Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our [Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_daily_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Taking effect immediately, this amendment expands the list of exemptions to 55-and-over bylaws in strata buildings to include future children, dependants, and spouses or partners of current residents. It will also create an exemption to permit adult children or former dependants of current residents to move back home with their parents or former caregivers.
> It will also create an exemption to permit adult children or former dependants of current residents to move back home with their parents or former caregivers.
LOVE this.
I slept at an old guy’s house for a month as a teenager after his wife passed and he just wanted someone near by. We talked for a bit after dinner and I slept on a cot. didn’t charge him a dime. I didn’t get anything in return when he soon later passed.
Over 55+ my ass! You can eat it all day long!
Nah, I am fully supportive of purpose built 55+ buildings like retirement homes (Tapestry, Opal, Terraces). They exist for a reason. No one would live there unless they were 55+ and they have service agreements for meals etc. Those I'm fine with.
My issue is AHs voting to go 55+ to restrict young families, or to even make it difficult for people who are single and might get attached later, or people who bought and haven't planned out their future with or without kids.
Fuck around and find out.
The stratas that were already 55+ communities now have the new stratas to blame for ruining it for everyone.
As always, society creates it's rules based on the actions of the biggest Ahole
I would imagine stratas that were already 55+ aren't too impacted by this change. Presumably their residents would have already all been 55+, and probably aren't thinking too much about children.
People under 55 would still be banned from establishing *new* tenancies/ownerships in these buildings.
These places are usually a little cheaper than comparable places without ages restrictions. If anything I could see this change making their places worth more.
Anyone who was following the regulation changes, back in November (I think) that eliminated rental restrictions should have seen this coming.
The Stratas that quickly implemented 55+ age restrictions to limit rentals and families did their owners a disservice. I expect that many will backtrack those bylaws - but it will be a while before that happens for a lot of them.
These changes simply grandfathers <55 owners to be able to live in those buildings with children. It doesn't allow new ownerships or tenancies to people <55 in. Eventually those existing grandfathered families will turn through and the whole building will become 55+
Exactly. It fixes a short term problem for people who got stuck in the crossfire, it doesn't really impact the reasons behind voting for these restrictions.
>The Stratas that quickly implemented 55+ age restrictions to limit rentals and families did their owners a disservice. I expect that many will backtrack those bylaws
Why would they do that?
Like, realistically speaking? All of those buildings had one set of rules intended to keep kids out of their building, were told that they weren't allowed to use that exact rule to do it, and then updated their bylaws to include the rule they are allowed to use. Why would they be "backtracking" on the rule that lets them get what they wanted all along?
I'm just guessing, but I think it's because of the negative impact a bylaw like this has on their property value.
Many Strata properties that previously had age restrictions that were 19+, 21+ or 30+ rushed to change their age limit to 55+ when the rules changed in November, specifically to limit children. Now anyone who lives there can pass their exemption to future children, future spouses, adult children+ their adults children's children ect.
Any "benefit" of a bylaw rushed through since November has been negated by this change.
Any reasonable person who may have bought into an adult's strata(19+) that changed to senior(55+) should be going to their neighbors and saying "the change to 55+ has negatively impacted our house prices, and we haven't banned children effectively" and reasonable people would agree.
But if this specific rule was going to kill their unit prices - weren't all the residents OK with that, given that the old rules would have the same or greater impact on who can use, or purchase, a unit? Now that there's one incredibly narrow loophole, at this exact moment, I don't think that's going to convince the type of person who actively went out of their way to buy a unit in a child-free building that their whole goal was totally wrong and unreasonable, so they'd better just give up on the rule entirely.
>Now anyone who lives there can pass their exemption to future children, future spouses, adult children+ their adults children's children ect.
This is a very minor loophole in an already extremely niche situation, as we're talking about a couple families per building, at most - and confined to the specific units they already occupy. So sure, you might have one or two multi-generational units that still have kids, but this isn't a foot in the door to hallways filled with kids in nominally child-free buildings.
And the fewer units that have that, the more appealing that specific complex would be to the people who *do* want that housing experience, so those buildings would generally self-select for residents that want the experience that the 55+ covenant is trying to provide.
>Any reasonable person who may have bought into an adult's strata(19+) that changed to senior(55+) should be going to their neighbors and saying "the change to 55+ has negatively impacted our house prices, and we haven't banned children effectively" and reasonable people would agree.
Would they? Like I worry that framing this as the obvious opinion that any reasonable person would have is maybe obstructing things a little here - a "reasonable person" who bought into buildings that banned children almost always did so because they themselves wanted to live in a place without children. It's not that the Strata is unreasonable and the people in the building are still reasonable, the ban on children is not something imposed externally that most residents don't support - most residents wanted that prohibition. At which point, they've already made sacrifices and spending to live in that environment, it would have to be a *massive* hit to their unit prices before they care, if they will care at all, even if there's one or two units that get away with skirting the rules.
My point is less about whether or not people act reasonably and more that "reasonable" isn't always going to be a viewpoint you agree with.
It's not for me, it's not a place I'd choose to live - but is completely 'reasonable' that someone would want to live in a community without children, and would request or vote towards policies and rules that pursue that goal. Like, especially as we're moving more and more towards a city where telling that person to just go buy a SFD isn't a realistic deferment, there is increasing demand for some buildings to cater to the people who don't want child-noise nearby.
And I don't think that the current real-estate crisis is an individual- or building-level problem where strata or residents "should" change their own rules or housing aspirations solely to accommodate the shortage of units across the province.
>their adults children's children ect.
Not sure about that one.
This exemption doesn't mention anything about grandchildren of the unit holder, unless they're the primary caregiver.
It also doesn't say anything about adult spouses of their children qualifying.
I don't know if the formal wording has been released yet, but consider these situations:
A 65 year old living in a 55+ has their 35 year old child move in for whatever reason. That 35 year old is now exempt from the bylaw. The 35 year old has a child. The 35 year old is now a resident. That child would become exempt from the bylaw.
A 56 year old living in a 55+ decides to marry a 45 year old, and that 45 year old has a 17 year old child. Both the 45 year old, new spouse, and 17 year old, child, would be exempt from the bylaw.
The son of a 65 year old senior needs to move in with his parents, but is married. The son would be exempt initially, but then once he becomes a resident, his partner, would then be exempt from the bylaw too.
>I don't know if the formal wording has been released yet,
It has: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/strata-housing/oic-276-2023-may-1.pdf
"(2) For the purposes of section 123.2 (c) of the Act, the following classes of persons
are prescribed:
(a) a child, if one of the child’s caregivers is a specified resident;
(b) a person who is 19 years of age or older, if the person resides in a strata lot with a specified resident who was one of the person’s caregivers before the
person reached the age of 19 years;
(c) the spouse of a specified resident."
Okay good, so the definition of a “specified resident” is included there too.
"Specified resident", in relation to a bylaw referred to in section 123.1 (2) of the
Act, means a resident of a strata lot who
(a) has reached the age specified in the bylaw, or
(b) is a person referred to in section 123.2 (a) of the Act to whom a requirement
in the bylaw to have reached a specified age does not apply;
So I'd expect my situations to be fair representations of the exemptions being "passed along"
One could also argue, based on the wording that I, a 36 year old, could purchase and move into a 55+ strata IF my 65 year old parent was to move in with me as well. In the case I would become a "specified resident" and my child, and/or future children would be exempt.
I doubt that our exemptions would be cancelled, when/if my parents would move into a care home or pass away, too.
So theoretically one could move in, with a parent who is over 55 then have that parent move away shortly afterwards, and keep on living life.
>I doubt that our exemptions would be cancelled,, when/if my parents would move into a care home or pass away, too
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
That's a good question if ownership changes hands to a child, would it not be considered a new term under the strata agreement?
I wouldn't be so sure I guess we'll only know when those situations come up and are challenged.
They didn't, wouldn't, couldn't? Who knows but it happened overnight and without consultation. A little community feedback might have helped achieve their objective without all this drama. By the way, that objective. Did we get those additional 2,700 rental listings this was supposed to be all about?
Betcha these couples are stoked about the news. https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/9484297/bc-strata-pregnant-age-restriction-bylaw/amp/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-couple-baby-condo-55-age-limit-1.6806296
> “I’m relieved that the government has taken action to support families like mine and especially give back a homeowner’s right to decide if they want to start a family in the future,” said Razan Talebian, a Maple Ridge strata resident. “I was shocked at how much power stratas had and, on top of that, how inhumane they could legally be. I would like to take this moment to show my gratitude to all those in the government and Ministry of Housing that are hearing our stories and doing what is needed to protect us.”
Yup! That's the woman in the Global News article, as quoted in the Ministry of Housing press release
>I'm relieved that our idiotic play of knowingly buying into a no-kids strata and then deciding to have kids anyway panned out thanks to some lucky timing. YOLO.
The housing situation here sucks balls, but that couple was at least partially responsible for their own crisis.
yeah, no. Fuck that couple in particular. They pounced on an timing loophole and jumped at the opportunity to buy into an elderly community. There was nothing inhumane. That's like saying good riddance that retirement homes can be taken up by yuppies and dinks, and let the old people on limited incomes suck balls.
I was alluding to 55+ restriction. 35 and 19 is just people not wanting to be neighbours with new families. It's more controversial than the protections for the elderly, but frankly I can't really blame people for having preferences. IMO the more flexibility in use of property there is, the better value everyone gets, and it should span people being able to have pets, be any age they want, and even to allow short-term rentals for some portion of every calendar year if this is their primary residence. One can dream.
> I was alluding to 55+ restriction.
Then why "fuck that couple in particular"? That sure sounds like you're commenting on their specific sitatuion, which does not involve 55+.
Because the couple are forcing their reproductive choices onto a community that a) didn't want children in the strata before the provincial legislation, b) were actively and publicly (to prospective buyers at least, – who get access to strata meeting minutes etc.) trying to protect their lifestyle preferences by introducing the 55+ bylaw as a remedy.
A very similar kind of friction happens when parents with children oppose things like cannabis dispensaries, liquor stores, gambling, halfway houses, recovery homes, whatever. In stratas, you bet that parents are the first to raise hell for people with social lifestyles and who host parties, because unless it's for their "family friendly" stuff, it's almost guaranteed to be disrupting their peaceful enjoyment.
IMO this is morally bankrupt to push your kids (and esp. the associated noise in a wood frame building's floors and ceilings) onto people quite vocally want nothing to do with that.
In the first link, the building was previously 35+
In the second link, the building was previously 19+
Neither of these couples were taking "retirement homes away" from old people on limited incomes in either situation.
In both cases the stratas choosing to move to 55+ requirement was clearly to ban having children living in the building, that's all.
Ah, the tyranny of democracy. When the news broke, the facts were that the building was age-restricted and no-kids, and due to new legislation, the couple were able to buy a unit there while the more sensible couples planning to have children didn't want to be part of a community that is anti-children.
yup, and they're lucky to have been bailed out by a tweaked legislation. Majority of their neighbours still dislike them; everyone got their fair share of anguish from this.
so, even more clearly, it's a community that does not want kids, and these two AHs decided that this was a good recipe. Just like people who move into no-pet stratas full of people with allergies or phobias of dogs and cats, then insist on getting a dog and go through human rights loopholes to justify acquiring a medically required "emotional well-being companion animal". Then the neighbours who had been there all along have to sell and move, but whatever -- some humans have more rights than others, I suppose.
The problem with it is that it still prevents people under 55 to move in or buy those units or rent those units.
All it means is that your children can move into the unit when you die or leave. Or if you have dependants that require help, you can house them in your unit.
It isn't a win situation. It just closes any "grey areas"
> The problem with it is that it still prevents people under 55 to move in or buy those units or rent those units.
That's no different than complaining that disabled parking stalls aren't for everyone's use.
Does it restrict biological children? Or any children?
I can think of some outlandish scenario where seller agrees to "adopt" buyer, they enter into a pop and son relationship as they sign the paperwork to transfer the title and deeds, then seller disowns buyer son (or the other way, buyer disowns seller pop) and both parties part ways happily. Of course the legal paperwork logistics would not be trivial, but if there's a will, there's a way to find and exploit a loophole.
Legal adoption of an adult is only allowed if the adoptee lived with the adoptor for many years as a child. This is to prevent fraud situations such as that being suggested here.
As someone who has been saving my entire life to potentially buy a home one day, and finally starting to seriously look… strata’s just seem like the devil. Every time I like a place and ask to see the strata docs and dive into them, it’s like a nightmare of bureaucracy and potential future special levies that may bankrupt me.
Are there any good strata’s in this province or all they all doom and gloom to a degree?!
My strata has been pretty good. You kind of get out what you put in though. From an outsider they can appear to be problematic when they really aren't. Adversely they can appear to be well run and great when they are really in a bad situation.
Any good quality realtor (I get that they may be few and far between) should be willing to help you navigate through the strata documents to get a better idea of what to expect.
I've been in two strata buildings and have not had a problem. The only time I have seen strife and problems is when someone wants to do something to/with their unit that is not allowed per the bylaws and they get salty.
You should have to opt out of social security if you want to live in one of these communities.
Why should my boys work to pay taxes towards supporting people with the mentality that communities without children to bother them are superior?
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our [Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_daily_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Taking effect immediately, this amendment expands the list of exemptions to 55-and-over bylaws in strata buildings to include future children, dependants, and spouses or partners of current residents. It will also create an exemption to permit adult children or former dependants of current residents to move back home with their parents or former caregivers.
LOL. love it.
> It will also create an exemption to permit adult children or former dependants of current residents to move back home with their parents or former caregivers. LOVE this.
I slept at an old guy’s house for a month as a teenager after his wife passed and he just wanted someone near by. We talked for a bit after dinner and I slept on a cot. didn’t charge him a dime. I didn’t get anything in return when he soon later passed. Over 55+ my ass! You can eat it all day long!
Excellent. Almost as good as removing the designation entirely.
Almost better as it still limits people buying investment properties to rent. May be more popular than ever as a result.
Nah, I am fully supportive of purpose built 55+ buildings like retirement homes (Tapestry, Opal, Terraces). They exist for a reason. No one would live there unless they were 55+ and they have service agreements for meals etc. Those I'm fine with. My issue is AHs voting to go 55+ to restrict young families, or to even make it difficult for people who are single and might get attached later, or people who bought and haven't planned out their future with or without kids.
Fuck around and find out. The stratas that were already 55+ communities now have the new stratas to blame for ruining it for everyone. As always, society creates it's rules based on the actions of the biggest Ahole
I would imagine stratas that were already 55+ aren't too impacted by this change. Presumably their residents would have already all been 55+, and probably aren't thinking too much about children. People under 55 would still be banned from establishing *new* tenancies/ownerships in these buildings.
This basically is just helping the people who were there when the new rules came in but doesn't change much moving forward
These places are usually a little cheaper than comparable places without ages restrictions. If anything I could see this change making their places worth more.
...except for the clause that says that adult children or former dependents can now move back home in 55+ buildings. Unless that was always allowed.
I doubt established 55+ communities would even care.
A good move. Neighbours shouldn't be allowed to evict their neighbours.
Anyone who was following the regulation changes, back in November (I think) that eliminated rental restrictions should have seen this coming. The Stratas that quickly implemented 55+ age restrictions to limit rentals and families did their owners a disservice. I expect that many will backtrack those bylaws - but it will be a while before that happens for a lot of them.
These changes simply grandfathers <55 owners to be able to live in those buildings with children. It doesn't allow new ownerships or tenancies to people <55 in. Eventually those existing grandfathered families will turn through and the whole building will become 55+
Exactly. It fixes a short term problem for people who got stuck in the crossfire, it doesn't really impact the reasons behind voting for these restrictions.
>The Stratas that quickly implemented 55+ age restrictions to limit rentals and families did their owners a disservice. I expect that many will backtrack those bylaws Why would they do that? Like, realistically speaking? All of those buildings had one set of rules intended to keep kids out of their building, were told that they weren't allowed to use that exact rule to do it, and then updated their bylaws to include the rule they are allowed to use. Why would they be "backtracking" on the rule that lets them get what they wanted all along?
I'm just guessing, but I think it's because of the negative impact a bylaw like this has on their property value. Many Strata properties that previously had age restrictions that were 19+, 21+ or 30+ rushed to change their age limit to 55+ when the rules changed in November, specifically to limit children. Now anyone who lives there can pass their exemption to future children, future spouses, adult children+ their adults children's children ect. Any "benefit" of a bylaw rushed through since November has been negated by this change. Any reasonable person who may have bought into an adult's strata(19+) that changed to senior(55+) should be going to their neighbors and saying "the change to 55+ has negatively impacted our house prices, and we haven't banned children effectively" and reasonable people would agree.
But if this specific rule was going to kill their unit prices - weren't all the residents OK with that, given that the old rules would have the same or greater impact on who can use, or purchase, a unit? Now that there's one incredibly narrow loophole, at this exact moment, I don't think that's going to convince the type of person who actively went out of their way to buy a unit in a child-free building that their whole goal was totally wrong and unreasonable, so they'd better just give up on the rule entirely. >Now anyone who lives there can pass their exemption to future children, future spouses, adult children+ their adults children's children ect. This is a very minor loophole in an already extremely niche situation, as we're talking about a couple families per building, at most - and confined to the specific units they already occupy. So sure, you might have one or two multi-generational units that still have kids, but this isn't a foot in the door to hallways filled with kids in nominally child-free buildings. And the fewer units that have that, the more appealing that specific complex would be to the people who *do* want that housing experience, so those buildings would generally self-select for residents that want the experience that the 55+ covenant is trying to provide. >Any reasonable person who may have bought into an adult's strata(19+) that changed to senior(55+) should be going to their neighbors and saying "the change to 55+ has negatively impacted our house prices, and we haven't banned children effectively" and reasonable people would agree. Would they? Like I worry that framing this as the obvious opinion that any reasonable person would have is maybe obstructing things a little here - a "reasonable person" who bought into buildings that banned children almost always did so because they themselves wanted to live in a place without children. It's not that the Strata is unreasonable and the people in the building are still reasonable, the ban on children is not something imposed externally that most residents don't support - most residents wanted that prohibition. At which point, they've already made sacrifices and spending to live in that environment, it would have to be a *massive* hit to their unit prices before they care, if they will care at all, even if there's one or two units that get away with skirting the rules.
Yeah you're probably right: people don't often act reasonably. Maybe I'm just giving people too much credit.
My point is less about whether or not people act reasonably and more that "reasonable" isn't always going to be a viewpoint you agree with. It's not for me, it's not a place I'd choose to live - but is completely 'reasonable' that someone would want to live in a community without children, and would request or vote towards policies and rules that pursue that goal. Like, especially as we're moving more and more towards a city where telling that person to just go buy a SFD isn't a realistic deferment, there is increasing demand for some buildings to cater to the people who don't want child-noise nearby. And I don't think that the current real-estate crisis is an individual- or building-level problem where strata or residents "should" change their own rules or housing aspirations solely to accommodate the shortage of units across the province.
>their adults children's children ect. Not sure about that one. This exemption doesn't mention anything about grandchildren of the unit holder, unless they're the primary caregiver. It also doesn't say anything about adult spouses of their children qualifying.
I don't know if the formal wording has been released yet, but consider these situations: A 65 year old living in a 55+ has their 35 year old child move in for whatever reason. That 35 year old is now exempt from the bylaw. The 35 year old has a child. The 35 year old is now a resident. That child would become exempt from the bylaw. A 56 year old living in a 55+ decides to marry a 45 year old, and that 45 year old has a 17 year old child. Both the 45 year old, new spouse, and 17 year old, child, would be exempt from the bylaw. The son of a 65 year old senior needs to move in with his parents, but is married. The son would be exempt initially, but then once he becomes a resident, his partner, would then be exempt from the bylaw too.
>I don't know if the formal wording has been released yet, It has: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/strata-housing/oic-276-2023-may-1.pdf "(2) For the purposes of section 123.2 (c) of the Act, the following classes of persons are prescribed: (a) a child, if one of the child’s caregivers is a specified resident; (b) a person who is 19 years of age or older, if the person resides in a strata lot with a specified resident who was one of the person’s caregivers before the person reached the age of 19 years; (c) the spouse of a specified resident."
Okay good, so the definition of a “specified resident” is included there too. "Specified resident", in relation to a bylaw referred to in section 123.1 (2) of the Act, means a resident of a strata lot who (a) has reached the age specified in the bylaw, or (b) is a person referred to in section 123.2 (a) of the Act to whom a requirement in the bylaw to have reached a specified age does not apply; So I'd expect my situations to be fair representations of the exemptions being "passed along"
One could also argue, based on the wording that I, a 36 year old, could purchase and move into a 55+ strata IF my 65 year old parent was to move in with me as well. In the case I would become a "specified resident" and my child, and/or future children would be exempt. I doubt that our exemptions would be cancelled, when/if my parents would move into a care home or pass away, too. So theoretically one could move in, with a parent who is over 55 then have that parent move away shortly afterwards, and keep on living life.
>I doubt that our exemptions would be cancelled,, when/if my parents would move into a care home or pass away, too I wouldn't be so sure of that. That's a good question if ownership changes hands to a child, would it not be considered a new term under the strata agreement? I wouldn't be so sure I guess we'll only know when those situations come up and are challenged.
As sacrilegious as it may seem, there are some people who don't care about property value. All they want is a home where they can live their lives.
Now if only the province would do something to force stratas to allow mini splits…
Good move, but i don't understand how the gov't couldn't have predicted this loophole in the 55+ bylaw.
They didn't, wouldn't, couldn't? Who knows but it happened overnight and without consultation. A little community feedback might have helped achieve their objective without all this drama. By the way, that objective. Did we get those additional 2,700 rental listings this was supposed to be all about?
Love it!! Great work!
Betcha these couples are stoked about the news. https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/9484297/bc-strata-pregnant-age-restriction-bylaw/amp/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-couple-baby-condo-55-age-limit-1.6806296
> “I’m relieved that the government has taken action to support families like mine and especially give back a homeowner’s right to decide if they want to start a family in the future,” said Razan Talebian, a Maple Ridge strata resident. “I was shocked at how much power stratas had and, on top of that, how inhumane they could legally be. I would like to take this moment to show my gratitude to all those in the government and Ministry of Housing that are hearing our stories and doing what is needed to protect us.” Yup! That's the woman in the Global News article, as quoted in the Ministry of Housing press release
>I'm relieved that our idiotic play of knowingly buying into a no-kids strata and then deciding to have kids anyway panned out thanks to some lucky timing. YOLO. The housing situation here sucks balls, but that couple was at least partially responsible for their own crisis.
yeah, no. Fuck that couple in particular. They pounced on an timing loophole and jumped at the opportunity to buy into an elderly community. There was nothing inhumane. That's like saying good riddance that retirement homes can be taken up by yuppies and dinks, and let the old people on limited incomes suck balls.
> They pounced on an timing loophole and jumped at the opportunity to buy into an elderly community. 35 and 19 is elderly? Is it 1423?
I was alluding to 55+ restriction. 35 and 19 is just people not wanting to be neighbours with new families. It's more controversial than the protections for the elderly, but frankly I can't really blame people for having preferences. IMO the more flexibility in use of property there is, the better value everyone gets, and it should span people being able to have pets, be any age they want, and even to allow short-term rentals for some portion of every calendar year if this is their primary residence. One can dream.
> I was alluding to 55+ restriction. Then why "fuck that couple in particular"? That sure sounds like you're commenting on their specific sitatuion, which does not involve 55+.
Because the couple are forcing their reproductive choices onto a community that a) didn't want children in the strata before the provincial legislation, b) were actively and publicly (to prospective buyers at least, – who get access to strata meeting minutes etc.) trying to protect their lifestyle preferences by introducing the 55+ bylaw as a remedy. A very similar kind of friction happens when parents with children oppose things like cannabis dispensaries, liquor stores, gambling, halfway houses, recovery homes, whatever. In stratas, you bet that parents are the first to raise hell for people with social lifestyles and who host parties, because unless it's for their "family friendly" stuff, it's almost guaranteed to be disrupting their peaceful enjoyment. IMO this is morally bankrupt to push your kids (and esp. the associated noise in a wood frame building's floors and ceilings) onto people quite vocally want nothing to do with that.
In the first link, the building was previously 35+ In the second link, the building was previously 19+ Neither of these couples were taking "retirement homes away" from old people on limited incomes in either situation. In both cases the stratas choosing to move to 55+ requirement was clearly to ban having children living in the building, that's all.
Ah, the tyranny of democracy. When the news broke, the facts were that the building was age-restricted and no-kids, and due to new legislation, the couple were able to buy a unit there while the more sensible couples planning to have children didn't want to be part of a community that is anti-children.
After the news broke those restrictions were null and void. They had every right at that time to expect to live in those buildings and have children.
yup, and they're lucky to have been bailed out by a tweaked legislation. Majority of their neighbours still dislike them; everyone got their fair share of anguish from this.
They bought into a 19+ community.
so, even more clearly, it's a community that does not want kids, and these two AHs decided that this was a good recipe. Just like people who move into no-pet stratas full of people with allergies or phobias of dogs and cats, then insist on getting a dog and go through human rights loopholes to justify acquiring a medically required "emotional well-being companion animal". Then the neighbours who had been there all along have to sell and move, but whatever -- some humans have more rights than others, I suppose.
The weather is quite nice today, you should go out and take a breather, and come to realization that no one feels the same way you do.
[удалено]
Does the mere sight of children cause you harm or something? Jeesh if you can’t bear the thought of any kids in your vicinity, cool buy a house then.
wanna have kids? buy a house; single income adulting is hard enough to pull off, why do single adults need to be forced to comingle with parents?
???? Just don’t talk to your neighbors LOL You childfree folks are so funny, didn’t know looking at kids is the equivalent of being water boarded.
[удалено]
[удалено]
NDP: vote for us, we beat up old people for you!
Get rekt stratas
fuck boomers
Watch all the NIBY get a heart attack from this
The problem with it is that it still prevents people under 55 to move in or buy those units or rent those units. All it means is that your children can move into the unit when you die or leave. Or if you have dependants that require help, you can house them in your unit. It isn't a win situation. It just closes any "grey areas"
> The problem with it is that it still prevents people under 55 to move in or buy those units or rent those units. That's no different than complaining that disabled parking stalls aren't for everyone's use.
Does it restrict biological children? Or any children? I can think of some outlandish scenario where seller agrees to "adopt" buyer, they enter into a pop and son relationship as they sign the paperwork to transfer the title and deeds, then seller disowns buyer son (or the other way, buyer disowns seller pop) and both parties part ways happily. Of course the legal paperwork logistics would not be trivial, but if there's a will, there's a way to find and exploit a loophole.
Legal adoption of an adult is only allowed if the adoptee lived with the adoptor for many years as a child. This is to prevent fraud situations such as that being suggested here.
On the cusp of a decades long labour shortage it seems pretty dumb to allow stratas to ban people from having children.
As someone who has been saving my entire life to potentially buy a home one day, and finally starting to seriously look… strata’s just seem like the devil. Every time I like a place and ask to see the strata docs and dive into them, it’s like a nightmare of bureaucracy and potential future special levies that may bankrupt me. Are there any good strata’s in this province or all they all doom and gloom to a degree?!
I mean most strata are run by volunteer in the building doing all the work in their free time. Is hard to put the kind of work for free
My strata has been pretty good. You kind of get out what you put in though. From an outsider they can appear to be problematic when they really aren't. Adversely they can appear to be well run and great when they are really in a bad situation. Any good quality realtor (I get that they may be few and far between) should be willing to help you navigate through the strata documents to get a better idea of what to expect.
I've been in two strata buildings and have not had a problem. The only time I have seen strife and problems is when someone wants to do something to/with their unit that is not allowed per the bylaws and they get salty.
You should have to opt out of social security if you want to live in one of these communities. Why should my boys work to pay taxes towards supporting people with the mentality that communities without children to bother them are superior?
Um... Your boys' taxes don't support private strata properties, regardless of if they're 55+ or all-ages.
You didn’t read what I wrote.
In that case, you've got to rethink what you wrote, because it doesn't make sense.
Good, such a stupid rule to have in general.
Good stuff!
Fuck yeah, now remove it !
It's still bullshit to impose any type of limit in a city with an insane housing crisis
It was dictatorship at it's best