or the selective consultation that apparently took place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
You know, I do look at developers and property managers, and the cynical side of me would say: “Well, those perhaps tend to be supporters of this government more than your average regular folk that are living in a strata.” So maybe that’s why they went to them and left out the million or so people that live in a strata. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But that may be just my natural tendency to be a little bit negative about the government. In fact, that’s perhaps not the reason at all. When we get into further discussion, the minister can perhaps enlighten us on the process that took place or didn’t take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the things that this act provides for is broader access to provincial court. I think, by and large, that’s seen as a good thing. I think it’s probably a good thing. Going to Supreme Court is expensive and difficult. Small claims court is going to be more affordable and accessible. That should be an improvement, and I expect it will be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, I heard a comment earlier today from the member for Nanaimo. I don’t know. I don’t want to usurp his great ideas or anything, or his wonderful thoughts, as he does tend to have a lot of those. Maybe he’s going to speak to this later on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’ll just say briefly that he mentioned that perhaps the downside, though, of greater access to the courts — knowing the contentious nature of the kinds of disputes that happen — is that that process could be used to bog down resolution. Hopefully, that won’t happen. Hopefully, it’s going to be a very positive development. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There’s a requirement under this bill for a depreciation report, and that’s a good thing. That gives repair and replacement costs for major items. That kind of openness and transparency will be helpful, I think, particularly to folks wanting to acquire a strata property. On the other hand, some have expressed concern that a three-quarters vote of owners can waive the requirement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’ve looked at the various bars that have to be achieved throughout this bill. Sometimes it’s a 20 percent here, three-quarters there. Like I say, having dealt with these kinds of issues a fair bit, I’m loath to say whether the levels are appropriate or not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Be that as it may, that is one of the concerns that has been expressed — another being that the regulations, which have yet to be disclosed, could allow exemptions from that very requirement. We’ll have to wait and see what the regulations do hold so that we know what will be the case in fact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Other criticism has been that this bill doesn’t address the weak licensing standards for strata managers. If you’re on the individual owners side, I guess sometimes you feel, and experience in actuality, that management has been perhaps less well informed than they need to be or sometimes perhaps don’t have the communication skills that are required to deal with the kind of issues that result. I don’t think it’s debatable that it’s not uncommon for the manager to become the subject of the debate of the dispute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Real Estate Council of B.C. — they’re the ones that license the strata managers — has not responded to the concerns that property owners have expressed with that regard. The owners’ associations, as I alluded to, feel that managers oftentimes wield a lot of power, and they’re concerned about the licensing standards. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
Another objection that’s been raised is that there are no offence and penalty provisions in this bill, unlike Alberta and Ontario have with similar-type legislation. But I guess that, in some respects, is in keeping with the general tone of self-regulation that our government and our provinces want to pursue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is some clarity that’s provided in the bill re conflict of interest, and that’s a good thing. But it doesn’t address the situation where a developer of a strata property is also an owner and, therefore, a member of the strata council. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’m going to talk more as we go on about the problems, the difficulties, with developer-owners. We’ve got a horrendous situation in Maple Ridge that I will make some reference to later. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you think about it, if there’s a discussion of a contract, for example, that the strata corporation is involved in, where the owner-developer is a party to the said contract, I think there’s a strong case to be made that the owner-developers should be required to recuse themselves from the discussion, such as one would see in local government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That’s something that could have perhaps been resolved in a number of these objections, be they relatively minor or not so minor. I guess that’s one of the overriding — well, it is one of the overriding — concerns that we have: that the government didn’t get the kind of feedback, broadly based, that we had hoped that they would after they brought the bill in last spring. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 6 of the bill embeds in the act the right of an owner to request and receive a hearing within four weeks. It says under subsection (2): “If a hearing is requested…the council must hold a council meeting to hear the applicant within 4 weeks after the request.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That adds some certainty, I think, for members. They know that if they make a request, it can’t be delayed through various means. Inevitably, the act says that they must hold a council meeting within four weeks after the request is made. I think that’s a good thing because as it stands now, some of the standard bylaws that strata councils had developed — some of them — had amended that to remove that surety that the complainant can proceed to be heard in due course. So I think that’s a positive move. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 11 “gives the council president or, in certain circumstances, the vice president, a casting vote in the case of a tie vote, if the bylaws provide for this.” There’s a feeling amongst strata property owner associations that this section neglects the issue of the number of votes that may be controlled by an owner-developer through unsold units. If you build a 20-unit building and, in the early stages at least, depending on the economy, if there are only nine sold, then de facto the owner-developer is still the majority owner of the council. That gives them some rise for concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
As I will proceed to discuss, I think there are probably some more serious issues than that with regard to that issue of owner-developers’ involvement in strata councils. The feeling by the organizations is that limiting the owner-developer to one vote in council elections would support accountability. That, on the face of it, might seem drastic, but as I talk more about the kinds of things that can happen…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’ll mention right now that we have a situation in Maple Ridge that has been in the news over the last number of years and continues to be. We have an owner-developer that has been so difficult to deal with, has caused so many police resources, so many fire department resources, so many hours by the local government officials to try to deal with this strata property…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If there’s anything in this act that helps a situation like we have in Maple Ridge — and those in Maple Ridge will know very well of whom I speak — it will be a vast improvement to our lives, because it seems to affect each and every one of us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
——DISSCUSSION BY OTHER MLA’S——
M. Sather: Yeah, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission knows of whom I speak. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The majority owner…. This is a little bit of the history of what’s going on, to inform the House on how hopefully useful this legislation is going to be. Through his lawyers, he informed the existing strata council that they were being removed through a vote of non-confidence by the majority owner. At the time, the owner and his family owned 12 of the 20 units, so they just manifestly said: “You guys are out of here.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Moving on to a couple of other things that happened. All motions from the floor to put money toward roof repairs and other issues were defeated, and the building is a disaster site. It’s run-down. One section of it was burnt-out. The municipality, finally, after years and years of litigation and attempted action, were able just in the last couple of months to get that burnt-out skeleton demolished. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s been the site of not only a lot of drug dealing and other illegal activities but some very deplorable conditions that people have been living in down there. It has certainly been distressing to us all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The said meeting ended without a budget being passed. He then went on to use his majority of votes to increase the monthly strata fees, and he informed the other owners that he will become the general contractor in regards to repairs of the building — not to worry about any sort of conflict or anything like that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s been particularly contentious in Maple Ridge. As I say, I’ve met — and I know the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has met — citizens groups that are concerned. Fire, social services — you name it. Local government people just tearing their hair out on how to deal with a strata where the owner-developer simply refuses to cooperate, is litigious, goes to court, fires his lawyer at the last minute, and the process has to start over again. He’s very adept at keeping everybody off balance, no doubt about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
Looking at section 24, which provides exemptions from restrictions on renters of the strata property units…. Basically, it says that an exemption to that restriction is allowed if a hearing is held. It says: “the strata corporation does not give its decision in writing to the owner, (i) if a hearing is held, within one week after the hearing, or (ii) if no hearing is requested, within 2 weeks….” So basically, there are some minimal requirements or whatever, but you can proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If one looks at the current act, section 141 says: “The strata corporation may only restrict the rental of a strata lot by a bylaw that (a) prohibits the rental of residential strata lots, or (b) limits one or more of the following.” So if the council wants to permit that, they can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the situation in Maple Ridge it’s been alleged, I think with a certain considerable probability that it’s true, that this same…. The modus operandi that this strata owner-developer has employed is to buy a unit — this one property in case, but there may be others, as I understand it — to rent it out and to be not particularly choosy about — I don’t know if quality is the correct word; it’s probably not — the willingness of the individual or individuals to care for that unit. In fact, the feeling is that he’s done quite the opposite. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You then have a neighbour who is “undesirable.” What does that do? Well, it does two things. It drives down the value of that property, and it affects the other strata property owners. In other words, they’re, like: “Well, do I want to live here anymore? I mean, this place is getting to be bad news.” This is exactly what it’s alleged happened there. He subsequently bought one unit after another cheaply because the place was getting so run-down that it didn’t demand, didn’t fetch a very high price. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’m saying this to explain how some of what is allowed, like having renters in a strata property…. I’m not suggesting that that shouldn’t be the case. It’s a free world, and renters, as much as anybody else, need places to live. I used to be one. I understand that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But how the situation can be manipulated by an unscrupulous person to, well, spread chaos in a whole town is unbelievable. I don’t think this act is going to be able to address that. Maybe it can’t. Maybe it’s too much to ask. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What it does speak to is that wider consultation really needs to take place, and I would really encourage the minister, if he hasn’t done so already — I don’t know if he has — to discuss this issue with the local government, at least in Maple Ridge. They can tell him in detail about the problems that they’ve had. Hopefully, it might inform some revisions to this bill, if they’re ever going to take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I’ll take my place. I think one of my colleagues wants to have a few words. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
