Please sign and SHARE our petition. We are in desperate need of your support to save our home.

Not everyone supports us or even wishes us well. Some would label us “irresponsible and self-serving.”, Reliance.

While the vast majority of Vancovuerites support us in our desire to see Reliance honour the agreement they made with us. And on the back of secured construction permits. Some people, namely Globe & Mail readers (some not all), and of course Vancouver property developers do not. They would mark us “illogical” “completely unrealistic”.

As I am not a Globe & Mail subscriber I can not reply to the comments on their site. So I will endeavour to do that here. I feel it is vital that we have this conversation. Often people are not as far apart as they seem to be. Even if they are at the least they can come to respectful understanding of each-others side.

Here again is the article: Globe & Mail: Vancouver landlord, tenants disagree on terms of relocation provision in unusual rental arrangement found on our media page. As well as my Facebook Live Replying to a Globe & Mail Story.

The Globe comments:

5 days ago:

For Mr Stovell to accuse tenants of being irresponsible and self-serving is a bit rich; notably the self-serving part.

BSimmons1

Thank you BSimmons1, It does seem that he has forgotten the millions of dollars in his bank account came from tenants like my husband and I. We have lived with Reliance Properties as a landlord for 20 years and paid roughly $300,000 in rent. We saw them time and again repair plumbing issues at 1170 Bidwell with duct-tape. We saw the black mold in the walls that was kept company by the asbestos. One time they ripped out bathroom down to just wall studs. No toilet/shower/sink/nothing and then walked away for a month. They didn’t care we had no bathroom for a month! That is what Reliance is. They are 1%ers that have forgotten we are actually people down here.

6 days ago

This tenant’s desperation of wanting to stay in Vancouver apartment is logical due to his established ties here in Vancouver and his job, however, the expectation of indefinite subsidies is illogical as developers are not ATM machines. 3 Years at the developer provided temporary place below market rent + 2 years at the same rent before reconstruction sound fair to me. That’s literally 5 years of tenancy with no incremental rent fee. 

Hong_B

Thank you Hong_B. You would be correct but for a couple of points. First they have violated the agreement at every turn. The only times the agreement has been adhered to us by us and when forced by the City of Vancouver Reliance has complied.

“developers are not ATM machines” True. However the agreement is the agreement and they wrote it. They need to honour what we all agreed to.

“3 Years at the developer provided temporary place below market rent + 2 years at the same rent before reconstruction sound fair to me. That’s literally 5 years of tenancy with no incremental rent fee. ” They have violated the agreement for the last 3 years charging us rent increases the agreement says we would not pay. They now intend to jack up our rent by $1100 and continue to charge increases on that. All against the agreement.

6 days ago

Anne2301

The tenants are completely unrealistic if they think they will get subsidized rental into perpetuity.  Do they think the landlord built a new building for free ?  What planet are they living on ?

6 days ago

MyOwnAccount: Planet NDP.

We are not being unrealistic. We simply want Reliance to honour an agreement they made with us and that got them permits from the City of Vancouver. We are loyal tenants of 20 years and we have never caused troubles. We have paid our rent and enriched Reliance. The reward for that should not be a slap in face by them or you. I was a small business owner. I lived up to every agreement I ever signed and I always will. That is just the type of person I am. I had hoped I had a like minded dance partner. Apparently not. FYI, I live on Earth specifically Vancouver and I would like to remain here.

6 days ago

TVR Developments

Something for the courts. But if the contract says 2 yrs its 2 yrs. Do the tenants actually believe that they would get their old rental rate in a brand new building for the life of their tenancy, even if that tenancy is greater than 2 yrs? No business person would develope a new building without an increase in revenue. All that is ever written is how bad landlords are. There are certainly some very evil tenants out their that take full advantage of landlords. Such biased reporting and commentary. 

Thank you TVR, First you are correct there are bad tenants out there. I also believe in business right to conduct profitable business. After-all where would the economy and all of us be without it? I owned a small business I fully understand.

However they have violated the agreement and have done so on several occasions. This may well be headed for the courts. We are dug-in on our position and we will fight for the agreement and our rights in it. We do not feel that our rents would never increase. However in the agreement and by the RTO we have the right to what we were paying for a term of 2 years in the new building and from that point forward we are to pay regular rent increases.

We simply want what was promised. If my rent is not at current market rates that is simply a reflection of my 20 years of loyal tenancy in Reliance Properties building. Had I moved around from one developer to the next I would have received the current market rate on all those moves.

But I didn’t I stayed in my home and paid my rent. $300,000 to a developer that would now slap my face and call me “irresponsible and self-serving”. Giving them $300,000 was defiantly irresponsible given the greed they now show and how they treated us during those years.

1 week ago

app_67184287

Mr. Stovell sounds very generous for the 2-year subsidy. Still, because of the dispute, is there anything in writing which would clear things up?

6 days ago

M. Kalus: Maybe I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the only way he could get this building up was by offering a lure for the current tenants to agree to leave their current apartment.

By default the rental agreement would have just renewed with the legal rent increase year over year. If the tenants would have refused to move the project would have stalled as they could not have torn down the old building.

So no, it’s not really generous. For all the whining by the developer, the building had, I think, less than 10 units, considering the size of the new building “subsidizing” the former renters isn’t really that big of a deal.

app_67184287, “Mr. Stovell sounds very generous” that is what we also thought. I honestly believed he was acting in a manor that should be highlighted as the best a Vancouver developer had ever done. I thought he should be held up as a model of how to proceed with increasing density in Vancouver. But the second they got the construction permit they already started breaking the agreement. Since that time they have violated it monthly. He is exactly what he appears to be: untrustworthy.

M. Kalus You are correct. And with this agreement signed back in 2016 I actually went to Vancouver City Hall and spoke on behalf of Reliance Properties and the new building. I highlighted how we had this agreement and how we were to be treated fairly by Reliance. I said that they should be used as a model. Basically I was made a fool and I feel it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>