So this is Christmas

[twobits]

I'm extremely happy that the woman and her two children will get to stay in their home. I'm even more happy that Naramata centre got caught on this one. They deserve everything they get!

Did the Naramata Center get called on their bluff and the family is allowed to stay? I have not seen any follow up story on that.

[southy]

Sorry Twobits .. After everything you've said of the new rules I assumed the centre would not have a leg to stand on and this woman will be allow to stay. Will watch for more on this story.

[pentona]

Did the Naramata Center get called on their bluff and the family is allowed to stay? I have not seen any follow up story on that.

Very good question. I am sure that several different media outlets read these forums. If the new tenancy rules will prevent the Na. Centre from evicting this family, so be it, if it is indeed the law.

I don't have much use for any organization, especially a Church oriented one that would be evict a needy family.

[twobits]

I don't have much use for any organization, especially a Church oriented one that would be evict a needy family.

I don't either but that was not my reason for commenting. I have an inherent dislike for anyone trying to abuse legitimate process and law as it is. That includes tenants BTW and speaking as a landlord. I perceived a situation where this woman was being taken advantage of by an organization that clearly should have been aware of their legal rights and obligations and chose instead to strongarm in hopes she would not understand her rights and cave.
We won't know if she learned it here, (I doubt it) but if she is staying, then someone else must have made her or the Naramata Center aware that they were trying to enforce an illegal eviction.

[fluffy]

...then someone else must have made her or the Naramata Center aware that they were trying to enforce an illegal eviction.

Has it been established that the eviction is indeed illegal? The only reference in the Western article as to the Naramata Centre’s intended use for the property is “staff housing”, which could very well fit into the new regs.

[twobits]

Has it been established that the eviction is indeed illegal? The only reference in the Western article as to the Naramata Centre’s intended use for the property is “staff housing”, which could very well fit into the new regs.

Considering that recent news said that she will be able to remain it would mean one of two things. They did not specify that eviction could happen if the need for "staff" housing was required.....which is unlikely given the length of her past tenancy, or that they have been made aware of the new NDP laws regarding lease expiration being grounds for eviction and realized they were hooped.
I would guess is was the latter..

[fluffy]

I beg to differ. The new regs are clear in allowable reasons for eviction including housing for "caretakers or managers". That gives them plenty of wiggle room there. If they have changed their minds my guess is that it would be due to potential loss of face by giving the current tenant the heave-ho since she took her case to the court of public opinion. Churches are like politicians in that there are always people who want to take a shot at them simply because of who they are, principle and/or word of law be damned.

I’m all for measures to put the dampers on rapacious landlords, I just don’t think that reason applies in this case.

[southy]

I beg to differ. The new regs are clear in allowable reasons for eviction including housing for "caretakers or managers". That gives them plenty of wiggle room there. If they have changed their minds my guess is that it would be due to potential loss of face by giving the current tenant the heave-ho since she took her case to the court of public opinion. Churches are like politicians in that there are always people who want to take a shot at them simply because of who they are, principle and/or word of law be damned.

I’m all for measures to put the dampers on rapacious landlords, I just don’t think that reason applies in this case.

Fluffy .. You may want to do alittle investigating on this organization. Then you may understand why people want to take a shot at them. The centre has numerous accommodations for staff .. Why are they keying in on this home?

[seewood]

Fluffy .. You may want to do alittle investigating on this organization. Then you may understand why people want to take a shot at them. The centre has numerous accommodations for staff .. Why are they keying in on this home?

A reason might be some of the other suitable accommodations might be on parcels of land that are being proposed for sale.
Naramata center has proposed a sell off of land no longer required.

[southy]

Seewood, either you know something about naramata centre or you don't (I'm not quite sure yet) however, that being said naramata centre has numerous and I say numerous other buildings that are suitable for staff and no these buildings are not part of their proposed sell-off. Maybe though ... just maybe the house in question is. Just saying. Oh by the way .. I don't trust anything these people or anyone connected to them say ... did I mention they are shameful, just shameful. Not good people.

[seewood]

Southy, I know people that used to work there and were affected by the strike and shut downs. I agree I am not a supporter of the facility and their never ending quest for volunteers to do the work others were paid a living wage to do.
There are parcels there that are being proposed to be sold. The purchasers would have to get re-zoning as all are zoned institutional. Septic is another issue there as Naramata is not on a sewer system and likely won't for some time to come.

Seewood, either you know something about naramata centre or you don't (I'm not quite sure yet)

Used to,( main office building should be condemned for example) not so much now as I just don't care....
There are numerous single dwellings on the properties, some suitable for habitation and some not...

[lexie44]

I'm curious as to what you think will happen with all the vacation rentals that are currently advertised for rent from Jan-June. There are lots of ads on Kijiji that state they are short term rentals that will end on June 30 or so. Pretty sure the owners are not going to be moving in for good. Likely they will be renting out the place weekly or at best using it over the summer as a second home and then renting it out again over the winter months with another fixed lease. Wouldn't this go against the RTOs new regulations?

[twobits]

I'm curious as to what you think will happen with all the vacation rentals that are currently advertised for rent from Jan-June. There are lots of ads on Kijiji that state they are short term rentals that will end on June 30 or so. Pretty sure the owners are not going to be moving in for good. Likely they will be renting out the place weekly or at best using it over the summer as a second home and then renting it out again over the winter months with another fixed lease. Wouldn't this go against the RTOs new regulations?

No it won't go against the RTA as long as they are operating under the Hotel and Motel Act and rental agreement up front is a month to month under that Act. This is where it gets complicated because While the Hotel Act (think it might be called or in past called the Innkeeper Act) allows for seasonal monthly rentals, the Residential Act has been determined by case law to apply to residents of these motel/hotel/resort properties if the rentals are not of seasonal nature. The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver Hotels created this cross jurisdictional dilema and the Courts stepped in and determined they were tenants of housing units, not temporary occupants that would be typical of an off season rental, and as such, were under the protection of the RTA. There are plenty of older Motels in Penticton that have gone to yr round rentals and are now bound by RTA rules as opposed to Innkeeper rules.
So Fluff, I beg to differ in your assessment that the Center "has an out for management housing" because the Center has already rented to this woman for a number of years...was it not 4yrs?.....and thus clearly set the conditions for being under the legislation of the RTA as a provider of a housing unit and not a seasonal rental. It was not the court of public opinion that got the Center to capitulate, it was the law and they were either ignorant of it or hoped she would just comply with the eviction notice and move. I am not sure which one is the case but I would not be surprised if a volunteer board as the Center likely has, doesn't have a member that is savvy in rental laws. Me thinks they have just realized the pickle they are in with the lease agreement they entered into combined with the new NDP law that ended termination of tenancy on fixed term leases.

[fluffy]

Fluffy .. You may want to do alittle investigating on this organization. Then you may understand why people want to take a shot at them.

It's certainly not hard to tell that you have some strong feelings against this organization, and you are entitled to them. I'm neither here nor there in that arena as I don't have enough info. My point from the start has been with governments legislating personal choice out of the equation in situations that don't require "fixing", and that is what I see going on here.

I suppose there is another conversation to be had over people who turn to the media to stir up emotions and rally support for a cause when the law may not be on their side, but maybe some other day.

[twobits]

My point from the start has been with governments legislating personal choice out of the equation in situations that don't require "fixing", and that is what I see going on here.

But is that not what the NDP has just done? They have taken personal choice out of fixed term leases even if both parties agreed to it. The NDP have in fact pretty much made a lease for tenancy impossible with regards to term. All a tenancy lease is now is a rule sheet on how often the lawn must be cut because everything else is in the RTA.