• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New accommodations facility at CFB Esquimalt and plan to build more homes on military bases

Sounds to me like they should have been denied.

Making a poor investment (i.e. paying too much for a rental property and mortgage) doesn’t mean you should be allowed to price gouge your way out of it.
That is one way to look at it. The other way is intrest rates have gone through the roof why is it acceptable for the owner to take the loss?
Cost of renting that property would be x amount of dollars based on cost to borrow the money. Expecting the owner to take a loss is not in the best intrest of all involved either.
When they bought the property they should have known what the rent was. They should have done a cost/profit risk analysis to see if it was worth it. If they can’t afford it they can sell to someone else who can, even if it means they take a loss, thats how it goes. Nothing says in business you should always be making a profit.
From reading the article the intrest rate hiked significantly and the cost was reasonably passed onto the customer.(consumer)
The home owner nor the renters can control the costs associated with inflation. The government sure can and they don't.
Poor arbitration decision, that could have negative impacts on all sorts of renters.
I disagree, it was an unfortunate outcome for the renter. But the cost is the cost and it was an unreasonable intrest rate (again governments control these) that caused the significant increase.
Expecting the land owner to absorb those costs is unreasonable.
 
Not so long ago, they issued a contract to refurbish the Seaforth Armoury. Apparently they neglected to included any telecommunications installation into that contract. The Seaforth's were delayed moving back into, till a contract could be issued and completed to install working telecommunications.
Is this a heritage building issue? Like you’re allowed to repair the building but implementing new tech or expanded capacity is an issue.

I’m in the car but I feel like this was an issue in updating the messes in heritage buildings for PRES when I was still an officer.

So you keep certain contracts really sharp because it’s such an ordeal to get a….fax line
 
That is one way to look at it. The other way is intrest rates have gone through the roof why is it acceptable for the owner to take the loss?
Cost of renting that property would be x amount of dollars based on cost to borrow the money. Expecting the owner to take a loss is not in the best intrest of all involved either.

From reading the article the intrest rate hiked significantly and the cost was reasonably passed onto the customer.(consumer)
The home owner nor the renters can control the costs associated with inflation. The government sure can and they don't.

I disagree, it was an unfortunate outcome for the renter. But the cost is the cost and it was an unreasonable intrest rate (again governments control these) that caused the significant increase.
Expecting the land owner to absorb those costs is unreasonable.
27%... Interest didn't go up that much, so there was a lot of poor planning that lead to a rate hike that high to keep the owners head above water.
 
Is this a heritage building issue? Like you’re allowed to repair the building but implementing new tech or expanded capacity is an issue.

I’m in the car but I feel like this was an issue in updating the messes in heritage buildings for PRES when I was still an officer.

So you keep certain contracts really sharp because it’s such an ordeal to get a….fax line
More of a case of totally neglecting to contract for the reinstall of all the phone and internet lines back into the building. thereby making it "unsafe" to occupy for another 6 months.
 
Back
Top