Naramata family being evicted

[twobits]

Good point. The time fame for an owner or owner family member was two months notice.

Thing is Naramata is a nice place to live. Rentals are scarce and once one is found there really is no guarantee it will be forever...

And that is likely what the tenant got for notice. How did this thread ever become a topic of discussion for a property owner exercising their legal rights. "The Dad" was not booted out with furniture moved to the curb in a week. He was given proper notice as required by law. Now, according to some social advocacts, the owner is an evil insensitive person???
For lord's sake, the definition of "rental" means temporary occupancy of someone else's property. It does not include a right to occupancy beyond agreed terms, which had expired, nor a moral obligation to continue renter/landlord relationship.

[myperson]

Proper notice was given. Again the issue is that the owners will not be occupying until August at the earliest. The house will be empty as of March 1st onwards. So while the house sits empty this family goes homeless as there is nothing available. Legal? Yes. Morally right? Definitely no. Sure the owner has the right to do what they want with their home, but has the human race really gotten this bad??

[Anonymous123]

Proper notice was given. Again the issue is that the owners will not be occupying until August at the earliest. The house will be empty as of March 1st onwards. So while the house sits empty this family goes homeless as there is nothing available. Legal? Yes. Morally right? Definitely no. Sure the owner has the right to do what they want with their home, but has the human race really gotten this bad??

There could be any myriad of reasons why the tenant has to get out by March 1st. Maybe it's cheaper to demolish the house at the same time he's digging the foundations. Or, as I said earlier, maybe the owner will stay in the house during construction. The landlord is as immoral as he/she is illegal.

[myperson]

Proper notice was given. Again the issue is that the owners will not be occupying until August at the earliest. The house will be empty as of March 1st onwards. So while the house sits empty this family goes homeless as there is nothing available. Legal? Yes. Morally right? Definitely no. Sure the owner has the right to do what they want with their home, but has the human race really gotten this bad??

There could be any myriad of reasons why the tenant has to get out by March 1st. Maybe it's cheaper to demolish the house at the same time he's digging the foundations. Or, as I said earlier, maybe the owner will stay in the house during construction. The landlord is as immoral as he/she is illegal.

Their new house is half framed as noted above. And also noted above the owner will not occupy until Aug at the earliest. The only reason why they are being evicted is because the lease was up and the owner doesn't want to bother with allowing month to month as they fear the ALC will penalize them some way. Also noted above are the details of the ALC bylaw regarding occupation of said home during and after construction. The landlord is both legal and immoral. They are big money people planning to live in their $3million home for only 2-3 months of the year. Not allowing a small family, who work locally, go to school locally and are involved in the local community to stick around for an extra few months to find a home is immoral.

[Even Steven]

The landlord is both legal and immoral. They are big money people planning to live in their $3million home for only 2-3 months of the year. Not allowing a small family, who work locally, go to school locally and are involved in the local community to stick around for an extra few months to find a home is immoral.

The entitlement in this issue is beyond me. How can you be such a greedy jerk where everybody owes a place to live in a location of your choosing? Jesus, some people.

[LTD]

makes me think twice about building a second home on my property before ya know it the tenant will tell me i no longer own it

[Gixxer]

Sorry about their luck. Seems like they'll have to find a new place to call home.

[OllyV]

Proper notice was given. Again the issue is that the owners will not be occupying until August at the earliest. The house will be empty as of March 1st onwards. So while the house sits empty this family goes homeless as there is nothing available. Legal? Yes. Morally right? Definitely no. Sure the owner has the right to do what they want with their home, but has the human race really gotten this bad??

You should offer them a place to stay.

You have the right not to I suppose but shouldn't you morally try and do something?

[southy]

Morally .... Humm interesting word for sure especially out in Naramata. Perhaps those folks operating Naramata Centre could have been asked the same question. Morality and Christianity go hand in hand do they not? Of course I'm talking about the other Naramata eviction ... The single mom with 2 kids. I wonder if Naramata Centre being the good Christian organization they claim let her stay or was she given the boot as well.

[fluffy]

Morally .... Humm interesting word for sure...

I think we’ll see rising conflict in coming years between varying ideas on what is morally right and wrong. Skyrocketing housing costs in the Okanogan along with more and more people having trouble getting by is already leading to situations where the “have nots” feel justified in dictating to the “haves” over what debt of morality the latter owes the former.

[twobits]

I think we’ll see rising conflict in coming years between varying ideas on what is morally right and wrong. Skyrocketing housing costs in the Okanogan along with more and more people having trouble getting by is already leading to situations where the “have nots” feel justified in dictating to the “haves” over what debt of morality the latter owes the former.

Are you suggesting "the meek shall inherit the earth"? Or should it be "those that do not seek to better their own outcomes" become a majority because they can do quite well living off of the people that choose to improve their outcomes in life.

[fluffy]

Well this isn't the first local story where someone is trying to paint the property owner as the bad guy in the media in order to hang on to a rental. I'm not saying I agree with it one way or the other, it's a complicated issue, just that it's happening already and likely to happen more and more as it becomes increasingly expensive to live here.

If you look at things like income disparity and a shrinking middle class it starts to paint a disturbing picture of just where the current direction our society is moving will take us ultimately. How we label it is, for the most part, a function of our individual political views which are highly influenced by the level of financial "success" we have attained. That being said, there are signs of growing unrest among lower income members of society and it is finding a focus on the highest income earners. Is this a passing burp or is it going to grow into something more sinister? Maybe I'll try to find some time to read up on the Russian Revolution.

[twobits]

Well this isn't the first local story where someone is trying to paint the property owner as the bad guy in the media in order to hang on to a rental. I'm not saying I agree with it one way or the other, it's a complicated issue, just that it's happening already and likely to happen more and more as it becomes increasingly expensive to live here.

If you look at things like income disparity and a shrinking middle class it starts to paint a disturbing picture of just where the current direction our society is moving will take us ultimately. How we label it is, for the most part, a function of our individual political views which are highly influenced by the level of financial "success" we have attained. That being said, there are signs of growing unrest among lower income members of society and it is finding a focus on the highest income earners. Is this a passing burp or is it going to grow into something more sinister? Maybe I'll try to find some time to read up on the Russian Revolution.

Rents are at historical highs. And that is a pure reflection of demand, market values, and the return required to support that investment for and in a rental market.
What has lagged in the Okanagan is wages. And when businesses cannot find labour because there is a shortage of people because they cannot afford to live here, wages will increase or the business will close.
We actually have relatively reasonable rent rates compared to Kelowna. Vancouver rents are absurd but the vacancy rate is still 1%.
People have to choose where they can afford to live with the skill set they bring to the table and if those skill sets become absent in highrent markets and they are needed, the wages will be bid up. Government's tinkering with either rent controls or min wages has never, and will never, change basic market forces for rent rates or wage rates.
That's why a barista in New York makes 90k yr and a black coffee is 9 bucks in Manhattan.

[fluffy]

People have to choose where they can afford to live with the skill set they bring to the table and if those skill sets become absent in highrent markets and they are needed, the wages will be bid up. Government's tinkering with either rent controls or min wages has never, and will never, change basic market forces for rent rates or wage rates.
That's why a barista in New York makes 90k yr and a black coffee is 9 bucks in Manhattan.

Is that what the future holds for Penticton? Is that what we want?

Leaving our fate to market forces comes part and parcel with capitalism, but the lag between rising costs and rising wages is what is leaving many on the sidelines. How many private sector employers offer something as simple as an annual cost-of-living increase? How many local landlords increase rental rates based on what the market will bear even when their expenses remain relatively static?

It's easy to thumb our noses at things like crime rates and homelessness saying "They brought it on themselves" or "Get a job", but beyond the surface aren't the increases in those areas indicative of a deeper problem?

But I'm straying from my original point, that of entitlement, both where it is coming from and where it will take us. The simple fact that people are in effect willing to stand in front of a camera and proclaim a right to what legally belongs to someone else is at best an alarm bell. At the risk of oversimplifying, it raises the question of just what debt of responsibility the rich owe the poor in a so-called progressive society?

[seewood]

How many local landlords increase rental rates based on what the market will bear even when their expenses remain relatively static?

Not sure what "relatively" static is... taxes and insurance are continually going up. Any other costs involved such as maintenance are also going up as perhaps the workers received a...pay raise.

Being evicted in a legal manner sucks I'm sure. Finding a rental in this market I'm sure is an extremely stressful situation.
I hope this fellow does find something but Naramata and the number of vacation rentals makes any long term rental virtually impossible. As a side note, about 30% of the houses are considered "dark houses" in that they are not lived in on a year long basis.