West End renters under eviction get ready for fight as Liberals stay in power

Sandra Thomas, Vancouver Courier

Published: Thursday, May 14, 2009

On Monday afternoon another press conference was held in the West End in front of another apartment building where the tenants have been served eviction notices.

Sharon Isaak, a volunteer with the ad hoc Renters at Risk, said it’s a scenario that’s been playing out too often in the West End. She believes it’s the reason Liberal candidate Laura McDiarmid didn’t stand a chance running in the West End in Tuesday’s provincial election. The NDP’s Spencer Herbert, who won the riding in the provincial byelection last October, received 9,302 votes to McDiarmid’s 5,375.

“It’s fantastic that Spencer won,” said Isaak. “But the Liberals were in power yesterday, and they’re still in power today. We’re going to have to see if they change the legislation that caused this mess.” Renters rights have become a huge West End issue in the past year, particularly during the provincial byelection and last November’s municipal election. Renters advocates say the problems stem from changes to the Residential Tenancy Act in 2004 by the Liberals which allows landlords to raise rents beyond the 3.7 per cent annual limit, providing they can prove neighbouring buildings are charging higher rents. This “geographic profiling” was used by the owners of the Seafield Apartments on Pendrell Street to justify a proposed 73 per cent rent increase application.

The Residential Tenancy Office ruled last month the owners could increase the rent up to 38 per cent. Another change to the Act allows landlords to evict tenants to make way for renovations. In many cases, says renters activists, landlords have used the loophole to evict tenants, add a coat of paint to suites and then raise rents. Tenants living at the Berkeley on Bute Street were given “renoviction” notices this week and organized the press conference in response.

“I would like to see the Liberals revise the Act,” said Isaak. “It’s obvious the Act is flawed. Too many tenants are being evicted and with the Seafield ruling landlords are all going to try and raise their rents. But this is not a story about bad landlords, this is about bad government.”

Isaak said Herbert has worked to help tenants, including introducing a private members bill that would see the Act revised.

“I’m glad he’s on our side,” she said. Brian Garlick, who’s lived in the Berkeley for more than five years, said he’s glad Herbert won the riding but was disappointed the Liberals won the general election.

“I’m sorry the Liberals, or should I say the Socreds, got back into power,” said Garlick. “I know they’re not called Socreds, but a skunk by any other name is still a skunk.” The Social Credit party dominated B.C. government for almost four decades between 1952 and 1991, aside from a brief NDP administration from 1972 to 1975. It had fiscally conservative views on social welfare spending and loosened rent controls in the 1980s.

Garlick, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1986, said the Berkeley has been an ideal home because it’s close to St. Paul’s Hospital, where he receives treatment and also speaks to men and women with HIV and AIDS. Garlick said his situation caused him to pay close attention to the May 12 election and he now plans on volunteering to help Herbert fight for changes to the Residential Tenancy Act.

“I hope he’ll be able to keep his focus on this issue, but he’s got a lot of other responsibilities too,” said Garlick. “So I’m going to be there helping.”

sthomas@vancourier.com

© Vancouver Courier 2009

Rent your home, own your vote!

Are you tired of a government that ignores 30% of the population in BC? Will you be next to get your $500/ month rent increase or eviction notice? What can you do to stop it?

If you rent, you must visit RentersFightBack.com to find out how renters can make the difference in the BC election. It’s that close in a number of key ridings!

Renters At Risk encourages people to visit the Renters Fight Back website for some great videos and information. Find out how you can make a difference in your neighbourhood before the Election!

Authorized by Renters At Risk, BC Elections Act, 604-602-1218

A flexible proposal that omits ‘renovictions’

ROBERT MATAS

Globe and Mail Update

April 29, 2009 at 12:28 PM EDT

VANCOUVER — “Democrats are going to change the loopholes in the Tenancy Act and fix it so that renovictions don’t occur,” NDP Leader Carole James said on the campaign trail, borrowing a term used by renters who are evicted for renovations.

The NDP has drawn attention to a significant problem for those in older rental accommodations, especially for seniors who have lived for decades in the same apartment. Basing legislation on the most extreme cases is rarely a sound approach to public policy. The NDP proposal, however, appears flexible enough to provide increased protection for tenants while still allowing responsible landlords to move ahead with necessary renovations.

The Residential Tenancy Act permits landlords to evict tenants for major renovations and to raise rents as much as they like once the units come back on the market. Some landlords have used the pretence of renovations to chase away tenants who were paying less than market rates. After minimal work in the apartment, they have hiked rents significantly. Tenants can challenge eviction notices, requiring landlords to show that the work is required. But renters say in many cases they lose their housing before they can appeal.

The NDP promised to close the renovation loophole by giving tenants the right of first refusal after renovations are completed. The rent would be set at pre-renovation levels, adjusted for the standard allowable annual increase.

NDP Leader Carole James highlighted the changes to the Residential Tenancy Act this week while in Vancouver’s west end, where up to 80 per cent of residents are renters.

Two apartments have been in the media spotlight in recent months. The landlord of the Berkeley apartment has indicated he wants tenants to move out to clear the way for a complete renovation.

The landlord of the Seafield apartment recently received approval from the tenancy branch for rent increases of up to 38 per cent for most of the units. Similar situations have been reported in Victoria and in Kelowna. Tenants feel they are being kicked out of their homes unfairly.

Michael Geller an adjunct professor at the Simon Fraser Centre for Sustainable Community Development, said the NDP proposal responds to “a very small percentage of landlords” who empty out buildings, carry out modest renovations and later rent out the suites at higher rates.

He cautioned that the proposed legislative changes could have unintended consequences. Many rental units were built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and are now in need of repair. The NDP’s proposal could discourage legitimate renovations, leading to a significant deterioration of the province’s housing stock.

The central issue, Prof. Geller added, was who should subsidize those long-time tenants who are currently paying significantly less than market value for their accommodations.

“At the risk of sounding hardhearted, I say it’s ultimately not the private landlord’s obligation to subsidize tenants.”

The NDP says increasing the rights of tenants would not mean landlords are required to subsidize them, NDP campaign researcher Vanessa Geary said.

The NDP proposal is similar to legislation currently in effect in Ontario. Rents can be increased over a number of years to reflect the cost of legitimate renovations. Closing the loophole is intended to stop excessive increases in rent by those who do not follow through with plans for renovations.

“It will provide extra protection for tenants so landlords will think twice about doing it,” she said.

• Article
• Comments (4)

Critics call Bill 42 a gag order

Critics call Bill 42 a gag order

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION / ‘There’s a chill that’s been sent’: Herbert

Sara Newham / Vancouver / Thursday, February 26, 2009

Government legislation limiting election advertising is leaving a sour taste in the mouths of some British Columbians who say the new law is nothing more than a gag order.

Bill 42 came into effect Feb 13 in an attempt to prevent big business, unions and other organizations from hijacking provincial elections with expensive advertising campaigns. The act builds on an earlier version passed in 1995.

“The limits are consistent with the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada that are aimed at ensuring the voice of any citizen is not drowned out by those who have the resources to engage in expensive election campaigns,” BC Attorney General Wally Oppal said in a May 27, 2008 press release issued following public consultation of the bill.

“We saw in the last election third parties spending millions of dollars leading up to the election and at least $3 million more during the campaign period itself. These changes are aimed at preventing our system from drifting towards an American-style election system that demands expensive advertising campaigns in order to effectively engage in democratic discourse.”

Bill 42 sets limits on how much third party advertisers can spend and requires them to officially register with Elections BC. A third party advertiser is defined as anyone who directly or indirectly supports or opposes a registered candidate or political party, tied to a message about how to vote.

“Our position is clearly that it is a gag law,” says Christine Ackermann, a volunteer with Renters at Risk, which protests West End evictions and advocates on behalf of tenants more generally.

“Renters at Risk is a small grassroots group. We have no money. We don’t give money to any parties. We try to be as non-partisan as possible and yet somehow we still have to register? It’s crazy.”

Gag-law limits about to take effect in B.C.

The Straight
By Carlito Pablo

Unless it’s struck down as unconstitutional by the B.C. Supreme Court, B.C. Liberal legislation described by critics as a gag on free speech will take effect on February 13.

Bill 42 states that any individual or organization other than a candidate, a registered political party, or a constituency association must spend no more than $150,000 on advertising in the 88 days prior to an election. Also known as the Election Amendment Act, 2008, the law has the ability to impose stiff fines of 10 times the amount overspent.

“We will be trying to use some other methods to get our message out,” Irene Lanzinger, president of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation, told the Straight.

The BCTF was one of seven labour unions that filed a legal challenge in July 2008 questioning the constitutionality of Bill 42 before the B.C. Supreme Court.

In December, a B.C. Supreme Court judge denied the group’s application for an injunction.

The law would allow a political party to spend $1.1 million in the 60-day precampaign period and $4.4 million during the 28-day campaign period.

Individual candidates would be able to shell out up to $70,000 during the 60-day period before the start of the campaign, and another $70,000 during the campaign period.

Lanzinger said that leading up to the May 12 election the BCTF will rely heavily on its 41,000 members to spread the message that the Liberal government has underfunded education, resulting in school closures, oversized classes, and a lack of support for students with special needs. She said that her group will also use methods like rallies, speaking out at candidates meetings, and electronic communications to do this.

In a phone interview on January 30, lawyer Joseph Arvay, the counsel representing the unions, said he has written the court to ask it to render its decision before February 13, the day the bill would take effect.

“But we just don’t know whether the judge will be able to do that,” Arvay told the Straight.

Source – http://www.straight.com/article-199745/gaglaw-limits-about-take-effect?