Uphold Chief Licence Inspector Decision

Statement Watch

Thank you. Good morning to the business license panel. This morning is an appeal by June Park from a decision to not support his business license application. That license application was made on September 10, 2025, for the provision of short-term accommodations at property located at 1801 1788 Columbia Street. The decision to not support the license application was made by the city's chief license inspector after a careful review of the application of Mr. Parks and information obtained during the review process. The letter advising Mr. Park of the decision is located in the evidence book that's been circulated. That's at page 96 of the materials. Sorry, 98 of the materials. And I'm going to read a couple of paragraphs from that letter in a moment to get there. starting from the second full paragraph. This is the letter from the chief license inspector to Mr. Park, dated January 16th, 2026. The city has determined that in consideration of the totality of information, including documentation provided during your application review, compliance inspection, and the information from the meeting, the information does not support that 1801-1788 Columbia Street is your principal residence. As per License By-law 4450, Section 28.1 Sub 3, no person shall carry on business as a short-term rental accommodation operator unless the short-term rental accommodation being provided is the principal residence unit of that person. In view of the seriousness of the above mentioned concerns and issues, I will not support issuance of your short-term rental business license application until you can provide proof that you comply with the short-term rental bylaw regulations and the requirements of the license bylaw. The decision in that letter has been appealed to this panel. for for review essentially what you can see in the letters that the chief license inspector was not satisfied that the applicant had satisfied the principal residency requirements set out in the regulations and I'll take a moment and take you to the definition of principal residence unit in the license bylaw that is reproduced at page 113 of the evidence book and it is the third last definition on the page and I'll read that principal residence unit means the usual dwelling unit where an individual lives makes their home and conducts their daily affairs including without limitation paying bills and receiving mail and is generally the dwelling unit with the residential address used on documentation related to billing, identification, taxation, and issue and insurance purposes, including without limitation income tax returns, medical services plan documentation, driver's licenses, personal identification, vehicle registration, and utility bill.

And for the purposes of this bylaw, a person may only have one principal residence unit. City's Chief License Inspector will provide evidence this morning supporting her decision to not support Mr. Park's application with reference to the material in the evidence book. Before we get there, there are some legal and procedural matters to note. I'll note that this panel's power to review a business license application are set out in Section 275 of the Vancouver Charter. That section reads, the granting or refusing of a license to an applicant, therefore, and the revocation or suspension of a license which has been granted shall be deemed to be in the discretion of counsel, and the counsel may grant, refuse, revoke, or suspend the license without stating any reasons, therefore, save in respect of a licensee who by reasonable efforts cannot be found, the counsel shall not revoke the license without giving the thereof an opportunity to be heard. Of course, this morning is that opportunity for Mr. Park. Under that section, this panel has broad powers to revoke, suspend, uphold, grant business license applications. This is also an administrative proceeding this morning, and the rules of natural justice do apply. The applicant is entitled to hear allegations against them. They may respond to those allegations. They may ask questions of the witnesses and may make submissions on their own behalf. If this panel sees fit to deny or to issue the license with or without conditions, it should provide an explanation as for the reasons for doing so. Those are the opening comments.

Statement Watch

Thank you, and I see Ms. Hicks is standing at the podium. Morning, Ms. Hicks. Good morning. Ms. Hicks, you were the... signatory to the letter dated January 16th, 2026, informing Mr. Park of your decision to not support his business license application? I was. And in the materials before the panel this morning, at page four, is a document entitled a timeline of events. Can you just inform the panel what that is? Yes, the timeline of events provides an overview of the interactions that the city has had with the property. Important to note that this property has been short-term rented since 2022 under the ownership of the applicant that's here today, but the license was previously held by his wife, or his current ex-wife, since that time. And I understand this timeline of events is prepared by staff in your office. It is. Now, the property at 1801 1788 Columbia Street, who owns that property? Currently, the property is owned by the parents of the applicant and their brother, to our understanding. And I see in the timeline of events here, we have some background information that has some relevance in terms of your decision. It does. Okay. If you could just take the panel through the background information with respect to that property. Certainly. The property was purchased by Mr. Park and his then wife in 2021. The business license for short-term rental was applied for the following May of 2022. Through some back and forth getting appropriate documentation, the license was eventually issued in July of 2022 for short-term rentals. The property shortly thereafter in October changed ownership from Mr. Park and his ex-wife over to its current ownership structure. The license was renewed a number of times after that, leading up to the application by Mr. Park in September of 2025. And I see the first entry there under June Park application review, the date of September 10, 2025. That's when the license application was made? It was. And I understand it wasn't automatically issued, but it was flagged because there was a pre-existing license for the premises. Correct. If you could just take us through then the application in its early stages. Certainly. Because there was already an issued license at the property, staff conducted a more thorough review of the application at hand.

It was not clear initially who the resident was at the location as the license... The current licensee, T, did not want to cancel their license, advising staff that they continued to live within the property and that Mr. Park did not live there. Through back and forth, additional information was gathered from Mr. Park in the application process, including appropriate documentation to help support principal residency, as well as living arrangements. And ultimately, an inspection was scheduled for the property. He canceled their license in December of 2025, and the inspection of the property occurred on December 17th, 2025. Mr. Park was unavailable for the inspection, so as we understand it, his father was available to let the inspector into the property. Maybe just before we get to the photographs of the inspection, I see an entry here at the top of page 5. This is October 15, 2025. I understand through this application review, additional documentation was sought from Mr. Park. And on October 15, 2025, he submitted some additional documents. and provided a statement that he primarily rents the entire home to guests while I stay at another address in Metro Vancouver and provided the address of 177A Street in Surrey. Is that right? Yes. Was that provided to staff in your office? Yes, it was. Was there anything else leading up to the inspection of the property on December 17, 2025 that caused you some question as to whether or not this was a principal residence for Mr. Park? When we look at the history of the location and the license in which Mr. Park would have participated in, the location has been consistently and highly booked during his ownership and his purported stay within that residential unit, with calendars showing that it is booked 75-plus percent of the time. I'm going to ask you to turn to page 56 of the evidence book. And if you're there, can you tell us what we're looking at in terms of this three-page document? This document is an excerpt from the provincial portal data that we access related to the different listings. This one in particular is for the unit at 1788 Columbia Street, showing that the property host for the listing at that time was C.

And with additional members listed on there as being additional hosts that can support the rentals. On page 57, that is where it shows for the prior 12 months when this data was pulled, what the nightly stays were. The bottom of the list shows 11-20-24. listing 27 nights and onwards up. There was a break in April, May, and June of 2025. In addition to this, when staff look back further to the beginning of the portal information, we can see that the high stays in those 27, 25 kind of night stays are consistent throughout May to November as well. I'm just looking at that list. I see here in the month that the application was made by Mr. Park, 2025-09, in that month alone, there were 20 nights that were booked at the premises. Correct. And just apart from the months of April, May, June of 2025, where the booking was quite low, It appears that the average nightly rental on the balance of the month is exceeding 20 nights a week. Does that sound about right? Yes. Does that cause you some concern when you see numbers like that representing over 50% of the month? It does, yes. What's an indication of in your experience? When we're seeing calendars in this range, it really leads us to question whether or not the individual does actually live within the unit, does make it their principal residence. The very first part of the bylaw definition is it's your place where you live. You primarily make your home. And these calendars show us that it could not be the primary place where they make their home when it's booked 75% of the time. Let's go back to page five, being the second page of the timeline. And we left off talking about the inspection of the unit. I'm just going to go up to December 1st, 2025. And I see that the license holder of the short-term rental business license... cancelled their license, in which case you could proceed with a further review of the application by Mr. Park. Is that right? Correct. So the unit was inspected on December 17, 2025, and can you advise the panel what was observed in the unit? Yes.

So as noted earlier, the father of the applicant allowed access to the unit. Photos were taken of that inspection, which are on page 21. As you'll look through those photos, you'll see that the unit is very empty of personal belongings. The fridge is completely empty and very clean. The clothing is nominal. There might be two pairs of pants and two coats. Kind of in the unit, it does not indicate to us that this is a place where somebody lives on a regular basis. Also, considering that this unit, we don't show rental activity after October, which would mean the unit had been vacant for November and December leading up to the inspection. Given that, the location is very empty. You would have expected then without the license being issued and no short-term renters there being some indication of permanent residency? Yes. And you don't see any in any of those photos? I do not. So carry on then from December 17, 2025. What was the next step in the review process? Staff booked a meeting with the applicant to go through some questions and concerns that occurred in January. After that meeting, staff brought an overview of the file to me where I made the decision to not support and suspend the business license or not support the business license application. Was that interview conducted January 8, 2026? It was. And can you tell us what was learned in the course of that interview with Mr. Burke? Over that interview, we learned that the applicant advised us that he had been living within the property. His now ex-wife largely operated the short-term rental business. And when the unit was booked, he would, while they were together, stay at her parents' house as it was in Vancouver. we understand. And then now that they're divorced in 2024, he stays at his parents' house during short-term rentals, which is the previously mentioned Surrey address. Mr. Park was not able to really describe the types of bookings, the volume of bookings that had occurred, despite telling staff that he continually resided within the property.

Describing the unit as being low in the winters but high in the summers, the evidence that we have just simply doesn't point to that. Was there anything else that was shared by Mr. Park in that interview that caused you some concern? He described the unit as being his parents. You know, they hold the mortgage. It is their Airbnb, and he's trying to help with the mortgage. Just carrying on with the timeline. After the interview, what action was taken with respect to the review of the license application? Staff brought the information to me in a meeting where I reviewed the information and decided that, you know, on the balance, on the totality of the information that I was looking at, that I did not believe that Mr. Park was a principal resident, so I did not support the application. And that is borne out in the letter that you sent to Mr. Park that we've already looked at in January, January 2026, correct? Correct. Thank you. Is there anything else that you'd like to add with respect to this matter that would support your view that this is not the principal residence of Mr. Park? I think when we're looking at it, we're really seeing those high volume of bookings. We take a look at the listing and the history of the listing to understand what the setup has been. This unit has always been a whole unit, an entire home available for rent. It has never been a shared accommodation. None of the reviews would point to it ever being a shared accommodation either. which would support what the applicant said, is that whenever there's a booking, they are not there. And again, leads to the conclusion that this is not their primary residence.

Statement Watch

Okay, so I don't know if all the... I guess the disagreements in why I should have a license or not is based on matters that are subjective opinions. Are there specific guidelines of how many actual pairs of pants I need in a closet to have it legitimized for it to be considered or not considered a place that's a primary residence? A fridge being... cleaned or emptied out, I don't think is valid, in my opinion. Truly, like, to go back to my place now, it's still empty because I just Uber Eats it. And, you know, I travel late. I'm a minimalistic. I value minimalism. I believe that's the most efficient way to live life. And at the time, I also informed Mr. Yu that I was traveling, playing World Series of Poker events. And I basically just, whatever I have, the majority of my clothes, I just take that traveling. Also, the two pairs of pants, I don't even think that they're mine, to be honest. You know what I mean? Like, that's how minimalistic, like, I travel. Also, the storage, those are my ex-wife's yoga mats and just the... It's the stuff that I don't care about. I just kind of put it in there. Whatever, I guess, accessories, if you will call it that. Yeah, that's all I remember for questions now.

I could just interject. I didn't hear a question there. So if you do have a question for Ms. Hicks, you can pose that now.

I guess the question is, is basically everything that is... a sort of a difference of just everything is a matter of opinions that are subjective. Nothing is objectified in the sense that or is it? Is there an actual guideline of how many pieces of article of clothing or how many bottles of water I need? How much like whatever I need? Is it objectified? where it's a statement of factuality instead of an opinion that's subjective. That's where, for me, my abundance could be different than yours. My sparse could be different than yours. I just feel like, I mean, that's just my question, I guess. Is it objective or is it subjective opinions?

You know, there isn't a set, you know, defined amount of material or items, you know, within the bylaw that, you know, would meet a checkmark about principal residency. We are looking at the whole. We are looking at the information that you provide, the inspection that's provided, the meeting with staff, looking at that whole and determining whether or not, based off that information, you meet the definition of principal residency. It is a totality of the information, as the letter says, which leads me to believe that you do not reside there as your principal resident.

May I respond to that question with a question as well? I don't know how this works, to be honest. I have another question.

I think you can ask that. So it's a question, Piro. You will have a chance to, you know. Yeah, it's a question.

So the totality is based on the sample size of your experience of knowing me, or not knowing me, but through the years of the Airbnb experience, I guess, as opposed to, or is that what it is? Because it's not the totality of my entire life experience of me growing up modestly and what, like, what I find abundance and all that, right? So, I mean, is it just the totality of, like, what's the totality here based on just the years of Airbnb that I've had as a license? Or, I mean, it's still a matter of opinion. It's subjective, right? Nothing's chiseled in stone here, I don't think. Or is it?

It is the totality of information that was available to me at the time of making the decision. So the prior history with Airbnb, your description of your involvement, your knowledge of those while you lived there, the inspection, all of that information taken together is what the totality is.

Okay.

Can I respond to the question? I don't know. So is the question period. You're going to have a chance to... provide your remarks at the oh okay so yeah just question um yeah i guess that's it for me thank you thank you okay all right so the next one will be your remarks so we will we will now move on to the opening remarks from the applicant let's go ahead i may use my phone for reference right sure thank you all right so

The totality of information being the sole consideration of the city's purpose to reject contains these reasons of which were provided by the city. The lack of documentation provided, compliance inspection, and the information received from our call, of which apparently did not support that the unit, my unit 1801, is my primary residence. I'd like to first address the totality of information, including documentation, or in this city's case, a rather lack thereof documentation that were provided during the applicant's review. The documentations that I've provided include my identification, my bank statements, phone bills, hydro bills, all of which include my name and the address of my home, my primary residence, 1801 1788 Columbia Street. These documents were provided plentiful, thus I believe that this should supersede this lack of documentation claim. Furthermore, I brought my share of documentation here today as well if we need more source of documentation. Secondly, the compliance inspection. Please define compliance inspection because as I know it, I believe it's an assessment that's conducted by an authority, right? But a compliance inspection, it's an action. It's not a reason. There has to be reasons post-compliance inspection for a rejection of any magnitude to hold this legitimacy given that without any justifiable reasons, the claim is simply and always will be an opinion of matter that's subjective through a personal perception. I believe what qualifications did we not meet up to Mr. U's standards? I really don't know. Because as you had mentioned, I have two pairs of pants and my fridge was clean. Of course my fridge is clean because I don't cook. I would have brought my Uber Eats receipt if I felt like that was going to help me prove my point here. But I really didn't think that was necessary. the way one may or may not view my living arrangements as insufficient to live as a primary residence based on what may subjectively be viewed as sparse, of which my home most certainly is not, and with the addition of a divorce in my life, of which items and personal belongings of mine which made an exit alongside my ex-wife, I don't find it necessary to talk about that at the moment. If I have the essentials to carry on a lifestyle that I'm accustomed to, of which is more than of abundance to me, how can anyone disagree and make such claims of myself not being the primary resident? Just because I take pride in living a minimalistic lifestyle, or at least I strive to, since I truly detest any form of waste, and contrary to what many may assume, this actually allows for a much more sufficient and efficient lifestyle. Living a minimalist lifestyle is the utmost priority to myself to ensure that I do have essentials that will allow me to provide a living condition for myself. Maybe my ideology of abundance contradicts with the vast majority as I believe that abundance is simply anything greater than sufficiency and nothing more. I live a sufficient life. I always have as we grew up modestly, truly valuing the dollar and only striving to take part in plus expected value situations in my life. I strongly agree to adhere to rules and or laws, but only ones that are objectively quantifiable, rules that are set in stone, so to speak. I refuse to prioritize or even entertain the idea of a subjective opinion being chiseled or carved into some stone of which lies in some figment of someone's imagination. To prioritize brevity and to be mindful of everyone's time here, I don't feel it's a necessity for me to elaborate on why a rule has to be a form of an objective factuality and should never be of an opinion that's a matter that's subjective. But if I'm pressed to do it, I'll be more than happy to. Lastly, the meet and call. Again, I'm without any knowledge of why my conversation on January 8th with Nathaniel and Tiffany is a reason for rejection. I'm not making any accusations of the city denying our Airbnb ability for the benefit of their own. I'm not doing that. However, this lack of transparency I feel is almost intentional to bury reasons through some haze of vagueness to avoid having to clarify why there was a motion to reject in the first place. On top of this, I've clearly notified to Mr. Yu I will not be present upon arrival to inspect December 17th, of which he contacted my father to let me in the unit. He was clearly notified that I would be absent as I was in the last few weeks of my trip, of which I was playing poker, which I was playing a poker series for several weeks. And I've been chasing this Alberta Poker Player of the Year, which I attained, winning World Series of Poker events, ultimately winning the Poker Player of the Year, which can be seen, like you can Google me, June Park Poker, and I will show up proving that those times that I was away, I was playing these poker series and I was winning these tournaments and winning Player of the Year series as well. So based on these three reasons of why there was even a motion to reject in the first place, the three being the totality of information of which were the considerations to reject, and based on everything I've provided, I don't see how there can be a single doubt of me living in my primary residence, Unit 1801, 1788 Columbia Street, which is my home.

Thank you. All right, so thank you for your remarks. So the applicant may now call witness if you have any witness to call. No, okay. Thank you. All right, so panel members, if you have any questions for the witness, okay, there's no witness here. Okay, I'll skip this section. We will now move to the closing submission by the city council. To the applicant? Okay, to the applicant. Please go ahead. Can you tell me a little bit more about this Alberta Poker Player of the Year? Were you in the running for that in 2025?

No, I won the World Series of Poker, the Player of Poker Player of the Year in 2024. And then I got sponsorships to play all over in Vegas, World Series of Poker, win tournaments and all that as well.

Okay. Did you ever win overall Alberta Poker Player?

Yes, I did. And when was that? 2024. Okay. If it says 2023, that is an error. It's 2024. Okay. And do you need to live in Alberta? No, no. I'm the first ever non-Albertan to win the Player of the Year in Alberta. Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you. Okay, we will now move to the closing submission by the city council. Thank you. I'm going to ask the panel to remember what the purpose of the regulations are, and that is to preserve permanent housing stock in the city for full-time principal residents, occupants. The reality is that we're in an ongoing housing crisis, and council members surely know that given the option, many property owners will rent out their premises on a short-term basis instead of renting on a long-term basis. This has the effect of... robbing citizens and occupants and residents of the city from an opportunity to get long-term housing and it drives up rental rental amounts to do that the city has safeguarded provided a safeguard in the license regulations are requiring the principal residency requirement as a condition of the license folder now it's up to the chief license inspector to make a determination of that on a review of a license application or on an audit of a license holder to a large degree there is not a science to this in terms of a precise amount of days that somebody lives in their unit or rents out their unit but as Miss Hicks indicated it is an assessment based on her understanding of the market based on her understanding of the typical lifestyle of Airbnb owners, as well as information that's provided in the course of an assessment. Certainty is not required in order to not support the license, but certainly there needs to be an indication in her experience that she has some satisfaction that this particular premises is being occupied as a principal residence. She was not of that view with respect to this particular property. Quite frankly, Mr. Park says he would have brought Uber receipts if that would have helped. I think that if Mr. Park had brought Uber receipts showing nightly deliveries to his premises for his meals over the course of a few months, that might tip the scales in terms of the totality of the information. do not have that information all we have is an empty apartment photographs of an empty apartment a long track record of high booking rentals and an indication that mr. Park resides principally with his parents when the when the apartment is being rented Again, this is not a science. This is a regulatory safeguard, and an assessment needs to be made based on the totality and the information that is gathered as part of the application review.

Ms. Hicks did that. She did that thoroughly with the assistance of her team. I think deference is own to her judgment of the circumstance, and I would ask that the panel reject the application for the license by Mr. Park. I will simply just add an asterisk to my comments and say it is always open to Mr. Park to rent this premises on a long-term basis to individuals so that we do provide that long-term housing stock in the city, at which time he can continue to live with this. Thank you. All right, so we will now move to the closing submissions by the applicant. Do you have anything else to say, applicant? Okay, thank you. Okay, so we will now move on to the discussion by the panel. Panel members, if you would like to make any remarks, please place yourself on the queue.

Yes, thanks, Chair. If I could, through you, Chair, to the applicant, if I could ask a couple of clarifying questions. Yes, go ahead.

The property was purchased in, it looks like, March of 2021.

I noticed that it says, I think I read somewhere that you're currently unemployed. It sounds like you're a poker player by trade. Were you currently employed or were you employed at the time of the original purchase in 2021?

Well, I have my own personal type of work, I guess. I'm also a writer. Um, I have a post that I've, I write on academia. I also write on open thesis. I write on DCN, which is digital common network. I write short stories or short films. Um, and yeah. And I don't really have a nine to five per se. Um, but the majority of my income has been, yeah.

And what, um, what was your ex now ex-wife doing at the time the property was personal? What was her occupation?

Well, I thought I knew what she was doing. I thought she was working for a crypto company. And I thought that she was doing her own personal startup business. But the rug was pulled underneath me and that wasn't what she was doing. So I can't tell you. I know for sure exactly what her job was.

Okay. And it was transferred into your parents and brother's name in 2022. That's right. Can you tell me why that was exactly? It gives an explanation in the package, but it's very vague.

Yeah, I started a startup company and that was going south. And a lot of my money that went, my net worth, I guess, was sunk into that. And also it has been embezzled by my ex-wife.

Okay.

So I wasn't able to afford basically just to... kind of like as a backup plan, just in case. That's the reason why we decided to pass it over to my parents and my brother.

Okay. When you purchased the apartment originally, did you purchase it furnished or unfurnished? Unfurnished. Okay. And when did you list it with Vancouver Luxury Realty? Looks like it was listed for rent for $9,980 a month.

That was my ex-wife's doing. I have all sorts of different information that she's been giving me, so I can't tell you clearly which one would be the most accurate one. I also personally put up, I think it was called Clear Space. I can't remember now. And yeah, that was a day-to-day listing that I've posted, but I don't know. Precisely about this luxury thing. Okay.

So back to the luxury realtor, do you have any rough ideas as to what dates that would have been without being 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025?

I do not. There was a lot of behind my back things that have been done. So I really have no idea.

Okay, because that's a minimum three-month lease and the ask was basically $10,000 a month.

Okay, I think that's it.

Sheriff, if I may ask one clarifying question to the Chief Licensing Inspector through you. Yes, please go ahead. When did the city start requiring the business license for short-term rental? What year was that? You can remind me.

It was April of 2018.

Okay, thank you.

I think those are my questions for now, Chair. Okay, thank you. All right, so I have some questions here as well. So I'm going to start with the question with the Chief Licensing Inspector. So I saw in the package, so I think that's page 42 and 43, there is a fare extinguisher included in this package. What is the significance? Why we include those two packages there, two photos there? The photos of the fire extinguisher as well as the smoke detectors, apologies, show compliance with elements of the short-term rental bylaw that those kinds of safety equipment, the exit plan, need to be provided. Okay. Those fire extinguishers, those are regular stuff for any accommodation or it's for the short-term rental? I mean, any residents could have them. It is something that is routine for short-term rentals to have. I apologize. I'm just looking through the bylaw. So on page 115 of the by-law section for short-term rentals, it is section 10. A short-term rental accommodation provider shall provide a fire safety plan, have interconnected smoke alarms, have an accessible fire extinguisher on each floor, have carbon monoxide detectors, have smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors. in a dwelling unit inspected and tested annually and keep a written record, maintain all of those smoke alarms, and produce any inspection and testing maintenance records to either the chief license inspector or the fire chief upon request. Thank you. So another question. On page 39, I saw the refrigerator is almost completely empty. So would that provide any evidence that... there's no regular stuff being used in this fridge so that the residents are not living there. I think this is one of the things that I take into consideration of looking to see what the living accommodations are for somebody who is saying that it's their principal residence. It is uncommon for us to see refrigerators where we reasonably believe that somebody lives there to be so void. Okay, thank you. So I have the same question to the applicant. So I know you mentioned that you live in a very minimal lifestyle. So how do you explain this refrigerator is almost completely empty? And you can call Uber Eats, whatever. But there should be some stuff there.

No, there doesn't have to be. I disagree with that, to be honest, respectfully. So earlier I had mentioned Uber Eats receipts and all that. That wasn't every night either. I do a lot of fasting. I fast two, three days every week. So it's either that or the Uber Eats. And the Uber Eats, it's only meat. I'm a carnivore eater. I have a carnivore diet. I've been on a carnivore diet for about a year and a half now. So I just drink water and I eat meat and that's it. And other days, I fast for three days. And the days that I eat, I eat one meal a day. So I really disagree with the fact that it has to be full, the refrigerator. All right. Thank you. That's all my question.

All right, so... Oh, okay, please go ahead. There was questions around what was in the storage. Could you... Can you go into what was in the storage?

If I recall, because I just haven't been in there in so long, and she has gone in there and taken things out, but I do recall there being... I recall putting, like, a... Yeah, so there's yoga mats there. There's the cushions from the couch that she decided to take with her as well out of spite. I don't know why. There are some, like the yoga stretch bands, which is mine actually. I was looking for that. And yeah.

Just in your answer there, you said you haven't been there in so long.

I don't go into the storage area at all. That's a no-go place for me because it just brings me bad memories. Okay, I don't use the storage. I don't need to use that storage to begin with because I just have my golf clubs that I would put in there, but it's in my trunk.

Okay, and previously it said you're not even sure if the clothing is yours.

Yeah, those pants, because I was traveling at the time to play the poker tournament series, and usually I take all my clothes with me because I don't have too many to begin with. So the fact that there are two pants there, maybe I left it there by mistake. I don't know. But usually when I travel and travel to places, There is absolutely zero clothes. So the fact that there was two pairs of pants is kind of, I didn't expect that, to be honest. Where do you keep your clothes? I just keep it in, like, just on the floor, to be honest. I don't, I'm kind of, I guess, I don't have enough clothes to just have a walk-in. I have a walk-in closet, but, like, I never use it, really. I have a... some boxers and stuff like that, that I put in the shelf, but yeah.

Okay. And what about sort of all the rest of your personal items? Where, where, where are those things?

Usually in my car. In your car? In my bag, in my car. I have my golf clubs. That's pretty much all I really need. I'm a professional golfer as well. So that's it.

Okay. I think that's all my questions.