18 responses so far ↓

• 1 Dan Cooper // Sep 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm

  Just posted my thoughts (such as they are) about this on the previous thread. To sum up, and to borrow a phrase from the emininent Donald Rumsfeld, “You go to war with the army [or building manager] you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Especially if it appears that the options available later will be the same as now.

• 2 Frank Murphy // Sep 29, 2010 at 12:16 pm

  Frances, you’re probably aware of Millennium’s ongoing trouble in Nanaimo. $3+ million BC Supreme Court judgement against them, fees to be repaid to the City for failure to build a hotel component which was to be part of the original conference centre project.

  http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=774bdf70-85b0-41f5-86c6-388ded1bf9d1

• 3 jesse // Sep 29, 2010 at 12:24 pm

  So for the benefit of people who aren’t familiar with BC Housing’s mandate, was the City trying to throw one past BC Housing, or is there something else going on?

• 4 George // Sep 29, 2010 at 12:31 pm

  jesse,
  go to City Caucus and read the most recent posting from Trish…..don’t know if it is serious or not, but…it certainly has a ring of scary to it…

• 5 Tiktaalik // Sep 29, 2010 at 1:23 pm

  You’d think this sort of thing would have been organized prior to the building being built.

• 6 Wendy // Sep 29, 2010 at 2:14 pm

  Tiktaalik makes an excellent point. Why was a management arrangement not determined at the beginning?

  Or, did all potential groups avoid it? whether for fear of being associated with the Olympics, or because of the “Green” technologies, or the “high end” finishings?

  Or did a group who was supposed to manage it back out?

  Anyone know?

• 7 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm

  Amen Tiktaalik, I often think the same thing when I ponder how it was that leaky condos became epidemic.

• 8 Frances Bula // Sep 29, 2010 at 5:41 pm

  Hi Wendy and Tiktaalik

  I asked Geoff Meggs that question just now, because when you raised it, it seemed odd to me. All of of the current BC Housing projects in Vancouver have non-profit operators already chosen for each building, even though some of them haven’t dug out a teaspoonful of dirt yet.

  Theoretically, the operator could have been chosen a long, long time ago — as far back as when developer was chosen, i.e. in 2006. The non-profit could have worked with the developer and city on the design.

  Geoff said it’s hard to pick an operator when it’s unclear what the building’s final cost is going to be. As construction costs kept going up, the city kept having to do recalculations about how much of a subsidy it could afford. (Remember, originally, the city thought it could subsidize all 252 apartments because it was donating the land and the federal government was donating $30 million, meaning that the rent would only have to cover operating costs.)

  It’s hard to get a non-profit operator on board if you keep telling them that you’re not quite sure how it’s all going to work financially.

  But all of that is partly a guess, as we don’t really know what the previous administration thought.

• 9 ITK // Sep 29, 2010 at 6:03 pm

  Frances, why don’t you just ask the 5 previous councillors who are still on Council: Louie, Stevenson, Chow, Deal and Anton. I know Vision likes to blame Sam Sullivan and the NPA for everything, but, their hands sure aren’t clean in this matter.

  Also, why is it now acceptable for all these in-camera meetings about the OV when Vision used that against the NPA to help them win the last election, and specifically promised not to do that? I heard Gregor say it himself, along with nearly every Vision/COPE candidate.

• 10 bob dylan // Sep 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm

  Wouldn’t the Vision Councilors from the previous administration be able to give us some information on what they were considering, Louie, Deal Chow etc. It would be interesting to hear from them…

• 11 Frances Bula // Sep 29, 2010 at 6:59 pm

  @ITK. I made a quick phone call to try to get a quick answer. Geoff did not actually put any blame on the previous council. All he said was it’s hard to pick non-profit operators when the numbers are moving. True for the last council, true for this one. I didn’t make a dozen extra phone calls because I’m in pursuit of something else and I put up my previous note as a courtesy.

• 12 toc tik // Sep 29, 2010 at 8:44 pm

  As I’ve said on City Caucus, VV knew from December, 2008 when elected, they had to hand over the OV in March, 2010. They knew the final costs +/-1% @ the end of 2009. If Vision had had a plan in place then they had 3 months to tender the social housing before March. It didn’t happen but, VV did have time to spend a few thousand dollars on videos of the Mayor @ the time. They knew $300,000 a month was going out the door. This shows a serious disregard for the trust the public puts in those they elect.

  In the Global interview with Gregor tonight he said he didn’t ‘know what went wrong’. Really? He’s the Mayor, I think, he’s supposed to be on top of these things.

  Some have suggested VV’s requirements inserted into BC Housings RFP sunk it. Would like to hear what others think about this aspect.

• 13 Tim Latanville // Sep 29, 2010 at 8:54 pm

  Frances,

  (To be accurate, the Co-op Housing “Federation, a long-established and solid non-profit, was fine, but that group wants to run the mainly market-unit building as a co-op and that’s not something that BC Housing needs to get involved with.)”

  Actually, it was written right into the RPF by BC Housing that a coop would be looked at. And it’s part of BC Housings mandate to deal with CMHC coop related proposals. Rich Coleman is out on a cliff on this one, they should have looked at it as they asked for it. It would be totally appropriate, acceptable and within BC Housing mandate to deal with a co-op there.

• 14 jesse // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:50 pm

  @Tim Latanville: “It would be totally appropriate, acceptable and within BC Housing mandate to deal with a co-op there.”

  Hmmm. I sense a follow-up story. BC Housing is involved in cooperatives so I agree Coleman’s statement is a bit odd.

  @Frances Bula: “All he said was it’s hard to pick non-profit operators when the numbers are moving.”

  So if the “numbers are moving” it means the tender is likely unprofitable. What is the City really trying to do here? Get an unusually large handout from BC Housing, or are they still in denial that the building costs don’t have much bearing on the going rate for subsidized dwelling leases and management?

• 15 Frances Bula // Sep 29, 2010 at 10:15 pm

  @ jesse. I must not be writing my stories clearly enough. The city was not asking for any money from BC Housing. All that BC Housing was contributing was 1. running the bid process for them and 2. a guarantee for the $46 million the non-profits would have to borrow to pre-pay the leases. There were no subsidies. The city is providing the land and the buildings and is setting the leases at a low rate for two of the buildings, so the units can be rented out at below-market rates.

• 16 Tim Latanville // Sep 30, 2010 at 12:28 pm

  Frances,

  Why would Rich Coleman say to you that the co-op proposal was not part of his mandate when it was written directly into the RFP?

• 17 Jon Petrie // Sep 30, 2010 at 4:50 pm

  Per Frances Bula // Sep 29, 2010 >> The city is providing the land and the buildings and is setting the leases at a low rate for two of the buildings, so the units can be rented out at below-market rates.<<
  The third building is mainly market rental. [Question: what per cent ?]
  We, the taxpayers are loosing $150,000 a month on the empty market rental apartments.

  Make the third buiding all market rental and start renting them out tomorrow morning.

• 18 Frances Bula // Sep 30, 2010 at 6:45 pm

  @ Tim. That is weird. I just realized that today.

  But don’t worry Tim, between me and everyone, we’ll get to the bottom of this. (Mm, not?)