Vanessa Wirth, from Berkeley Tower, was interviewed by Simon Schweitzer of Socialist Alternative Vancouver
Berkeley Tower, overlooking English Bay in Vancouver, when it opened in 1959 was one of West End’s first high-rise apartments. Vanessa has lived in Berkeley Tower for five years and is active in the campaign to resist renoviction from the new owner, Reliance Properties.
S: And how is living in that building?
V: It’s been amazing, it’s changed my life in many ways. I never knew there could be a community like this, I mean both in the building and the sense of friendliness of neighbours. When I first moved in I was surprised as people decorated the lobby for Easter, Christmas and Halloween. On different floors, when the elevator doors opened, there would be displays that would make it very homey. One floor had photographs of friends on the lobby wall. When the building was being sold, I think they told the tenants that they had to take all that down. I live with five other people in my suite while before I was living alone. It’s incredible how the community has changed my life, being surrounded by these people and also what we’ve created as we are a social hub for other community members.
S: Even before the renovictions, there was a strong sense of community in the building?
V: In some buildings people don’t talk to each other, you get into an elevator with someone and they try to ignore you, it’s not like that here. Tenants who have been here for 20 to 40 years, tell how with the old owners there were parties on the roof. One tenant got married on the roof. The old owner used to throw a Christmas party every year in her suite. People put signs up saying “There’s a party in my suite come join at this time. ”I’ve never seen that before, so it was a welcome surprise.
S: The building was purchased by Reliance Properties in 2016?
V: The sales brochure for the building advertised under “Investment Highlights: Strong rental market: With high demand for renovated units, luxury furnished rentals are commanding rents around $4 per square foot.” A key selling feature was to renovict people.
S: How would you describe the experience of the building being sold?
V: It was kind of opaque. I don’t remember Reliance particularly hiding things, it was more that there was a sense of unease in the building, there was a fear among tenants. If there was something that needed fixing, a minor repair, people didn’t want to ask for it out of fear that they would be issued an eviction notice. There was a sense of don’t rock the boat, because if you bring attention to yourself it might give them a reason to start thinking how to evict you.
But they were already thinking about evicting. As the sales brochure stated that was a key investment highlight. Also John Stovell, who owns Reliance Properties, has claimed that the building is currently not profitable. Before Reliance bought it, they would have had access to the rent roll, the building conditions, and maintenance costs. So it’s likely that they bought the building to evict the tenants and raise rents.
S: They started this summer with escalating buyout offers. Was that the first thing they tried?
V: Yes, what they issued wasn’t an official eviction notice because you can’t do that until your development permits have been approved. They claimed to being very generous with our timeline, saying that they want to make sure everyone can find homes so giving pre-eviction notices and buyout packages and warning that they want everyone out just less than a year from the date of the first notices. They offered people a paltry sum of money to leave their homes. They think it’s generous, but that’s not the way we look at it. We see it more as a threat.
S:Stovell claimsin the press that he is offering much more than the minimum, but a lot of tenants, if they get a buyout offer, might not know that this actually isn’t an eviction notice.
V:The lucky thing for us is that we have a lawyer in the building who knows the law. Most buildings don’t have that. We also have a few tenants who had been quarrelling with Reliance before the buyouts, so they were already versed in Residential Tenancy law. They shared with the rest of the building that these were not actual eviction notices. Most tenants don’t have access to those kinds of resources, they just see an official document coming from a big powerful company and think, “Oh, I have no rights, I have to leave.”
Reliance has been spreading misinformation through the media. They’ve said that 40% of tenants have accepted the buyout package, which is a lie. That number includes suites that were already vacant or were occupied by people that they brought in. The number is more like 19%. The reason they’re spinning this 40% figure is they are trying to make tenants feel isolated and panicked, a divide and conquer technique. They hope that tenants will think that since all these people have accepted the offer, if they don’t accept they will miss out.
The other misleading narrative is that it’s a 60-year old building and needs major upgrades and repairs. He acts like the building is going to fall down if we don’t do something about it. We’re not disputing that he has a right to renovate, what he can’t do is evict people to renovate. No one is denying that there are probably things that could use upgrading, but you can do major renovations without evicting people. The building across the street had all their windows replaced and no one was evicted. We’ve talked to other tenants who’ve had their whole water system replaced with no evictions. Reliance says the building is going to be exposed to the elements for extended periods of time so they have to evict everybody. It’s not true because: a) you don’t have to evict people to renovate and b) when you look at their development applications it’s mostly cosmetic upgrades, such as bigger windows, new paint, or the new tenant recreation area that they’re eliminating three suites to put in.
It’s disingenuous and designed to make people reading the news believe that these tenants are hysterical and they need to realize that a property development company has the right to make an investment. I say, “No they don’t! If you choose to spend $43 million, which is what they paid for the building, in a speculative market, if you’ve got a property portfolio of over $600 million, and you’re going to kick out low to middle income people just so you can add to your millions, you don’t have a right to do that.”
S: In November, Melody Ma (a Vancouver writer and activist) wrote in the Georgia Straight about your situation. John Stovell wrote in the comments section, saying that, “without major investment, Vancouver will lose this rental building as zoning doesn’t allow for a new residential building on this site, so to that end Reliance wants to preserve this rental building, and that is only feasible at market rate.” Setting aside his arguments about zoning, because developers haven’t had much trouble pushing zoning through city council, it sounds like he’s trying to frame this as an effort to preserve rental housing. We are in a housing crisis and vacancy rates are at historic lows, so any loss of rental housing would be a blow to the city. Is it problematic for him to be framing this as an attempt to ease the housing crisis?
V: It’s absurd as the plan is to turn 58 affordable units into 52 luxury units, including merging the top two floors into penthouses. They are preserving rental for the rich, and already there are lots of places that rich people can live, there’s no shortage of that. But don’t evict middle income and vulnerable people, seniors, people with cancer, people who have built a community over 20 years to do that. It’s such a crock of horse shit.
The rich have lots of options, and that’s what makes it extra disgusting, because he’s deliberately framing this as though he’s some sort of tenants’ rights activist, when behind closed doors he knows that he is going to charge the max. If he were so concerned about preserving rentals he wouldn’t be trying to evict the current tenants. I think a lot of tenants in the building wouldn’t object to a nominal rent increase. The previous owner did some repairs years ago and was apologetic about having to raise the rents. The tenants understood they had to cover some costs, because they had a good relationship, it wasn’t a bullying relationship where someone’s just trying to line their bank account.
S: How long after you received the first buyout offer did you and your neighbours decide to organize?
V: Pretty much immediately. In Vancouver, most people figure that if their building is up for sale, renovictions are coming. They know that when a building is being sold, someone is going to buy it to make money. So, we were prepared.
S: What do you think the benefits of being so organized have been?
V: People who wouldn’t otherwise have the resources and know-how to defend themselves are able to stay in their homes. There’s a lot of people here who, if they were in a different building without a lawyer and other tenants who have been battling Reliance for years now, would have probably just caved and left. It’s important to remember that most of the people who were speaking out at city hall are the people who have strength, who are able to go stand up and speak at city hall. They represent so many more people who are hiding and afraid, who wouldn’t come to speak at city hall because they are afraid of repercussions from their landlords. They don’t know their rights, so a lot of people would have been displaced. A Vancouver Tenants Union (VTU) member had an elderly couple as neighbours who, when they were evicted, became homeless.
S: What has been your relationship with VTU?
V: They’ve been enormously helpful. These are regular people who have day jobs, they’re not rich like the developers who have teams of paid lawyers. They’re grassroots people who care and who are trying to make a difference. All these people work tirelessly to keep people in their homes. They provide essential support and information to tenants who are experiencing these eviction issues or are at risk.
S: Jean Swanson, the new COPE city councillor, has put a motion to City Council to address renovictions. Were you guys involved in informing the motion?
V: The tenant who is a lawyer gave his opinion. There’s section 49 (6) of the Residential Tenancy Act that is continuously abused by predatory developers, because of ambiguous wording. It says that if they require vacant possession of a unit they can terminate the tenancy. That went to the Supreme Court, the Baumann case, where it was said that this is not designed to be an eviction mechanism for landlords. Yet, despite that ruling it continues to be exploited. Our tenant contributed to the motion that the Vancouver Charter be amended to reflect this decision. It should be a very easy win for councillors – it’s uncontroversial because the law already exists. We are just getting in line with it. Currently, tenants have to proactively fight these evictions. It’s a big drain because it costs money and time for everybody, including the tenants, to protect rights that already exist but are poorly written.
All that landlords would have to do when they want to renovate and need vacant possession is to issue a letter that states that you can move out or we can work together to accommodate the renovation and the tenancy will remain intact. That would eliminate an enormous number of evictions.
S: Jean Swanson campaigned with grassroots social movements like yours. Do you think that being organized and public has given you access to a city councillor that you might otherwise not have had?
V: Jean cares about the issue and we’re fighting the issue so it’s a natural fit. Jean is what a politician should be. She really does consult with and care about the people; she goes to the people and asks, “What do the people need?” With most politicians, you get a bunch of political speak and non-committal answers. Jean really is unique.
S: The example of your building organizing is inspiring for tenants in Metro Vancouver, but I think it also needs to be instructive. Tenants are in a tough spot, people are being pushed out into the streets or out of the city. Your building is not the first to suffer renoviction, but your building is among the first to organize. I’m not sure if renovictions came to my building whether we would be able to this pull off. At the same time, I don’t see another way out of this tight situation. No one’s going to come and save us, we need to find ways to save ourselves. Tenants need to learn from what you have been able to do. How did you organize yourselves? You said it happened quickly, and you’ve talked about one of your neighbours who is a lawyer. Was there one person who spearheaded it?
V: There’s kind of a core group. A landlord can evict a tenant if they plan to move a relative or a manager into the suite. Reliance did that, evicted one of the tenants to move a manager in. No manager has moved in, but that was not the purpose of their eviction, they were just trying to get people out. Another tenant had been fighting Reliance over a rent increase for some time. These things primed people to be ready for a fight, they knew it was coming.
What I’d say to other buildings, and some buildings are starting to do this, get to know your neighbours. Find out what’s happening with your neighbours. Are they having any problems with the landlord? Hopefully renovictions will soon be a thing of the past, but in the meantime get to know your neighbours so that when you are served an eviction notice you can mobilize quickly. It’s probably good for tenants who aren’t currently facing eviction right now to meet up once in a while, check in, and also join the VTU.
S: You’re all refusing the buyouts, but how do you come to decisions such as if you should participate in a rally?
V: It’s pretty much on an individual basis. In terms of the buyouts, there’s one tenant in this building, a 71-year-old cancer patient, who’s saying, “I don’t care if you throw $100,000 or even $200,000 at me, it doesn’t matter. At this point in my life money is irrelevant, and I want to live here until I take my last breath.” Bullies like Reliance don’t understand that, they think in the capitalist world if you throw enough cash at somebody they will do what you want, and it’s no longer a negotiation, it’s basically a gun with money on the other end. For a lot of the tenants it’s not about cash; this is their home and they want to stay. There are things money can’t buy. People care about their home and their community.
S: While you have been effective in your struggle, is there anything that you would have done differently?
V: Probably starting earlier with the media campaign, getting ready for when the eventual eviction notices came, to already have film footage of tenants’ stories. Also lobbying the city and provincial governments, because politics can be very slow.
S: How do you think this experience has changed the way you see housing politically? How has it changed the way that you see the relationships between landlords, developers, and tenants?
V: It’s really brought to my attention how we’ve been tricked into believing that housing is a commodity and developers have a right to profit. In a capitalist society, as there’s no safety net for people, they invest in a home, if they can afford it, and it might provide them with some cash in an emergency if it appreciates in value. The profits and the prices are getting so high though, and developers have convinced us that they have some sort of chartered right to make profits and it doesn’t matter who they displace to do it. But when you enter business it’s always a risk. Developers are not hurting, even if they’re collecting below market rents, they’re still sitting on an investment the size of which their tenants will never see. I don’t feel bad for Reliance, and their $43 million investment, which has appreciated by $5 million in the last two years.
Up until now I’ve always had good landlords. I’ve lived in somebody’s house or an elderly owner of a small walk-up. It’s always been kind of a family thing and in those cases it’s been fine. This issue comes about now that I’m in a place that’s owned by a developer. There is a real distinction between developers and good landlords, everyday people using rental to help pay their mortgage. The media and big business keep trying to collapse the narrative between that person and the company that makes evictions their business model. My opinion hasn’t changed of small landlords, but my disgust has significantly risen seeing these big companies with predatory practices.
