Tenant Protection Policy Referral
Motion 12 · Standing Committee of Council on Policy and Strategic Priorities, June 3, 2026
Vote
Public comments
Read all 6 statements
Transcript
66 segments
Thank you, Chair. Vancouver does have a tenant relocation and protection policy. Most people hear that and assume that it means tenants facing redevelopment will be protected. In many cases, that's true. The policy provides important safeguards, including compensation, relocation assistance, and a right of first refusal to return to a new building. but there are gaps. And when people fall through those gaps, the consequences are enormous. Behind every unit is a person, many are longtime residents who have built their lives in their neighborhoods. They know their neighborhoods. They rely on nearby services, businesses, schools, health care providers, and community networks. When they lose their housing, they often lose much more than an address. What makes this particularly concerning is that Vancouver continues to face a severe rental housing crisis. Every rental unit matters. Every tenant matters. This motion doesn't seek to predetermine the outcome of the tenant relocation and protection policy review already underway. It simply asks staff to examine this gap and bring forward a recommendation on how it can be addressed. If we tell tenants they are protected, those protections should not disappear because of a technicality or a change in land use.
Thank you, Councillor. Do we have a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Frye. We'll now hear from registered speakers on this motion. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or in opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. I'll also ask speakers who have not noted when they registered whether they are a Vancouver resident or not. Our first speaker is... Oh yes, sorry, Councillor Frye.
And so just to refresh myself on the practice, because I understand that the naming, as you mentioned, is complicated. And will we be going back after this amendment is or after this motion is approved or whatever and amend the title? In the past, that's how we've kind of approached these things.
Yes. Yes. In the past, we've had to pass the motion and then we've been able to amend the whereas clauses. And I'll check with the clerks as to whether we've been able to amend the title. Clerks, could you just comment on that point?
Yes. Amendment of the title would be fine.
After the vote of the therefore be it resolved clauses, then the whereas clauses, and the title could be amended as part of the whereas.
Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. That's helpful. So with our registered speakers, our first speaker is Michael Cook. Do we have Michael Cook? Hello.
Michael, go ahead. You have three minutes.
Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Cook. I'm a resident of Myron Manor at 75 East 8th Avenue with my wife and two children, and I am speaking on behalf of the Myron Manor Collective, which includes almost 40 members. We support the proposed motion, but I am here to argue that it does not go far enough in protecting our members nor other Vancouver renters who are facing displacement because of the predatory practices of real estate speculators. We request that the motion be strengthened with the following amendments. One, regarding the hotel development policy section 3.2.2.1, which states applications for rezoning will be considered, quote, where no purpose-built rental residential housing will be displaced. This is an important common sense protection that is immediately nullified by subsection D, stating that protection applies citywide except, quote, in areas that have recently approved community plans. That is a very dangerous loophole created by an unelected planning department in a perfunctory seven-page document which puts tens of thousands of tenants at risk. The motion should move to eliminate this subsection D loophole which subverts the very community plans it cites. Two, the motion should include stronger language preventing predatory real estate speculation. I won't speak to our specific speculator, but it should include language requiring council to prevent displacement for the purpose of increasing land values without building homes. Three, the motion should include language clarifying that the hotel room supply crisis does not exist. The current spike in hotel vacancies is widely evidenced in local and world news. Even if vacancies were limited, tourists looking for hotels is not a crisis. Citizens, permanent residents, immigrants, refugees, children, and First Nations elders displaced from their homes is a crisis. The motion should resolve. City Council will not remedy macroeconomic constraints on tourism by destroying neighborhoods which are advertised to visitors for their vibrant diversity. For these reasons, the proposed motion is insufficient in its stated aim of protecting us and my children. The city can only protect us from displacement by not displacing us. If we lose our home, my wife and I may have to quit our jobs and leave the region with our two children. She's a chef, and I teach metal fabrication at BCIT. Displacing my children is not good for the economy, despite real estate speculators' claims. Although this motion resolves to direct staff to recommend right of first refusal provisions for us, first refusal of what? A 300-square-foot micro-bachelor? It's ironic the council has a performative recognition of World Refugee Day while aggressively displacing so many of its own residents, including refugees. Ironic and shameful, in fact. Shame. Shame.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling in this afternoon. Our next speaker is speaker number two, Laura Standard.
Welcome, Laura.
Hi, good afternoon. Still Laura Stannard, and I'm speaking in support of this motion, and I also want to support the previous speaker's amendments, which I think are extremely important and need to be listened to. Perhaps if you hadn't closed the renter's office three years ago, you would have more understanding of the struggles of tenants and the loopholes that developers are now using to avoid incurring cost and responsibility for housing losses. One of the ways a developer can avoid TRPP is to submit an application for hotel development. Given the state of development construction interest rates and the fact that Vancouver is already on track to meet its hotel targets, Developers could find it profitable to wait until the existing tenants have been evicted before submitting a new application for permanent housing or flipping the property now that it's vacant of tenants and the land value and status is more desirable. For most of my working life, I worked with people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness. I would see tenants finally find a seemingly affordable rental, only to lose it within months as a new landlord would proceed with renovation plans. Those residents are not covered by TRPP.
I urge you to support these motions, and I thank Councillor Orr for bringing them forward. Thank you.
Thank you very much for coming in today. Our next speaker, speaker number three, Stephanie Allen by phone.
Good afternoon. I'm a consultant and small business owner in Vancouver. I've worked with City of Vancouver staff on tenant relocation at Rodden Lodge in my previous job at BC Housing. I've also helped nonprofit housing providers in developing more robust tenant relocation policies for projects that were receiving provincial funding. I'm really happy to support this motion and the amendments brought forward by the first speaker when we think about tenants facing displacement without protections currently under the tenant relocation policy. When I did my master's research on civic-led community displacement under the Urban Renewal Program of the late 50s to early 70s in Vancouver, I read many firsthand accounts of people who experienced significant trauma from being forced from their homes and communities. I also read the city's archive documents about how officials of that time felt about people who resided in the homes being cleared out for capital interests. Their legacies, along with their names and their choices at that time, are clear and documented in research like mine and works by others. Over and over when examining these public records, it's evident that those in power, that their primary concerns were the interests of investors. Displaced communities full of hardworking people who just wanted a safe and secure home to raise their families and to stay in the communities they relied on were given no thought by those in power. The current policies represent progress from the days of urban renewal where renters were not given a single consideration, then only owners were compensated. And, you know, anytime I've presented this research to audiences, usually we ask, you know, have you ever lived in a home you've loved? And what did you love about it? And 10 times out of 10, people always say it's the people. It's the things that they got to do with their friends and family that really stand out. That's probably true for all of you who have lived in a place you've loved. And if you've ever had to leave that place, you know that that brings with it significant grief and negative impact. So when we're thinking about people being moved against their will to make way for more powerful interests that have had this historical support of politicians and bureaucracies, we know that nobody wants to experience this and nobody ever should. So I encourage council. to be different than their predecessors and approve this motion to make sure that there are no exceptions in the application of the current policies and making sure that renters in Vancouver are protected from being displaced from their homes and communities. Thank you.
Hello. I am a VFX worker residing in Vancouver proper, and I just want to express my support for the motion as well as the amendments brought forth by the first speaker. I very much support those very good points made by them. I'll keep it very short and speed of that. I do think that. I think there should be. focus more on the people that live here as opposed to making a profit out of just making a profit out of them since I think that these people should have a place to live and have a community and not be forced out and potentially forced out of a province that they've or city that they've lived in their entire lives and raised their loved ones within and made a community that's That's all I will say. I will also say that I hope that this motion gets passed. I think it would be quite good and helpful for people, especially many of those people who are facing rental insecurity.
Thank you. Thank you very much for calling in today. Our next speaker is speaker number five, Stephen Bohos. Sorry. And you do have, I have that noted here, so you do have a PowerPoint, so we'll make sure that's teed up for you. Just give the clerks a minute. Do we have that ready, the PowerPoint? Okay.
Okay, and thank you very much, Chair.
My name is Stephen Bowes. I'm a Vancouver resident and a renter, and I'd like to speak in strong support of this motion. And thank you, Councillor, for bringing it forward and Councillor Fry for seconding it. It's much needed. The TRPP is very much insufficient. The renter's office was insufficient. And I will have some examples here. The first slide is of 2224 Alberta Street, a rental building, and this building was approved at a rezoning, which sees a change in use to commercial and retail and will not allow return of any renters. So this is a demo eviction. Next slide. This was approved also. It's a change in use to institutional uses at VGH Hospital Foundation. And it is also a dumb eviction. There weren't any additional supports for tenants. Next slide.
This was a rezoning approved at council. And it's actually an interesting one because some of the tenants qualify to return, but some of them don't. Because to return, you would have to qualify for social housing. And I think Councillor Fry brought this up during the public hearing at that time. And it's another example of insufficient protections. Next slide. Here, these are the Donacana apartment buildings here, and that is at 124-144 East 6th. This is another demo eviction for hotel use. None of the tenants can return, and it's a prime example of large corporations buying land that has a residential building for the purpose of essentially building a hotel here, and that would result in the demo eviction of all the tenants without any additional supports. And I'll just point out that these large corporations can buy tons of land in an industrial area, but they choose to buy the lands that have mature rental buildings on them. Next slide.
What council can do, I really support the amendments that brought forward, suggested by the first speaker. You could amend the Broadway plan. You could amend the ODP. And essentially, one of the amendments that you can do is consider excluding rental sites for conversion to other uses. So if a site has a rental building on it, you can't make a hotel. can't make an office or commercial space, it has to stay as residential. That way, lease tenants can return under the TRPP. Next slide. The city also has rental stock, such as the Mount Pleasant Community Center, and there are rental units there. And if there is a situation where renters are being dumb evicted and they cannot return, can the city of Vancouver not... Provide the housing you surely it can at the same rates of the same area. So that's possible next slide and I will also mention a lot of tenants are being demo evicted this was approved at 14th of April on consent another item was also approved at 360 and these tenants need to be taken care of so Please protect tenants. I've been evicted myself and and there's so much more you can do. Thank you
Thank you, Stephen, for the presentation. Our next speaker, number six, is withdrawn. And our final speaker, number seven, is Michelle Travis.
Is Michelle on the line?
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead, Michelle.
Great. Yes, I'm a resident of Vancouver and also a representative of the United Hero Local 40. We support the motion and also support the amendments raised by the first speaker. We do not want to see hotel development displace tenants in existing affordable housing, and it should not be allowed by the city. As we've said before many times, we don't believe Vancouver suffers from a hotel room crisis, but an affordability crisis and a severe lack of deeply affordable housing. We want to see the city do more to support tenants at risk of demoviction, and we think more should be done here. So, yes, we support this and the amendments. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments today. Okay, Council, that brings us to the end of our registered speakers.
Yeah, it was, yeah. Just before we go into debate, I just wanted to clarify one point with respect to the question raised by Councillor Fry earlier about amending the title. The sequencing will be we need to deal with the resolutions themselves. Amended or not, we need to pass those. not pass them, so we have to amend them, just to be clear. We need to amend the resolutions, and then after that, we can amend the whereas clauses and the title, and or the title, depending on council's wishes. And then we would vote on all of that together. Hopefully that's clear. Any questions on that?
Okay. So in that case, I will advance Councillor Montague.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I was reading the motion, and I read it several times to try and...
I actually agree with the general aspects of it. I think there is a gap in the TRPP when it comes to this type of redevelopment.
I really struggled with the wording with regards to the... right of first refusal.
The right of first refusal, I just don't... And I thought about trying to wordsmith it, trying to change the words. And I really have an issue trying to figure out how we actually give right of first refusal to where we're not building a residential building.
think that the resolutions are have merit that one piece I really struggle with but I also think and I know council has heard several times from staff recently that that they're aware of of this issue the motion itself talks about how there is currently work underway by staff to do a review or they're in the midst of a review of the TRPP. So I've emailed in an amendment to actually refer this back to staff because I didn't know how to reword this right of first refusal because I can't make it make sense to me.
Thank you, Councillor Montague. Do I have a seconder for the referral?
Seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. I'm going to move us actually to an amendment queue in that case. And I'm just actually going to, Council, give me two minutes. I just have to consult with the clerks given the sequencing I gave you earlier. I didn't contemplate a referral in terms of dealing with the amended title. So just, Councillor Fry, just give me a moment.
Thanks.
We have a referral motion on the floor. I'm going to advance Councillor Frey. Go ahead, Councillor Frey.
Well, sure. Actually, I was hoping if you would rule if this amendment's in order. I think under 87F, it's kind of dilatory and frivolous. The operative direction in this motion is, in fact, for this to go to staff and review as part of their TRPP review that is scheduled and report back. And I don't see how this amendment really changes the intention of the original motion.
Okay, Councillor Fry, my initial instinct would be that it is in order. It is proper to be able to refer it to staff to be inclusion in the review that's underway. Otherwise, it would be redundant because they're already looking at this and no one's calling it out of order in that context. But if you would like me to, I'll consult the clerks, but that would be my initial ruling. Hang on.
I'm going to deal first with Councillor Frey's question as to whether the referral is in order. I have consulted with the clerks in law, and I do find it to be in order. It is referring to staff's existing review. whereas the motion is more prescriptive in direction. So I would say that's the distinction here. So I do rule it in order. That being said, I know there is a desire to amend the title of the motion, and because a referral has been moved, what I have suggested is that Councillor Montague withdraw. I think it would actually be the easiest is if you withdraw the... Referral you made and oh has been second so you could just move a new referral that includes the change in title So it was seconded. Okay, so I'll need a motion to withdraw That referral and then to resubmit a new referral where it includes a referral and changing the title of the motion so can I get a motion to withdraw the Once from Montague, would you like to do that? To move a withdrawal
Yes, I'll move a withdrawal of the referral for now.
Seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. All in favour of the withdrawal? And that carries. Thank you. And now I'll give you a moment to resubmit that referral, which would include changing, renaming the title of the motion. And then Council can debate the merits of that.
Stand by.
Um, Councillor Fry, you still have the queue, though.
Although we're going to move back to the main queue, actually, because we don't have any on the floor right now. So just, um, and Councillor Montague, you'll have to go on there as well.
One second here.
I'll add you while we're.
There we go.
Okay.
Thank you. So I've emailed in a new referral that includes a strike and replace the title as well.
Should be coming through momentarily, I hope.
And I'll move you to an amendment queue. Thank you. Let me just clear that queue. We'll put Councillor Montague.
Okay, so Councillor Montague circulated a referral motion. It'll be displayed on the screen. Could I get a seconder, please?
Second by Councillor Zhou. So, Councillor, I'm going to read it aloud.
Yeah, thank you. So it's resubmitted, and it's the title be struck and replaced to protecting tenants through the tenant relocation and protection review policy review, which was a suggestion from Councillor Orr, and that this council refer the motion to staff for information as part of their ongoing review. And as I mentioned earlier, we're all aware that staff is currently under review. I think staff are well aware of this issue but I you know I think I can't wrap my head around just the one part of the motion that discusses the right of first refusal I don't know how you get right of first refusal to a hotel or an office building so I think that the motion will allow will highlight to staff that Council is aware of this problem, ensure that staff is aware of this problem, and that it be part of the ongoing review that they're undertaking right now. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Montague. And so that has been seconded by Councillor Zhou. Councillor Maloney, go ahead to the amendment.
Thanks. I'll be voting against this referral. I would have voted in favour of the original motion. Councillor Montague said that he thought about it and thought about it and he couldn't work out how to remove the right of first refusal part of it. But it's actually incredibly simple to do that. What he could have done was deleted the words in Resolution Clause A, including the right of first refusal provisions. That would have removed it. There's no point referring this back to staff for information. Staff have already reviewed this motion and given feedback. They are informed. The point of this motion appears to be to direct staff to explore ways of taking into account the interests of tenants who aren't currently protected when a developer is proposing to build a hotel instead of a residential building. So to take action, to give direction to staff to... find ways of protecting the interests of tenants. Unfortunately, referring, this is not the first time a member of the majority on council has referred one of the opposition's member motions back to staff for information. And it just appears to be another technique to avoid clearly voting down the motion of an opposition member of council and I absolutely do not support this. The original motion was good and could quite easily have been modified to remove the part that Councillor Montague says he was concerned with.
Thank you, Councillor Maloney. I'm just going to add myself. to the amendment Q and I'll turn the chair over to Councillor Kirby-Young. Just in brief, I appreciate the discussion here. Maybe I'll address head-on the comment from Councillor Maloney. If the desire was to vote this down, then I would vote it down if that was the case, but I actually see the merit in the motion. I think there's merit in the conversation. And having served on council last term and this term, I can tell you this has been a very active conversation around how we protect tenants, the risks of displacement, tenant relocation policy, and... one of the things that we committed to is to have a review of that framework and that work is underway and a number of these considerations are already embedded in that review and so I support the referral I support the continuation of the work I appreciate there's some unique circumstances in the case of some of the zoning in the city where there's existing housing that is actually on non-residential zoned properties but I do want to reflect that I think collectively there is an interest in seeing a report back on this and how we can support tenants. So I just wanted to make that very clear. I'll advance Councillor Fry and then Councillor Kirby-Young. Go ahead, Councillor Frey.
Yeah, I don't support this referral. And I want to thank the Speaker, Stephen Bohus, for reminding us of the fact that this has come up at this council before. We've dealt with similar situations where there's no possible opportunity for right of first refusal because it's not being replaced with a residential property. And so staff have been aware of this issue. We were told then. as we're being told now, that it will be part of some future ongoing work plan. The reality is that we're still seeing applications coming forward that do not address displacement of tenants through the TRPP, that do not address this actual very specific example of right of first refusal, which is, you know, frankly something that was, and I realize some of the councillors weren't on council when we approved that Broadway plan originally, and we had the robust debates around TRPP and the importance of the right of first refusal in the Broadway plan, I think it's highly appropriate, this motion, that it gives that additional direction to address this very specific kind of context that we're seeing increasingly. And I feel referring this for information doesn't really give it the gravitas that it deserves. So I don't support this referral. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. I'll be brief. I actually think this is really important and I do fully support looking at opportunities for sort of a commensurate protection or support for tenants. It needs to be different, obviously, than right of first refusal just because of the practicality. You're building an office building or something or something is industrial zoned or commercial versus and something's a non-conforming use. And sometimes until you see these examples... You don't, they're the ones that actually illuminate where you have a policy gap. I am fully confident that the work is happening and coming forward. And I actually, having voted to support the TRPP and the extended provisions, I'm fully confident in the intention here. So I think that it's a good conversation. I think that Councillor Orr has highlighted an issue. I think that some good examples have been raised. It provides some tangible, situations for staff to kind of work through and look at and consider options but those solutions also need to be workable in the fact terms that if they are crafted and put forward that they will be accessible for tenants so I actually think that there's a lot of goodwill around this one and that there's some work to be done I'm confident that staff will wrap it into the review which has a very specific timeline on it and I'm happy to
of move forward on that basis um because i think that's everybody's recognizes that we've got a gap and it makes sense to fill it thank you thank you thank you councillor kirby young uh councillor montague oops i lost you there back on yeah thanks i just wanted to respond to uh council maloney uh i'm not shy about voting no for motions i don't agree with uh i'll say that Very clearly. I do think there is merit in this motion, which is why I'm referring it. The work is being done by staff, and I think by referring it back to staff with the information that's in it, rather than removing it, removing that information, lets them just make sure that they realize that this is something that they need to include. I think they're already including it, but I'm not shy about voting no. I do think there's merit in this. Referring it to staff just ensures that they get the information in the motion that's there.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Montague. With that, we'll call the vote. Those joining us online, please put your videos on to vote. I'll take a vote assistant in favour, please.
Chair, can I please get a vote assistant in favour as well?
Thank you. Hi, Chair. It's Councillor Meister here.
Can I get a vote assistant in favour, please?
Thank you. Councillor Klassen, can I get a vote of assistant favor, please? Thanks.
Yes, Councillor Klassen, noted. Thank you. Thank you, Council. That passes with Councillor Frye, Councillor Orr, and Councillor Maloney in opposition.
Statement Watch
Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Cook. I'm a resident of Myron Manor at 75 East 8th Avenue with my wife and two children, and I am speaking on behalf of the Myron Manor Collective, which includes almost 40 members. We support the proposed motion, but I am here to argue that it does not go far enough in protecting our members nor other Vancouver renters who are facing displacement because of the predatory practices of real estate speculators. We request that the motion be strengthened with the following amendments. One, regarding the hotel development policy section 3.2.2.1, which states applications for rezoning will be considered, quote, where no purpose-built rental residential housing will be displaced. This is an important common sense protection that is immediately nullified by subsection D, stating that protection applies citywide except, quote, in areas that have recently approved community plans. That is a very dangerous loophole created by an unelected planning department in a perfunctory seven-page document which puts tens of thousands of tenants at risk. The motion should move to eliminate this subsection D loophole which subverts the very community plans it cites. Two, the motion should include stronger language preventing predatory real estate speculation. I won't speak to our specific speculator, but it should include language requiring council to prevent displacement for the purpose of increasing land values without building homes. Three, the motion should include language clarifying that the hotel room supply crisis does not exist. The current spike in hotel vacancies is widely evidenced in local and world news. Even if vacancies were limited, tourists looking for hotels is not a crisis. Citizens, permanent residents, immigrants, refugees, children, and First Nations elders displaced from their homes is a crisis. The motion should resolve. City Council will not remedy macroeconomic constraints on tourism by destroying neighborhoods which are advertised to visitors for their vibrant diversity. For these reasons, the proposed motion is insufficient in its stated aim of protecting us and my children. The city can only protect us from displacement by not displacing us. If we lose our home, my wife and I may have to quit our jobs and leave the region with our two children. She's a chef, and I teach metal fabrication at BCIT. Displacing my children is not good for the economy, despite real estate speculators' claims. Although this motion resolves to direct staff to recommend right of first refusal provisions for us, first refusal of what? A 300-square-foot micro-bachelor? It's ironic the council has a performative recognition of World Refugee Day while aggressively displacing so many of its own residents, including refugees. Ironic and shameful, in fact. Shame. Shame.
Statement Watch
Hi, good afternoon. Still Laura Stannard, and I'm speaking in support of this motion, and I also want to support the previous speaker's amendments, which I think are extremely important and need to be listened to. Perhaps if you hadn't closed the renter's office three years ago, you would have more understanding of the struggles of tenants and the loopholes that developers are now using to avoid incurring cost and responsibility for housing losses. One of the ways a developer can avoid TRPP is to submit an application for hotel development. Given the state of development construction interest rates and the fact that Vancouver is already on track to meet its hotel targets, Developers could find it profitable to wait until the existing tenants have been evicted before submitting a new application for permanent housing or flipping the property now that it's vacant of tenants and the land value and status is more desirable. For most of my working life, I worked with people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness. I would see tenants finally find a seemingly affordable rental, only to lose it within months as a new landlord would proceed with renovation plans. Those residents are not covered by TRPP. I urge you to support these motions, and I thank Councillor Orr for bringing them forward. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Good afternoon. I'm a consultant and small business owner in Vancouver. I've worked with City of Vancouver staff on tenant relocation at Rodden Lodge in my previous job at BC Housing. I've also helped nonprofit housing providers in developing more robust tenant relocation policies for projects that were receiving provincial funding. I'm really happy to support this motion and the amendments brought forward by the first speaker when we think about tenants facing displacement without protections currently under the tenant relocation policy. When I did my master's research on civic-led community displacement under the Urban Renewal Program of the late 50s to early 70s in Vancouver, I read many firsthand accounts of people who experienced significant trauma from being forced from their homes and communities. I also read the city's archive documents about how officials of that time felt about people who resided in the homes being cleared out for capital interests. Their legacies, along with their names and their choices at that time, are clear and documented in research like mine and works by others. Over and over when examining these public records, it's evident that those in power, that their primary concerns were the interests of investors. Displaced communities full of hardworking people who just wanted a safe and secure home to raise their families and to stay in the communities they relied on were given no thought by those in power. The current policies represent progress from the days of urban renewal where renters were not given a single consideration, then only owners were compensated. And, you know, anytime I've presented this research to audiences, usually we ask, you know, have you ever lived in a home you've loved? And what did you love about it? And 10 times out of 10, people always say it's the people. It's the things that they got to do with their friends and family that really stand out. That's probably true for all of you who have lived in a place you've loved. And if you've ever had to leave that place, you know that that brings with it significant grief and negative impact. So when we're thinking about people being moved against their will to make way for more powerful interests that have had this historical support of politicians and bureaucracies, we know that nobody wants to experience this and nobody ever should. So I encourage council. to be different than their predecessors and approve this motion to make sure that there are no exceptions in the application of the current policies and making sure that renters in Vancouver are protected from being displaced from their homes and communities. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Hello. I am a VFX worker residing in Vancouver proper, and I just want to express my support for the motion as well as the amendments brought forth by the first speaker. I very much support those very good points made by them. I'll keep it very short and speed of that. I do think that. I think there should be. focus more on the people that live here as opposed to making a profit out of just making a profit out of them since I think that these people should have a place to live and have a community and not be forced out and potentially forced out of a province that they've or city that they've lived in their entire lives and raised their loved ones within and made a community that's That's all I will say. I will also say that I hope that this motion gets passed. I think it would be quite good and helpful for people, especially many of those people who are facing rental insecurity.
Statement Watch
Okay, and thank you very much, Chair.
My name is Stephen Bowes. I'm a Vancouver resident and a renter, and I'd like to speak in strong support of this motion. And thank you, Councillor, for bringing it forward and Councillor Fry for seconding it. It's much needed. The TRPP is very much insufficient. The renter's office was insufficient. And I will have some examples here. The first slide is of 2224 Alberta Street, a rental building, and this building was approved at a rezoning, which sees a change in use to commercial and retail and will not allow return of any renters. So this is a demo eviction. Next slide. This was approved also. It's a change in use to institutional uses at VGH Hospital Foundation. And it is also a dumb eviction. There weren't any additional supports for tenants. Next slide. This was a rezoning approved at council. And it's actually an interesting one because some of the tenants qualify to return, but some of them don't. Because to return, you would have to qualify for social housing. And I think Councillor Fry brought this up during the public hearing at that time. And it's another example of insufficient protections. Next slide. Here, these are the Donacana apartment buildings here, and that is at 124-144 East 6th. This is another demo eviction for hotel use. None of the tenants can return, and it's a prime example of large corporations buying land that has a residential building for the purpose of essentially building a hotel here, and that would result in the demo eviction of all the tenants without any additional supports. And I'll just point out that these large corporations can buy tons of land in an industrial area, but they choose to buy the lands that have mature rental buildings on them. Next slide. What council can do, I really support the amendments that brought forward, suggested by the first speaker. You could amend the Broadway plan. You could amend the ODP. And essentially, one of the amendments that you can do is consider excluding rental sites for conversion to other uses. So if a site has a rental building on it, you can't make a hotel. can't make an office or commercial space, it has to stay as residential. That way, lease tenants can return under the TRPP. Next slide. The city also has rental stock, such as the Mount Pleasant Community Center, and there are rental units there. And if there is a situation where renters are being dumb evicted and they cannot return, can the city of Vancouver not... Provide the housing you surely it can at the same rates of the same area. So that's possible next slide and I will also mention a lot of tenants are being demo evicted this was approved at 14th of April on consent another item was also approved at 360 and these tenants need to be taken care of so Please protect tenants. I've been evicted myself and and there's so much more you can do. Thank you
Statement Watch
Great. Yes, I'm a resident of Vancouver and also a representative of the United Hero Local 40. We support the motion and also support the amendments raised by the first speaker. We do not want to see hotel development displace tenants in existing affordable housing, and it should not be allowed by the city. As we've said before many times, we don't believe Vancouver suffers from a hotel room crisis, but an affordability crisis and a severe lack of deeply affordable housing. We want to see the city do more to support tenants at risk of demoviction, and we think more should be done here. So, yes, we support this and the amendments. Thank you.