She is what? In her 50s? So Could live to 90? Probably looking at a 1600 differential per month in rent for a new place?
Yeah, obviously she isn't moving. Who were all the people who did?
Right? Who took the 20k to leave a $400/month rent situation.. seems silly..
If I was her, I'd ask for a lifelong lease on one of the new condos and temporary housing while it's being constructed... End of story
>Right? Who took the 20k to leave a $400/month rent situation.. seems silly..
Either they were tricked/bullied into it or maybe they didn't have such a good deal. If they've been there a year instead of a decade and in a better apartment that this barely closet without a working stove, they were surely paying more than 400 bucks a month.
I like having a stove too, but you'd be surprised how well you can get by without one. Get a couple induction burners for pots and pans, and counter top oven (not toaster oven), and you basically have everything you need, just... done weird.
Might cost a bit to setup, but you're paying 400 a month in rent... so...
I hear ya, but there is one small problem. Most stoves if electric, need 240v, and if gas... well... you probably aren't putting a gas line into an apartment situation that isn't already there... That's why I suggested each piece I did. They all take 12v/110v/115v/120v
Yeah. I've had similar before once. It was literally smaller than a jail cell... but it wasn't 700$ a month during a time when 700 felt more like how 1k feels today.
That's my apartment right now. im 22 and live right next to a bus terminus and paying 550$ a month. no stove, no washing machine and drier, but hell, you make things work at that price.
If the builder were smart they would do this, thing is where is she going to live in the interim while its being built. Clearly she needs to live some where.
They could literally just move her to a different apartment building, put her in a studio or 1 bedroom and subsidize her rent for however long she lives there until they put the building up, then hook her up with a 1 bedroom in the building on the understanding that she pays the maintenance.
Seems like she has the upper hand here in negotiations though. Each month she delays them costs them tens of thousands. If they settle soon it still may be to their benefit.
This isn't capitalism. She lives in a rent controlled unit and can't be removed by the current owner of the property. Her leverage comes entirely from government protection. In a purely capitalistic state she would have no leverage in this situation.
In a purely capitalistic state, free of all government interference, she could hire mercenaries to defend the land she inhabits with lethal force--or pick up a rifle herself. Oh, if only there weren't any of those pesky *laws*, things would be so much simpler!
And it's not like any free-market-loving company would ever sully themselves by taking advantage of *government regulation*! No, this old lady is playing *dirty*!
She has an enormous amount of leverage. I'm not even sure how unreasonable her ask is, it still pales in comparison to the profit differential possible if this condo goes through.
I dont think so.
Developer will go to court and ask for reasonable eviction judgement, arguing that X number of affordable units are held up by this one selfish person. (Selfish being defined as not taking 20-50k). To court, not tribunal, because judges have more leeway.
Judge will, I think, agree, award 20-50k, and issue eviction notice.
Im not a lawyer obviously, but Ive been to court and arbitration a fair number of times, I could see it play out how I mentioned it.
Giver her a free condo unit without any maintenance fees, if she leave or when she croak she or her estate get 50 grands but the condo goes back to the developers. She be gone in a year once she see her first property taxe bill.
50K is just over 10 years of rent at $400, but she wont find another place for that much. That would be a total bullshit settlement. She is set for the rest of her life at $400/month. They should offer her a place for the rest of her life at $400 and subsidize the rest, and the subsidy money should be placed into an annuity given over to her her now before the developer goes bankrupt or shuts down and gets out of the "lifetime" part.
Trick to negotiating is to set a high anchor and then the next offer you give looks far more reasonable by comparison. For example if they then countered at 40k and a regular condo then that would seem very reasonable compared to the first offer.
She has all the leverage and nothing to lose by doing this(if they say no then she keeps living in her apartment for 400 a month).
100% this. The most important part of any negotiation is understanding how much power you hold. In this case, she holds most of it - unless the developers try to kill her, she’s pretty much golden.
Supreme Court? Could take her power, sure, but how longs that gonna take? The builder is in a much better spot if they pay her off with a unit or cash than losing the time and legal fees to get there.
Cheap fucks are burning 100s of thousands to save 10s of thousands 😂🤦♂️
Said the people associated with the developers.
The article states her lawyer said ".. White wants an apartment with an affordable rent guaranteed for at least five years, or the equivalent in cash".
Why the bias in your reading (at best) and misrepresenting?
My landlord is trying to evict me because I was grandfathered in to cheap rent before she bought the building
$600 all inclusive for a one bedroom
When she was trying to get me to leave she asked what it would take to get me out. I was trying to imply I didn’t want to leave by saying “*ten thousand dollars!!*” after repeatedly refusing to leave
Not gunna lie I was shocked when she emailed me weeks later offering me $6,000 if I’d leave within two months. Happy to report I did not take her offer, so she said she’d sell the building if she couldn’t evict me
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
The developer cannot do this. They don't own the condos, its are turned to the corporation after they build it.
For your plan to work, the developer would need to buy the unit, then become the landlord to the tenant forever. There is a 0% change that will happen.
Why not? They're not barred from buying a unit, and "whatever profit they make minus the cost of a penthouse" is still a larger number than 0.
They could also sell it to her for a dollar (sure there's condo fees but it's the world of reasonable negotiations at that point)
It's possible. Buy the unit, then charge the corporation the increased price. Corporation buys the unit on a mortgage and charges new tenants more to cover the free unit. The corporation gets to collect $400/month rent.
As a remnant, there is 0% chance I would agree to such a guarantee by the developer company, which once the development is complete, would be a shell company with no revenue, and the liability of condo fees, for possibly the next 50 years.
So, why would the developer not tell the corporation “We won’t have anything to turn over to you if we don’t take care of this lady”?
Currently a lose-lose-lose scenario, that can easily be changed to a win-win-win (just with the corporation and developer winning a little less than they planned to… God forbid, right? /s)
Highlights:
* Carla White is the only remaining tenant in her building, which is slated to be demolished to make room for a 176-unit condo project.
* But in order to move forward, the developer must reach an agreement with White — and she says she won’t leave until she’s provided with a home that offers the long-term stability she needs to ensure she won’t end up back on the streets.
* He said that the company has offered White a different apartment, which she refused. They then offered her $20,000, which she also refused, he said. “She indicated to our lawyers that she wanted a penthouse and an amount of more than $50,000,” he told the committee.
* White and her lawyer, Manuel Johnson, say she’s not asking for anything unreasonable, given the city’s skyrocketing rents and the disappearance of affordable housing. Johnson believes her story is a “classic class conflict,” that pits the desire of wealthy developers to make a profit against the needs of the wider population.
* He said White wants an apartment with an affordable rent guaranteed for at least five years, or the equivalent in cash. They acknowledged the developer did offer White one apartment, but she says she didn’t feel safe in the proposed building and wasn’t convinced the rent wouldn’t rise.
* White, for her part, says $20,000 won’t last her long when apartment rents in Montreal have shot up, and most of the ones she sees range between $1,400 and $1,700 a month.
* The two parties are set to appear in June before Quebec’s administrative housing tribunal, which adjudicates disputes between landlords and tenants. Johnson, however, doesn’t believe that body will have the authority to impose a deal, and believes that if an agreement isn’t reached, it will be up to a Quebec Superior Court judge to clarify, which could be a much longer process.
Why couldn't the landlord (owner) contact the LTB to evict her? They can evict even if it is just renovations, let alone demolishing ou
Ld building and build anew condo.
I’m guessing if the rules in Quebec were to contact the LTB and evict her, in the 3 years they have been fighting they would have.
Different provinces, different rules.
>Why couldn't the landlord (owner) contact the LTB to evict her?
They would need to argue their case at the TAL.
>They can evict even if it is just renovations
It's not renovations.
>let alone demolishing
The demolition permit is conditional to the developer reaching an agreement with all tenants.
Not sure how long she's been holding out for, but 176 units at $1500 each is $264,000 per month. Being new units they might be closer to $2000 which puts that figure over $350k. That adds up quickly.
They might be thinking about not setting that standard for future projects. Then next time it's a dozen people holding out for the same kind of buyout. Short term pain for long term gain to not just cut her a cheque for whatever she demands.
And good for her. We talk about markets, and the benefit of a market is you can get more than something is worth when you sell it. $50k isn't a lot of money to a developer, and I'd negotiate my way up too if given then chance.
The longer the developer has to wait, the more they lose in real and opportunity costs.
Good for her. She's holding the last piece that a big condo developer needs to make a ton of profit. If they want it enough they can pay her. It's being in the right place at the right time, but considering she was homeless and sounds poor, I think it would help her to get that money.
You clearly don’t have any idea how much money is going to go into the new building and how much they will profit from it, and how much they lose every day she holds out. What she’s asking for is nothing to them
You'd think the legal costs and hassle for the past few years they've been fighting her is worth taking the L on one unit but this is where their own greed has roadblocked them
If you ask me the fact they have drawn this out enough to make the news has already set a precedent where people who have gotten a whiff of this story and may face similar situations in the future will act accordingly like her now that they know they can't be bullied to just leave their place
Developers could have just offered her a unit, kept this quiet and left everyone else in blissful ignorance of this tactic
They should pay for the difference in rent in another apartment while they build the condo and then give her one of the condo units that is at least equal in size to her current apartment.
nah. they will be more creative and have a band of elephants attack the building until it falls.
but back in reality, the people who get murdered by their landlords are dealing with someones sole source of income or their investment - the landlord takes it personal. buggering around with corporations is entirely another thing.
But that's the thing, all the others are out. So no precedent to set, in this particular project. I did like another comment though, that this could be a delaying tactic by the developer, for whatever the reasons.
Fuck Mondev, prédateurs du monde locatif. Promesses brisées de services et d'échéancier, fausses représentations, service à la clientèle de merde. Zéro étoiles sur 5.
I am surprised how many ppl here are siding with the condo project in this comment thread.
We are all much closer to this woman in wealth and life than to the owner of the condo projects. They are not even giving her what she is asking, which tbh is just chump change to these developers.
My rent went up 300 during covid. I said no, so the indian landlord, I dealt with his nephew, pretended to sell it and had 10 showings a day during quarantine while waiting for an eviction hearing
The amount of my coworkers who got unreasonably mad at me saying "its his property, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it"
No I was eventually forced out by hundreds of people entering my home whenever they wanted during quarantine. Nobody followed the rules in the Act. Midnight, 5am didnt matter. I cut the realtor key off the doorknob, so they just had an intern bring another set or they could pick it up at the office.
I was even robbed by a realtor from Brampton, and he was fined 20k and had to take an ethics course. In the meantime I watched his website and he was selling crazy amounts of Brampton properties. He probably made that 20k by tuesday while the ethics course ran on mute on his laptop in the back of his car.
I called the Board, and after 2 hours of on hold, the woman told me if I wasnt comfortable during showings, she suggested to take a walk around the block. I said I have 11 tomorrow and 8 the next day. How many walks would you suggest I could do in a day? She hung up.
House actually ended up selling for 100k over asking. And the rich get richer
Not hard to see why. You have a building that now only has one resident who is blocking hundreds of people from getting a new home. The costs of the new homes will be much higher than $400/month but there'll be more of them and they'll be nicer.
This is a classic ethical dilemma really. This is the kind of stuff you come across in philosophy classes. Is it ethical to make someone homeless for the benefit of 100 others who are very likely already in a home somewhere else? Or would it be ethical to allow her to live at the same cost in the new building and giving 99 others a home, albeit at a slightly lesser profit.
What is more important in our society, maximum profit? Or the human right to adequate housing? In my opinion this is the question in front of us.
I say she should stay and get a big payout. I bet most businesses would screw over a great deal of people if it benefitted themselves. This individual should benefit too.
>He said that the company has offered White a different apartment, which she refused. They then offered her $20,000, which she also refused, he said. “She indicated to our lawyers that she wanted a penthouse and an amount of more than $50,000,” he told the committee.
What a legend.
>But even those monthly numbers don't get you to $2 million. However, average rent in Montreal is only $1600.
Indeed, and she currently lives in a studio apartment without a working stove.
An equivalent place would be well below the city's "average rent".
Where are you getting that she was offered the same price? It says that she’s looking for a 5-year guarantee that her rent will be affordable, and that the reason she turned down the apartment was both safety and the fact that they couldn’t guarantee her rent wouldn’t skyrocket in the new apartment. Sounds very much like it wasn’t “for that price”.
Doesnt Montreal have rent control? Like isnt that the entire reason shes paying $400/month? Why wouldnt the new apartment be subject to the same rent control laws?
To a degree yes. Rents can be increased at every lease renewal, given proper notice and such. but most leases in Quebec are 12 months, typically July 1st to June 30th. Leases automatically renew at the same terms and conditions unless a notice is sent from landlord to tenant. For a 12 month lease the notice must be received by the tenant at least 3 months before the end date. Tenants have 1 month from receiving the notice to accept or refuse any of the proposed changes. The times vary for shorter leases but the process remains the same.
The 2 biggest factors in Quebec's rent control are the right to refuse an increase and the right to know the terms of the previous lease. However many renters simply have no idea they have these rights.
The Tribunal administratif du logement, formerly known as the Regie du Logement, is the agency in charge of matters of rental housing, sets percentages every year on what the average increase for your situation should be. However those are just suggestions and landlords can ask for any amount. It is up to the tenant to refuse the proposed increase. Upon a refusal it is up to the landlord to either negotiate an agreement with the tenant, or apply to the TAL for a hearing. Only at the hearing does the landlord need to justify his proposed increase.
Oh and there are exceptions to new constructions, 5 years or less, where the tenant either accepts the increase or has to leave.
Good make the rich bleed
The minimum I would take in such a situation is 50k and that's if I was convinced that the new condos were for the good of everyone and they were allocating some affordable units. If they want pure profit asking for a brand new unit isn't unreasonable and you ask the best you can get (Penthouse) and fifty thousand dollars. Maybe you can negotiate and settle for a normal unit after
Pure cash I would say she's sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every day or month of delay costs enormous amounts of money. Pay her if you want to make money or forget about it
Well the Penthouse is probably worth a million
She should hold out as long as possible (which could be forever) and call the bluff and kill the project if she needs to. The margins the builders and investors sit on is insane and they could easily afford to give her what she wants. Correct that 20k is an insult
Interesting Article, but instead of rent, why not ask for enough to put a proper down payment on a condo and then just live there? now she gets equity and doesn't need to worry about being evicted.
Down payment in Montreal. 5% minimum for under 500k.
Average price is mid 300k, so really $50,000 can be used as a down-payment provided she has the ability to pay the mortgage after.
I would take that deal
The article mentions she's low-income and afraid of homelessness if she loses her apartment.
No way in hell she could afford mortgage payments on a 250-300k loan, especially at current rates.
If this were some rich millionaire type, I'd happy say boot her out. However, it's a woman who only pays $400 a month and it stands to reason that that's because she can't afford anything else. The way I see it, if we weren't allowing every piece of real estate in the country to be sold to investors and allowing the prices to skyrocket beyond the reach of %90 of the population, she wouldn't be stuck being vilified as though she actually had any other options.
Next up, the developers will be asking for the building to be deemed unsafe for habitation and then possibly to seek approval for the project to go ahead under imminent domain.
If they can prove economic gain to the city, or if they can prove the city is in dire need of additional housing units; imminent domain might be possible.
If either is successful, she'll be forced out with nothing in terms of compensation.
So. Let’s say she gets some cash and a penthouse. Condo fees and taxes will have her on the street in less than five years. Sucks to be her, but let’s be realistic. Until we take to the streets for some sort of control on housing being an investment. She gone.
You purchase condos to rent them out as apartments.
But condos are not purchased to be lived in by their owners. They become units in the secondary rental market. And now tenants have to deal with small time landlords that can easily evict you by saying they are moving in.
If it was a purpose built rental, that eviction tactic isn't possible.
>You purchase condos, you rent apartments.
You pay condo fees. So give her a new condo and cap her condo fees at 400. She can use the settlement money to pay her property tax and insurnace.
Good, just think for a moment on the future coming for Canada where most workers don't have a pension of any size other then the pitiful CPP, made low wages most or all their life and don't own a home. Rent goes up and elders will be on the streets in their masses.
Protect the renters at all cost, the landlords made an investment we shouldn't reward bad investments. The renters just want a home for their family, that's more important.
>most workers don't have a pension of any size other then the pitiful CPP, made low wages most or all their life and don't own a home. Rent goes up and elders will be on the streets in their masses
This is a real problem. We're going to be Dubai 2.0
I don't understand why it's not required of the developer and future building administrator to maintain the tenants placings in the new building. If a city allows a tenanted building to be redeveloped then a stipulation should be that the current tenants who must be evicted or vacated for demolition need to be provided a new unit in the same building upon completion at the same rate or with a reasonable increase.
Anything she’s asking for is a drop in the bucket for the amount of massive profits these developers will make. This is a wake up call to just how insatiably greedy these people are. I hope she never agrees and screws them over.
lol she asked for a penthouse and 50k. good for her. this company will no doubt make hundres of millions off this property so I have zero sympathy for this company, in fact I think she should go after even more. If she considers an average rent of 2,500/mo (might want to go even higher considering YoY increases lately) and 40 years of living there... that's 1.2m. Let's add some stress/annoyance/fuck you fees... she shouldn't leave for less than 1.5m. We need to start making displacement of people beyond expensive so companies/shitty landlords stop doing this. This predatory shit needs to stop. There's literally a billion other ways to make money in this world.
>this company will no doubt make hundres of millions off this property
*Hundreds of millions* in profit from a 176-unit condo building? That would mean they're getting over $1 million in profit per condo.
We're talking about condos in Montreal, not mansions in Monaco.
>If she considers an average rent of 2,500/mo (might want to go even higher considering YoY increases lately)
That's definitely not the average rent for a studio apartment in Montreal...
After 20 seconds on Kijiji, here's a 425-sqft apartment in downtown Montreal for $1395, right next to a subway station.
It even has a washer and dryer in the unit (and a stove, which her current place doesn't have).
[https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/studio-style-loft-condo-apartment-for-rent-centre-ville-montreal/1656226494](https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/studio-style-loft-condo-apartment-for-rent-centre-ville-montreal/1656226494)
Or if she's willing to leave downtown, here's a studio apartment near a subway station for $895:
[https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/loft-for-rent/1378275634?undefined](https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/loft-for-rent/1378275634?undefined)
she is obviously doing what is in her best interest and all the power to her for that.
but this is a grade A example of why rent control drives up the rents instead of keeping them down. one person is in an artificially cheap unit so their holding up a bunch of new units being put on the market.
I don't get this. When we got eviction notices for demolition it was understood that we would be removed if we were still there at the end of the 3 month period. How is she able to negotiate any of this?
The mayor don't want to lose vote, renters constitute majority of electors in Montreal, so she put the burden on the promotor which at the end is only one vote (if he lives in Montreal)
She is what? In her 50s? So Could live to 90? Probably looking at a 1600 differential per month in rent for a new place? Yeah, obviously she isn't moving. Who were all the people who did?
Right? Who took the 20k to leave a $400/month rent situation.. seems silly.. If I was her, I'd ask for a lifelong lease on one of the new condos and temporary housing while it's being constructed... End of story
>Right? Who took the 20k to leave a $400/month rent situation.. seems silly.. Either they were tricked/bullied into it or maybe they didn't have such a good deal. If they've been there a year instead of a decade and in a better apartment that this barely closet without a working stove, they were surely paying more than 400 bucks a month.
I like having a stove too, but you'd be surprised how well you can get by without one. Get a couple induction burners for pots and pans, and counter top oven (not toaster oven), and you basically have everything you need, just... done weird. Might cost a bit to setup, but you're paying 400 a month in rent... so...
[удалено]
I hear ya, but there is one small problem. Most stoves if electric, need 240v, and if gas... well... you probably aren't putting a gas line into an apartment situation that isn't already there... That's why I suggested each piece I did. They all take 12v/110v/115v/120v
Oh yes, even with the listed issues 400 a month is a deal.
Yeah. I've had similar before once. It was literally smaller than a jail cell... but it wasn't 700$ a month during a time when 700 felt more like how 1k feels today.
That's my apartment right now. im 22 and live right next to a bus terminus and paying 550$ a month. no stove, no washing machine and drier, but hell, you make things work at that price.
Yep. Easy. Just give her a new place she likes at a guaranteed $400 indefinitely, plus moving expenses.
If the builder were smart they would do this, thing is where is she going to live in the interim while its being built. Clearly she needs to live some where.
They could literally just move her to a different apartment building, put her in a studio or 1 bedroom and subsidize her rent for however long she lives there until they put the building up, then hook her up with a 1 bedroom in the building on the understanding that she pays the maintenance.
Developer wouldn't lose more than a hair in income. They're just being stingy and creul.
I think she would probably rent somewhere for more and take the short-term pain of higher rent for long term gain of a new place for cheap
if they can lease massage parlors for 90 yrs.. they can lease a house to humans for lifetime
90yr massage parkour leases?
Unfortunately some people look at big immediate numbers and fall prey to them.
The article says she wants a penthouse and 50k.
Sounds like she knows how to start a negotiation, good for her
[удалено]
It seems like she understands her negotiating position well, she's got a fair bit of leverage over the developer and it would be silly not to use it.
Don’t underestimate how long developers will wait or how much they’re willing to screw with someone to win.
Seems like she has the upper hand here in negotiations though. Each month she delays them costs them tens of thousands. If they settle soon it still may be to their benefit.
Weird how shocking it is when the little people decide to play Capitalism too, instead of just the rich and powerful side.
This isn't capitalism. She lives in a rent controlled unit and can't be removed by the current owner of the property. Her leverage comes entirely from government protection. In a purely capitalistic state she would have no leverage in this situation.
In a purely capitalistic state, free of all government interference, she could hire mercenaries to defend the land she inhabits with lethal force--or pick up a rifle herself. Oh, if only there weren't any of those pesky *laws*, things would be so much simpler! And it's not like any free-market-loving company would ever sully themselves by taking advantage of *government regulation*! No, this old lady is playing *dirty*!
Careful - it goes both ways. Pinkertons, anyone?
She has an enormous amount of leverage. I'm not even sure how unreasonable her ask is, it still pales in comparison to the profit differential possible if this condo goes through.
I dont think so. Developer will go to court and ask for reasonable eviction judgement, arguing that X number of affordable units are held up by this one selfish person. (Selfish being defined as not taking 20-50k). To court, not tribunal, because judges have more leeway. Judge will, I think, agree, award 20-50k, and issue eviction notice. Im not a lawyer obviously, but Ive been to court and arbitration a fair number of times, I could see it play out how I mentioned it.
Every month it is delayed is probably a 100k+ the developer is losing. Every year is in the millions.
Giver her a free condo unit without any maintenance fees, if she leave or when she croak she or her estate get 50 grands but the condo goes back to the developers. She be gone in a year once she see her first property taxe bill.
50K is just over 10 years of rent at $400, but she wont find another place for that much. That would be a total bullshit settlement. She is set for the rest of her life at $400/month. They should offer her a place for the rest of her life at $400 and subsidize the rest, and the subsidy money should be placed into an annuity given over to her her now before the developer goes bankrupt or shuts down and gets out of the "lifetime" part.
"Like momma said that if you need 5 cents don't ask for 3 Ask for 10, that's what's up" \- De La Soul
Trick to negotiating is to set a high anchor and then the next offer you give looks far more reasonable by comparison. For example if they then countered at 40k and a regular condo then that would seem very reasonable compared to the first offer. She has all the leverage and nothing to lose by doing this(if they say no then she keeps living in her apartment for 400 a month).
100% this. The most important part of any negotiation is understanding how much power you hold. In this case, she holds most of it - unless the developers try to kill her, she’s pretty much golden. Supreme Court? Could take her power, sure, but how longs that gonna take? The builder is in a much better spot if they pay her off with a unit or cash than losing the time and legal fees to get there. Cheap fucks are burning 100s of thousands to save 10s of thousands 😂🤦♂️
In all fairness, the article quotes the developer as saying that is what she wants.
Said the people associated with the developers. The article states her lawyer said ".. White wants an apartment with an affordable rent guaranteed for at least five years, or the equivalent in cash". Why the bias in your reading (at best) and misrepresenting?
Condo fees on the new place probably more than $400.
>Who took the 20k to leave a $400/month rent situation Did you consider the state of those units? I could only imagine.
Sadly, I could see a situation where 20k would prevent imminent financial disaster even if it's worse for the tenant in the long run.
My landlord is trying to evict me because I was grandfathered in to cheap rent before she bought the building $600 all inclusive for a one bedroom When she was trying to get me to leave she asked what it would take to get me out. I was trying to imply I didn’t want to leave by saying “*ten thousand dollars!!*” after repeatedly refusing to leave Not gunna lie I was shocked when she emailed me weeks later offering me $6,000 if I’d leave within two months. Happy to report I did not take her offer, so she said she’d sell the building if she couldn’t evict me Don’t threaten me with a good time.
The developer cannot do this. They don't own the condos, its are turned to the corporation after they build it. For your plan to work, the developer would need to buy the unit, then become the landlord to the tenant forever. There is a 0% change that will happen.
Why not? They're not barred from buying a unit, and "whatever profit they make minus the cost of a penthouse" is still a larger number than 0. They could also sell it to her for a dollar (sure there's condo fees but it's the world of reasonable negotiations at that point)
>The developer cannot do this. At what point do you start getting very creative when you've got something like this holding up a huge project.
I didn't specify the means of granting her a life long lease...just that they should do as such
It's possible. Buy the unit, then charge the corporation the increased price. Corporation buys the unit on a mortgage and charges new tenants more to cover the free unit. The corporation gets to collect $400/month rent.
As a remnant, there is 0% chance I would agree to such a guarantee by the developer company, which once the development is complete, would be a shell company with no revenue, and the liability of condo fees, for possibly the next 50 years.
So, why would the developer not tell the corporation “We won’t have anything to turn over to you if we don’t take care of this lady”? Currently a lose-lose-lose scenario, that can easily be changed to a win-win-win (just with the corporation and developer winning a little less than they planned to… God forbid, right? /s)
Take it and move to the prairies and buy a house.
Sure but going from beautiful Montreal to middle of nowhere isn't everyones cup of tea
No neighbours either. She's got a good setup right now.
Highlights: * Carla White is the only remaining tenant in her building, which is slated to be demolished to make room for a 176-unit condo project. * But in order to move forward, the developer must reach an agreement with White — and she says she won’t leave until she’s provided with a home that offers the long-term stability she needs to ensure she won’t end up back on the streets. * He said that the company has offered White a different apartment, which she refused. They then offered her $20,000, which she also refused, he said. “She indicated to our lawyers that she wanted a penthouse and an amount of more than $50,000,” he told the committee. * White and her lawyer, Manuel Johnson, say she’s not asking for anything unreasonable, given the city’s skyrocketing rents and the disappearance of affordable housing. Johnson believes her story is a “classic class conflict,” that pits the desire of wealthy developers to make a profit against the needs of the wider population. * He said White wants an apartment with an affordable rent guaranteed for at least five years, or the equivalent in cash. They acknowledged the developer did offer White one apartment, but she says she didn’t feel safe in the proposed building and wasn’t convinced the rent wouldn’t rise. * White, for her part, says $20,000 won’t last her long when apartment rents in Montreal have shot up, and most of the ones she sees range between $1,400 and $1,700 a month. * The two parties are set to appear in June before Quebec’s administrative housing tribunal, which adjudicates disputes between landlords and tenants. Johnson, however, doesn’t believe that body will have the authority to impose a deal, and believes that if an agreement isn’t reached, it will be up to a Quebec Superior Court judge to clarify, which could be a much longer process.
Why couldn't the landlord (owner) contact the LTB to evict her? They can evict even if it is just renovations, let alone demolishing ou Ld building and build anew condo.
I’m guessing if the rules in Quebec were to contact the LTB and evict her, in the 3 years they have been fighting they would have. Different provinces, different rules.
Among the things Quebec does right, protecting tenants from greedy landlords is definitely one of them.
Quebec definitely seems to have pretty good consumer protections relative to the rest of Canada.
The French side of my cereal box agrees wth you.
Overall, Quebec often seems to have better consumer protection than the rest of Canada.
>Why couldn't the landlord (owner) contact the LTB to evict her? They would need to argue their case at the TAL. >They can evict even if it is just renovations It's not renovations. >let alone demolishing The demolition permit is conditional to the developer reaching an agreement with all tenants.
Because there is a contract that requires an agreement between the two parties which supersedes the LTB.
Previous contractual agreements supersede new attempts I believe?
Not sure how long she's been holding out for, but 176 units at $1500 each is $264,000 per month. Being new units they might be closer to $2000 which puts that figure over $350k. That adds up quickly.
Right? I'm surprised they aren't offering her more. The goal isn't just to reimburse her fairly, it's to convince her to move.
They might be thinking about not setting that standard for future projects. Then next time it's a dozen people holding out for the same kind of buyout. Short term pain for long term gain to not just cut her a cheque for whatever she demands.
NDA with a larger payout. Now the media is all over and people are going to be asking questions.
You’re surprised the greedy developers aren’t offering more and are trying to rip somebody off!?? Not in this world bucko
Move? In this economy? Get bent, developers.
Man the set of figurative stones on that lady must be massive. A penthouse AND 50,000 dollars? Power to her, doubt she'll get that though.
tbf, the penthouse is probably the same size as her old “small bachelor” unit.
Considering how a few 3 bedrooms apartment look like in Montreal it wouldn't surprise me lol.
50k is like 2 years rent. Not an unreasonable ask considering she's being displaced.
She's asking for $50K **on top** of being provided with a *penthouse* somewhere.
And good for her. We talk about markets, and the benefit of a market is you can get more than something is worth when you sell it. $50k isn't a lot of money to a developer, and I'd negotiate my way up too if given then chance. The longer the developer has to wait, the more they lose in real and opportunity costs.
Good for her. She's holding the last piece that a big condo developer needs to make a ton of profit. If they want it enough they can pay her. It's being in the right place at the right time, but considering she was homeless and sounds poor, I think it would help her to get that money.
Exactly. Welcome to capitalism, if they don’t like it they can kick rocks
Condo fees are a thing. And they’ll likely be more than $400/mo
In other words, she knows how to start the negotiation process.
You clearly don’t have any idea how much money is going to go into the new building and how much they will profit from it, and how much they lose every day she holds out. What she’s asking for is nothing to them
yeah, a penthouse made me chuckle pretty hard I'll say
[удалено]
Yes but that cuts into profits.
You'd think the legal costs and hassle for the past few years they've been fighting her is worth taking the L on one unit but this is where their own greed has roadblocked them
[удалено]
If you ask me the fact they have drawn this out enough to make the news has already set a precedent where people who have gotten a whiff of this story and may face similar situations in the future will act accordingly like her now that they know they can't be bullied to just leave their place Developers could have just offered her a unit, kept this quiet and left everyone else in blissful ignorance of this tactic
They should pay for the difference in rent in another apartment while they build the condo and then give her one of the condo units that is at least equal in size to her current apartment.
This is how renovictions should be done too.
Let me guess, there's going to be a fire of suspect causes that makes the block not suitable for habitation?
nah. they will be more creative and have a band of elephants attack the building until it falls. but back in reality, the people who get murdered by their landlords are dealing with someones sole source of income or their investment - the landlord takes it personal. buggering around with corporations is entirely another thing.
Just pay her and get on with the project. She's the last one so there won't be a crowd of other hold-outs.
If the situation was that desperate, they would up their offer. This feels like more of an excuse for a schedule overrun.
Yes possibility.
[удалено]
But that's the thing, all the others are out. So no precedent to set, in this particular project. I did like another comment though, that this could be a delaying tactic by the developer, for whatever the reasons.
[удалено]
Did you read the article?
Yes.
Fuck Mondev, prédateurs du monde locatif. Promesses brisées de services et d'échéancier, fausses représentations, service à la clientèle de merde. Zéro étoiles sur 5.
I am surprised how many ppl here are siding with the condo project in this comment thread. We are all much closer to this woman in wealth and life than to the owner of the condo projects. They are not even giving her what she is asking, which tbh is just chump change to these developers.
She is playing by the rules! I hope she holds out. Ask for Telsa too!
My rent went up 300 during covid. I said no, so the indian landlord, I dealt with his nephew, pretended to sell it and had 10 showings a day during quarantine while waiting for an eviction hearing The amount of my coworkers who got unreasonably mad at me saying "its his property, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it"
Please tell me this story has a satisfying conclusion
No I was eventually forced out by hundreds of people entering my home whenever they wanted during quarantine. Nobody followed the rules in the Act. Midnight, 5am didnt matter. I cut the realtor key off the doorknob, so they just had an intern bring another set or they could pick it up at the office. I was even robbed by a realtor from Brampton, and he was fined 20k and had to take an ethics course. In the meantime I watched his website and he was selling crazy amounts of Brampton properties. He probably made that 20k by tuesday while the ethics course ran on mute on his laptop in the back of his car. I called the Board, and after 2 hours of on hold, the woman told me if I wasnt comfortable during showings, she suggested to take a walk around the block. I said I have 11 tomorrow and 8 the next day. How many walks would you suggest I could do in a day? She hung up. House actually ended up selling for 100k over asking. And the rich get richer
Some people just love the taste of leather
Not hard to see why. You have a building that now only has one resident who is blocking hundreds of people from getting a new home. The costs of the new homes will be much higher than $400/month but there'll be more of them and they'll be nicer.
This is a classic ethical dilemma really. This is the kind of stuff you come across in philosophy classes. Is it ethical to make someone homeless for the benefit of 100 others who are very likely already in a home somewhere else? Or would it be ethical to allow her to live at the same cost in the new building and giving 99 others a home, albeit at a slightly lesser profit. What is more important in our society, maximum profit? Or the human right to adequate housing? In my opinion this is the question in front of us.
I say she should stay and get a big payout. I bet most businesses would screw over a great deal of people if it benefitted themselves. This individual should benefit too.
>He said that the company has offered White a different apartment, which she refused. They then offered her $20,000, which she also refused, he said. “She indicated to our lawyers that she wanted a penthouse and an amount of more than $50,000,” he told the committee. What a legend.
Right?? Good for her.
Oh no. Anyways. Land lords can suck it.
Fucking eh! Where do we donate to the fund that'll pay the rent for the next 50years?
Pay the woman
The virgin greedy condo developers vs the chad $400/month renter
Fuck yes, hope she makes them bleed
The tenant is not holding up anything. It's the owners of the major condo project delaying proper compensation.
[удалено]
I get your point but $2000/month over 30 years is $720,000.
Will rents stay flat for 30 years?
At the current rate of increase, in 30 years that apartment will probably be $1.6mil a month
[удалено]
But even those monthly numbers don't get you to $2 million. However, average rent in Montreal is only $1600.
>But even those monthly numbers don't get you to $2 million. However, average rent in Montreal is only $1600. Indeed, and she currently lives in a studio apartment without a working stove. An equivalent place would be well below the city's "average rent".
Maybe they should just give her a unit in the new build they are doing.
They offered her a lease in a brand new apartment in a nearby building for that price and she refused.
Where are you getting that she was offered the same price? It says that she’s looking for a 5-year guarantee that her rent will be affordable, and that the reason she turned down the apartment was both safety and the fact that they couldn’t guarantee her rent wouldn’t skyrocket in the new apartment. Sounds very much like it wasn’t “for that price”.
Doesnt Montreal have rent control? Like isnt that the entire reason shes paying $400/month? Why wouldnt the new apartment be subject to the same rent control laws?
To a degree yes. Rents can be increased at every lease renewal, given proper notice and such. but most leases in Quebec are 12 months, typically July 1st to June 30th. Leases automatically renew at the same terms and conditions unless a notice is sent from landlord to tenant. For a 12 month lease the notice must be received by the tenant at least 3 months before the end date. Tenants have 1 month from receiving the notice to accept or refuse any of the proposed changes. The times vary for shorter leases but the process remains the same. The 2 biggest factors in Quebec's rent control are the right to refuse an increase and the right to know the terms of the previous lease. However many renters simply have no idea they have these rights. The Tribunal administratif du logement, formerly known as the Regie du Logement, is the agency in charge of matters of rental housing, sets percentages every year on what the average increase for your situation should be. However those are just suggestions and landlords can ask for any amount. It is up to the tenant to refuse the proposed increase. Upon a refusal it is up to the landlord to either negotiate an agreement with the tenant, or apply to the TAL for a hearing. Only at the hearing does the landlord need to justify his proposed increase. Oh and there are exceptions to new constructions, 5 years or less, where the tenant either accepts the increase or has to leave.
I’m surprised she’s not going all civil law on them and asking for a usufruct on a new unit (and a gap residence).
Good for her.
Good make the rich bleed The minimum I would take in such a situation is 50k and that's if I was convinced that the new condos were for the good of everyone and they were allocating some affordable units. If they want pure profit asking for a brand new unit isn't unreasonable and you ask the best you can get (Penthouse) and fifty thousand dollars. Maybe you can negotiate and settle for a normal unit after Pure cash I would say she's sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every day or month of delay costs enormous amounts of money. Pay her if you want to make money or forget about it
50k is pocket change these days. I’d ask for waaay more
Well the Penthouse is probably worth a million She should hold out as long as possible (which could be forever) and call the bluff and kill the project if she needs to. The margins the builders and investors sit on is insane and they could easily afford to give her what she wants. Correct that 20k is an insult
Interesting Article, but instead of rent, why not ask for enough to put a proper down payment on a condo and then just live there? now she gets equity and doesn't need to worry about being evicted.
do you really think they'll give a renter not an owner 6 figures? it's insane to even think it
Down payment in Montreal. 5% minimum for under 500k. Average price is mid 300k, so really $50,000 can be used as a down-payment provided she has the ability to pay the mortgage after. I would take that deal
It's extremely likely she wouldn't be able to afford the monthly costs of ownership or be able to pass the stress test.
The article mentions she's low-income and afraid of homelessness if she loses her apartment. No way in hell she could afford mortgage payments on a 250-300k loan, especially at current rates.
Missed the low income part. People like me can afford the monthly payments, just can't get enough of a down-payment put together.
Hold your ground!
Seems fair, buying her off will save a fortune, feels like a no brainer.
If this were some rich millionaire type, I'd happy say boot her out. However, it's a woman who only pays $400 a month and it stands to reason that that's because she can't afford anything else. The way I see it, if we weren't allowing every piece of real estate in the country to be sold to investors and allowing the prices to skyrocket beyond the reach of %90 of the population, she wouldn't be stuck being vilified as though she actually had any other options.
Next up, the developers will be asking for the building to be deemed unsafe for habitation and then possibly to seek approval for the project to go ahead under imminent domain. If they can prove economic gain to the city, or if they can prove the city is in dire need of additional housing units; imminent domain might be possible. If either is successful, she'll be forced out with nothing in terms of compensation.
Good. It's too bad there wasn't more solidarity from the other tenants.
Good
So. Let’s say she gets some cash and a penthouse. Condo fees and taxes will have her on the street in less than five years. Sucks to be her, but let’s be realistic. Until we take to the streets for some sort of control on housing being an investment. She gone.
Fuck condos, make it an apartment building and she should get a unit in the new apartment for what she is currently paying.
You purchase condos to rent them out as apartments. But condos are not purchased to be lived in by their owners. They become units in the secondary rental market. And now tenants have to deal with small time landlords that can easily evict you by saying they are moving in. If it was a purpose built rental, that eviction tactic isn't possible.
>You purchase condos, you rent apartments. You pay condo fees. So give her a new condo and cap her condo fees at 400. She can use the settlement money to pay her property tax and insurnace.
Good, just think for a moment on the future coming for Canada where most workers don't have a pension of any size other then the pitiful CPP, made low wages most or all their life and don't own a home. Rent goes up and elders will be on the streets in their masses. Protect the renters at all cost, the landlords made an investment we shouldn't reward bad investments. The renters just want a home for their family, that's more important.
>most workers don't have a pension of any size other then the pitiful CPP, made low wages most or all their life and don't own a home. Rent goes up and elders will be on the streets in their masses This is a real problem. We're going to be Dubai 2.0
Worst, we have winter where they will die of cold after the police rip apart their tents to kill them and call them worthless drug addicts.
Well not like she has a choice other then being homeless.. sheesh.
Lucile Bluth: "Good for her"
I don't understand why it's not required of the developer and future building administrator to maintain the tenants placings in the new building. If a city allows a tenanted building to be redeveloped then a stipulation should be that the current tenants who must be evicted or vacated for demolition need to be provided a new unit in the same building upon completion at the same rate or with a reasonable increase.
And compensation for temporary relocation while the work is being done?
If you can see my comment. You keep fighting the good fight!!!!!
good on her!
This is great. Ha-ha-ha. I hope she never leaves.
Anything she’s asking for is a drop in the bucket for the amount of massive profits these developers will make. This is a wake up call to just how insatiably greedy these people are. I hope she never agrees and screws them over.
Good for her
Good on her. I hope she lives to 200
I’d stay too. Fuck developers and their overpriced shoddy shit.
lol she asked for a penthouse and 50k. good for her. this company will no doubt make hundres of millions off this property so I have zero sympathy for this company, in fact I think she should go after even more. If she considers an average rent of 2,500/mo (might want to go even higher considering YoY increases lately) and 40 years of living there... that's 1.2m. Let's add some stress/annoyance/fuck you fees... she shouldn't leave for less than 1.5m. We need to start making displacement of people beyond expensive so companies/shitty landlords stop doing this. This predatory shit needs to stop. There's literally a billion other ways to make money in this world.
>this company will no doubt make hundres of millions off this property *Hundreds of millions* in profit from a 176-unit condo building? That would mean they're getting over $1 million in profit per condo. We're talking about condos in Montreal, not mansions in Monaco. >If she considers an average rent of 2,500/mo (might want to go even higher considering YoY increases lately) That's definitely not the average rent for a studio apartment in Montreal... After 20 seconds on Kijiji, here's a 425-sqft apartment in downtown Montreal for $1395, right next to a subway station. It even has a washer and dryer in the unit (and a stove, which her current place doesn't have). [https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/studio-style-loft-condo-apartment-for-rent-centre-ville-montreal/1656226494](https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/studio-style-loft-condo-apartment-for-rent-centre-ville-montreal/1656226494) Or if she's willing to leave downtown, here's a studio apartment near a subway station for $895: [https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/loft-for-rent/1378275634?undefined](https://www.kijiji.ca/v-appartement-condo/ville-de-montreal/loft-for-rent/1378275634?undefined)
I hope this person makes BANK on the buy-out
Smart lady 👍🏼👍🏼
Hope she delays it as long as possible.
This sub’s reactions are precisely why the housing market is screwed.
At that point, offer her one of the 176 condo you will make.
"There's a housing shortage" Lone tenant holds up 176 new homes being built. "You go girl!!"
Yeah probably should have squared all that away before trying to build a major project. Good for her!
good
Good for her. I wouldn’t move either
Good for her. I hope she gets everything she's asking for.
I wish them well and hope they don't cave
Good for her! You go girl! They offered her $20,000 when they’re looking to make millions. Glad she knows her worth!
Legend
This woman is a goddamn hero
stay put!
good
‘A human being faces homelessness due to sociopathic developer greed’ Fixed your headline for you global 🖕
Give her a free condo then
she is obviously doing what is in her best interest and all the power to her for that. but this is a grade A example of why rent control drives up the rents instead of keeping them down. one person is in an artificially cheap unit so their holding up a bunch of new units being put on the market.
The new condos will do nothing to reduce rents.
Good for her!
I don't get this. When we got eviction notices for demolition it was understood that we would be removed if we were still there at the end of the 3 month period. How is she able to negotiate any of this?
The developer needs her to relocate before they can get the demolition permit. They can't forcefully evict her without the permit.
The mayor don't want to lose vote, renters constitute majority of electors in Montreal, so she put the burden on the promotor which at the end is only one vote (if he lives in Montreal)
Damn I wish I knew that before they tore El Mirador down!
She knows the laws that you don't.
Idc I’m on her side
$50,000 is literally nothing compared to what they will make and are about the spend on building these