Coquitlam council rebukes developer over ‘bad faith,’ astounding ‘tone-deafness’

A developer’s request to delay paying moving costs to North Road tenants was uniformly – and in some cases angrily – rejected Monday.

Hani Lammam, executive vice-president of Cressey Development Group, explained his company is currently on the hook for nearly $57,000 in moving expenses and financial compensation after nine tenants left his building at 727 North Rd.

Cressey has submitted an application to redevelop the Burquitlam property. However, with construction at least two years away, Lammam argued the company shouldn’t have to pay any tenant relocation costs until that application moves ahead.

“An application does not make a project,” he told council. “From our perspective, it seems kind of inconceivable that we become obligated to make payments for compensation before we have a project approval.”

Lammam’s argument is equivalent to a driver disputing a ticket because they think the speed limit is unreasonable, said Coun. Teri Towner.

Moving out of your home is a major undertaking, Towner said, noting the region’s low vacancy rate.

“It’s very anxiety-producing and stressful for tenants when they learn that where they currently live [is going to be developed],” Towner told Lammam. “It’s really bad faith to withhold funds from people who are eligible.”

The word “eligible” was at the centre of much of Monday’s discussion.

“There’s a big difference between being eligible for compensation and when somebody becomes entitled to payment,” Lammam said.

Tenants become eligible for compensation after the developer submits a rezoning application. That policy is “crystal clear,” said Coun. Matt Djonlic.

“You have created a great deal of uncertainty for those tenants, that is why we have that policy in place,” he said. “If you want the project approved, you will meet those obligations that we have set out in the policy. End of discussion.”

Coquitlam’s tenant relocation policy came about after developers seemed to be trying to empty their buildings to avoid paying renters compensation, explained Coun. Brent Asmundson.

“We were kind of appalled about that,” he said.

After reading through a raft of emails from the building’s tenants, Asmundson said it seemed like the same thing was happening here.

It’s crucial renters have the time to find decent housing, Asmundson added.

“If they wait to the very end, they may be on the street,” he said.

Coun. Trish Mandewo concurred.

Lammam’s argument doesn’t hold water, she said, primarily because developers don’t face much uncertainty when submitting official community plan-compliant projects in Coquitlam, particularly near transit hubs.

“We don’t just refuse developments,” she said

The whole episode was troubling, according to Coun. Robert Mazzarolo.

“The tone-deafness was quite astounding,” he said.

Mazzarolo read an email between the developer and city staff in which Lammam expressed his desire for a more affordable city for the next generation.

“I want that, too,” Mazzarolo said. “I want to see how many non-market rentals you have in your development. I want to see how many below-market rentals you have in your development. I want to see how many rent-to-own units you have in your development.”

An issue like this can alter the way council judges a potential development, said Mayor Richard Stewart.

“We’re not supposed to make decisions about applications ahead of time, but all of us get clouded by the circumstances that the application was presented in, myself included,” he said. “Don’t put us in that position. It makes it really awkward for us.”

Stewart described reading correspondence from tenants who wrote they were promised compensation that didn’t arrive.

“I never want to be at the point where I’m reading through emails where a cheque has been promised repeatedly. Repeatedly,” Stewart emphasized.

If there were questions about the policy, Cressey should have asked those questions before submitting their application, Stewart advised.

“I’m just troubled by the fact that the reason you’re before us, I think, is primarily because you refuse to follow the policy that was in place when you applied.”