#since alas I cannot follow the show to toronto

[raziraphale]

I've learned not to trust my memory, so I wanted to make a note for myself of some things I enjoyed from the Neptune production of RAGAD before it all leaks out my ears. It's mostly for me but thought I'd post it here in case it's interesting to anyone else.

Note for people that aren't me: this is the only production of RAGAD I've seen live. I've seen the movie and the 2017 NTL recording as of writing this, for reference. So, forgive me if I gush about elements/choices that are common to RAGAD productions and not unique to this one lol. Also I was an English major but not a theatre guy outside some Shakespeare, so also bear with me if I'm lacking some specific terms.

Performances:

I feel like this almost goes without saying but Boyd and Monaghan are excellent as Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. Their chemistry is great. There was an excellent rhythm to their dialogue together that was really fast-paced without feeling artificial (imo there is a certain point where performers talk so fast it can only feel fake. They were all believable enthusiam).

I particularly liked Monaghan's Rosencrantz! like there was just something so earnest about him. He had this character tic of chewing on his finger most of the time out of anxiety or inattention and that stuck out for me for some reason. It was endearing. Also the line "I wanted to make you happy" made the whole theatre let out a wounded animal noise.

Also Boyd's Guildenstern really did a good job of projecting an aura of "person trying really hard to appear in control but may also snap any moment". Control freak recognizing control freak o7

The Player (Michael Blake) was amazing. He had such huge stage presence that you really believed the character was a seasoned performer. I fully believe this man could successfully sell me snake oil with the power of his presence alone.

Personal note but I was jazzed to see Drew Douris-O'Hara as Alfred. I'm not a regular Neptune patron so I don't know how often he appears in their productions, but I have seen many a Shakespeare By The Sea show in my time so he's a very familiar face. Always a really fun presence.

I also feel like I have to mention Ophelia (Helen Belay) even though she obviously doesn't get much to do here. The actress really sold every small appearance though like my heart broke a little every time I saw her in anticipation for her off-stage fate. Less important but have you ever seen a woman so beautiful you started crying?

Costumes:

I really liked Ros and Guil's tattered suits. They looked like they were dragged behind a horse. These are the clothes of two guys that have been trapped in a play for like 50 years, truly.

They also had an inverted colour scheme (Ros had a blue suit with a green waistcoat, Guil had a green suit with blue waistcoat) that really emphasized the two-sides-of-the-same-coin/ yin & yang vibe. Also the colours weren't really shared by the rest of the cast much (they tended to be a bit more muted) so it made them stand out as separate from the rest of what was happening.

Also personal note but I was enchanted by Monaghan's slightly stupid-looking grown-out fauxhawk. He basically had a lesbian mullet haircut. That combined with his single dangly earring was a Look.

The Player's coat was gorgeous. It felt grand but also appropriately dated/worn. It wasn't fully a feather jacket, but it had a smattering of large feathers that got more dense as it went down. It kind of reminded me of a vulture, honestly, which I think is fitting, with him being an opportunist that loves some corpses.

Script:

Misc. Stage Stuff:

Unless I'm really mistaken, I think they cut/modified the few lines with some outdated racial terms (I have two specifically in mind, referring to Chinese and Inuit people). So unless I just somehow missed hearing those, that's nice.

Just a note to say that the line about who the English King is will depend on when they get to England got a huge laugh. Thank you to King Charles' cancer for making everything funnier

The lighting !!! It really did a lot to separate the scenes from Hamlet from the rest of it. The stage was dark for most of it, with cool lighting (like a blue darkness). For the Hamlet portions, though, the lights were suddenly bright and warm yellow. That combined with the differences in the performances gave a strong impression that the curtain had just suddenly risen on a more traditional production of Hamlet right in the middle of Ros and Guil just doing whatever.

I really liked how they used the two risers on wheels they had (not sure if that's the right word -- they were those three-tiered platforms I remember from doing choir in school. Kind of like bleachers). They looked like they belonged on an empty stage and also gave the actors something interesting to climb on. They were able to reposition them pretty easily with the wheels, which really worked for the portions on the boat tbh. They just pushed them together so that the lower tiers touched to create a half-pipe-shaped skeletal "boat". They could climb "above deck", or even go below while still being fully visible from whatever angle. The whole thing was spun around a lot during the pirate attack, which was fun.

The risers also separated the stage really well in the first two acts. For most of it, there was one on the left side facing the audience, for characters to sit on, and one on the right facing backwards and partially obscured by the curtain they had covering that side of the stage. The curtain was backlit, so you could see the silhouettes of anything behind it. At some points, you could actually see shadows of events in Hamlet happening in the background while Ros and Guil were doing their thing in the foreground. Unfortunately I didn't get the best look at them, bc I was sitting at far right of my row, so the far right of the stage was partially out of my sight line. Still a really cool effect!

They did turn the risers fully around to face the back during the players' performance of The Murder of Gonzago, with the curtain pulled across. You saw the shadow of the king standing up and storming out.

For the final scene, they did the expected thing, where Ros and Guil are alone in the dark, illuminated by a single narrow spotlight each. The spotlight goes out when each of them die and they disappear from view. The detail that made me insane though is that each time a spotlight went out, they played the sound of a flipped coin hitting the stage and the audience was so quiet it felt like a gunshot both times.

After all the deaths they had Rosencrantz and Guildenstern start from the opening scene again tossing coins for a bit before the final curtain. They did not escape the narrative 😔

Will add more if anything else comes to mind?

[auskultu]

RAY TELLS COURT HE IS NOT GUILTY IN DR KING DEATH

Alvin Schuster, The New York Times, 28 June 1968

LONDON, June 27 — James Earl Ray, accused of killing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., spoke out about the case for the first time today and denied committing the crime.

Taking the witness stand in a wood-paneled* courtroom at 3:12 P.M., Ray said he had never met Dr. King and had never borne a grudge against him. Then his attorney, Roger Frisby, asked him:

“Did you kill Martin Luther King?” “No sir,” Ray replied.

Ray’s brief and dramatic appearance in the witness chair at Bow Street Magistrates Court came after the United States Government had revealed in detail its case alleging that Ray shot Dr. King in Memphis on April 4 in “calculated, brutal and senseless” murder..

Fingerprints Are Cited The Government is seeking the extradition of Ray to the United States to stand trial in Tennessee for the King murder. In presenting its case, the Government offered the testimony of a fingerprint expert and read affidavits designed to link Ray with the crime.

Arguing through a British attorney, David Calcutt, the Government charged that Ray had bought the rifle that killed Dr. King less than a week before the murder; that on the day of the murder Ray checked into the rooming house across from the Lorraine Hotel, where Dr. King was shot, and that Ray’s fingerprints were on the rifle, its telescopic sight and a pair of binoculars, all found near the scene.

Mr. Frisby did not conclude his arguments today, and the presiding chief metropolitan magistrate, Frank Milton, adjourned the proceedings until Tuesday. Mr. Milton said he hoped to rule on the United States Government’s efforts on that day.

Appeals Are Provided If the magistrate finds against Ray, the defendant may appeal, the case to the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice and then on application to the law judges of the House of Lords.

Ray was arrested at Heathrow Airport here on June 8 under the alias Ramon George Sneyd. Today he sat calmly in the courtroom surrounded by policemen as Mr. Calcutt accused him of murder.

Wearing horn-rim glasses, a blue checkered suit and a blue shirt, open at the collar, Ray chewed gum and occasionally scratched the back of his neck. The pending United States “extradition warrants identify the defendant as Ray, an identification that went unchallenged by Ray today. The pending minor British charges—possession of a forged passport and carrying of a firearm—list him as Sneyd.

But for the most part today the nomenclature problem was solved by avoiding the issue. The suspect was usually called “the defendant,” or “this man” or “my client” or “you.” At one point, Ray himself declined to give his name.

The first response of the suspect was elicited by the testimony this morning of Detective Chief Superintendent Thomas Butler of Scotland Yard. Ray wrote a note of protest to his lawyer and later denied major parts of what Chief Butler had said.

The chief is a 55-year-old, gray-haired man who has led the hunt for the “great train robbery” gang which got away in 1962 with $7-million. He told today of his meeting at the airport with Ray on the day of the arrest.

“I saw the defendant at about 1:05 P.M. at London Airport,” Chief Butler said. “I told him we were police officers and said we understand he has two Canadian passports in the name of Sneya and Sneyd.

“’What is your name?’ I asked. He replied: ‘I can’t understand why I’m here. My name is Sneyd.’

Conversation in Jail Chief Butler said he then asked Ray if the information on the passports was correct— that he was a Canadian citizen born in Toronto on Oct. 8, 1932. The chief said that Ray replied that those facts were correct. The suspect was then taken to Cannon Row police station, near the houses of Parliament.

“At 4:45,” Chief Butler went on, “I saw the accused in his cell. I told him that as a result of inquiries made since you have been detained we have every good reason to believe that you are not a Canadian citizen but an American.”

“’Oh well, yes I am,’ he said and nodded. I said I now believe your name is not Sneyd, but James Earl Ray, also known as Eric Starvo Galt and other names; that you were wanted at present in the United States for serious criminal offenses including murder in which a firearm was used.” Chief Butler continued:

“The accused had been standing up but at this point he slumped down on the seat behind him and put his head in his hands and said:

‘“Oh God.’ “After a moment or so, he added: “‘I feel so trapped.’” “I cautioned him again, and he replied: ‘“Well, I shouldn’t say anything more now. I can’t think right.’ ”

It was after this that Ray, 40, passed his note of denial to Mr. Frisby, 46, a soft-spoken graduate of Oxford, who sat beside his legal opponent, Mr. Calcutt, 38. a graduate of Cambridge.

Mr. Frisby based the defense today on the argument that the murder was a “political crime” and as a result was not extraditable under the 1931 extradition treaty with the United States. He said he thought the denial by Ray was not relevant to the basic case he was building.

But Ray was not to be denied his protest. When the magistrate told Ray after the lunch break that he could “say anything you wish,” the suspect rose to his feet along with the policeman sitting beside him and said:

“I think some of the testimony by Butler is false and I would like to say something about this. I take it that newspapers will report this. Some of it is exaggerated.”

When Ray, speaking in a high-pitched voice with a marked Southern accent, said that he had written about it to Mr. Frisby, Mr. Milton recessed the extradition proceedings for 10 minutes to allow Ray and his attorney to confer.

Lawyer Denies Statement On resuming, Mr. Frisby said his client wanted it known that he had not said that he felt “so trapped;” that he had not said “Oh God” and that he had not collapsed onto a seat in “the manner the chief superintendent described.”

“He made no statement like that to any police officers,” Mr. Frisby said.

Like others providing testimony, Mr. Frisby had to speak slowly in presenting Ray’s reply because all testimony was being taken down in longhand, the procedure usually followed in the Bow Street court.

Asked if he would like to, sign the statement read for him, Ray replied he would. But it could not be learned how he signed his name because court officials would not show the document to the press.

The court usher, assuming that Ray would take the oath in the witness box, asked him for his religion so the appropriate Bible could be used. Ray replied softly that he did not have any religion.

The question of “affirming” then arose, but this would have meant that Ray would have had to give his name in the affirmation statement.

Ray looked at Mr. Frisby, who looked at the chief magistrate, who looked at Ray. The magistrate then accepted Mr. Frisby’s suggestion that the formalities pass and that Ray merely make a statement and answer a few questions without the oath.

Some court lawyers noted that if the suspect used the name Ray he could jeopardize his pending case here. And to use the name Sneyd might leave him open to the additional charge of lying on the witness stand. Moreover, by merely making his unsworn statements while sitting in the witness box, Ray avoided cross-examination.

Evidence on Name In arguing for Ray’s extradition, the United States provided a preview of the case to be presented if he is returned.

Mr. Calcutt read affidavit after affidavit to try to establish that the defendant was in fact James Earl Ray, the man witnesses identified as the purchaser of the rifle, the telescopic sight, the binoculars and as the guest in the rooming house across from Dr. King’s hotel.

“The tragic death of Dr. King was the working of the single hand of this man,” the lawyer said.

Mr. Calcutt apparently did not intend to rule out the possibility of a conspiracy by using the phrase “single hand” of this man, but he seemed to be saying that all evidence linked Ray and only Ray to the rifle and the room overlooking the King hotel.

The British attorney sought to dismiss the defense contention that the slaying was a “political crime” by pointing to Article Three of the extradition treaty, which says that extradition should be granted for “murder (including assassination, parricide, infanticide, poisoning) or an attempt or conspiracy to murder.”

If Ray’s court-appointed lawyers succeed in convincing the chief magistrate that the murder was a “political crime” and thus not extraditable, the defendant can still be extradited under a second warrant that seeks his return as an escaped convict.

Ray escaped in April, 1967, from Missouri State Penitentiary, where he still had 13 years to serve of a 20-year term for armed robbery and car theft.

The problem, however, is that, under the 1931 treaty, if Ray is surrendered on the lesser charge he cannot later be charged in an American court with the murder of Dr. King. The court dealt with both warrants today but most of the evidence presented centered on the King slaying.

Mr. Calcutt began revealing what he said were Ray’s movements up to the time of the crime and shortly thereafter. Quoting from affidavits, he said that Ray had gone to the Aero Marine Supply Company in Birmingham, Ala., on March 29 and had purchased a Winchester. rifle, using the name Harry Lowmyer.

Standing in front of Fred M. Vinson Jr., the United States Assistant Attorney General, who arrived yesterday, Mr. Calcutt said that Ray had called the store the next day and had said that he had talked with his brother and wanted to exchange the rifle. Ray reportedly said he was “going deer hunting in Wisconsin with a brother-in-law.”

He returned the next day, Mr. Calcutt went on. and exchanged the rifle and telescopic lens for a Remington, serial number 461476. The lawyer added that Ray was identified by Donald Wood, owner of the gun store, and a customer, John De Shazo.

Witness Tells of Shot An affidavit from Henrietta Hagemaster, clerk at the New Rebel Motel in Memphis, then placed Ray there for the night of April 3. Another affidavit, from Charles Stephens, resident at the rooming house at 424J/2 South Main Street, placed Ray there the day of the slaying.

“From a bathroom [in the rooming house], a person could see into Dr. King’s room,” the lawyer went on. “At 4 o’clock in the afternoon this defendant1 went into 424 South Main Street, where accommodation was available, and he booked a room.

“As he did this he was seen by a witness—a Mr. Stephens. The defendant got a room and between then and 6 o’clock in the evening he used only the bathroom and lavatory.

“Mr. Stephens, who was in the adjoining room, says that the man used the bathroom and lavatory on three occasions, each time for a long time. At 6 o’clock Mr. Stephens says he heard a shot fired from the bathroom. He came out of his room and saw a man leaving below. He says it was the man who he had seen booking in earlier.

“The defendant left in a hurry, leaving binocular straps in his room. When he got out of the hotel entrance, he turned and left and dropped his kit of rifle, sights and binoculars in a doorway. He then made off in a car waiting nearby,” the lawyer alleged.

The package was dropped in front of an amusement arcade owned by Guy Canipe, who, Mr. Calcutt said, came out and saw a man drive off in a white car.

The police took possession of the rifle and binoculars, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint expert who testified today, George Bone-brake, said that Ray’s fingerprints had been on both.

Political Questioning “The bullet which killed Dr. King,” Mr. Calcutt went on, “was examined and recovered and there is a strong likelihood that the bullet came from the rifle found by the’ police. It is also likely that the strap found in his room belonged to the binoculars found with the rifle.” The recovered rifle, he said, bore the same serial number as the one purchased in Birmingham. It was a .30-’06, model 760.

Mr. Bonebrake, who is with the F.B.I. in Washington, said he had compared the fingerprints he found with the fingerprints of James Earl Ray in Los Angeles police files.

“I found that they belonged to one and the same individual,” he added.

Mr. Bonebrake then underwent some unusual questioning for a fingerprint expert. Mr. Frisby gently put to him a series of questions about the racial situation in the United States, about the role of Dr. King, and about the hostility the Negro leader often en* countered.

Mr. Frisby said the questioning was part of his effort to establish the killing as a “political crime.” Article Six of the extradition treaty says in part that a “fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the crime or the offense in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character.”

Soblen and Eisler Cases At the outset of today’s proceedings, Mr. Frisby asked that no restriction on-publicity under the new Criminal Justice Act be applied to the proceedings, and the magistrate said that the act did not apply today.

The new act, which became effective last Jan. 1, prohibits the publication in England of newspaper reports on preliminary criminal hearings unless the defense requests publication. The idea is to prevent !prejudicing the jury in the actual trial later. But this provision of the act does not apply to extradition proceedings.

The British Government is proceeding carefully in the Ray case in part because of the controversy created in this country

by its handling in 1962 of Dr. Robert A. Soblen, who was convicted of conducting Soviet espionage in the United States and fled to avoid serving a life sentence.

He conducted a 10-week fight to remain in Britain, appealing for political asylum and noting that espionage was not an extraditable offense. The Home Office denied Soblen asylum and ordered him put on an airplane bound for the United States, provoking charges in

Parliament that the Government was in fact extraditing the spy in the name of deportation. Dr. Soblen took an overdose of drugs here on Sept. 11, 1962, and died before he was deported.

Another case recalled by the present one was that of Gerhart Eisler in 1949. He was indicted for making false statements in Washington in order to leave, the United States. He slipped on board the Polish liner Batory in New York Harbor after paying 25 cents to tour as a visitor. The ship sailed and British authorities pulled the East German Communist off the boat in Southampton.

The United States sought his extradition, but the Bow Street magistrate then ruled that the alleged perjury was merely a technical matter and that the United States had failed to show that “Eisler has been guilty of an extradition crime.” Eisler died at the age of Si this March.

[angelsd0ntkill]

There are too many interesting things in the concert ask that I wanna answer so I’m doing them all. :^D

How many concerts have you been to? 28 so far.

Have you been to any festivals? Not any proper ones. I guess Paganfest was technically a festival, and same with Heavy Metal Heart, but they were small and indoors so idk.

Which artist/band have you seen the most live? Korpiklaani.

First concert you went to? My Chemical Romance.

Last concert you went to? Heavy Metal Heart 11 Day 2 (Winterthroned, Brymir, and Korpiklaani)

What is your next concert? Ensiferum.

Which artists/bands would you love to see live? Bands I wanna see again: Children of Bodom, Wintersun, Ensiferum, Korpiklaani (always), ALESTORM, BILLY TALENT, Iron Maiden, Nightwish, Arkona. Bands/Musicians I wanna see, period: AC/DC, Lady Gaga, Blackpink, Dalriada, Marina and the Diamonds, Nicki Minaj, The Pretty Reckless, WARMEN, That Poppy. And as I’ve said, I would have loved to see Michael Jackson, 2NE1, My Chemical Romance, Norther with Petri, Enska with Jari, and Tokio Hotel in the Scream or Humanoid era. Actually even Zimmer 483 era woulda been awesome.

The farthest you’ve traveled to go to a concert? Ehh... idk whether Guelph to Toronto or my current home town to Helsinki is a longer trip. The former took longer, but that could be coz of the bus route. I’m too lazy to look it up. Point is, I haven’t traveled very far at all for a concert.

Best opening act you’ve seen? Winterthroned wasn’t technically an opening act but they’re the only ones who come to mind. Eluveitie was pretty good, I guess. I liked them better live than I do otherwise (they opened for Bodom the first time I saw them).

Worst opening act you’ve seen? Whatever bands opened for Billy Talent the first time I saw them. I’ve never been a screamo fan, my dudes, and those headache-enducers did not help that fact.

Have you met any bands/artists at a concert? Not AT the concert, but afterwards, I’ve met all of Korpiklaani, Chris from Alestorm, Olli and Tuomas from Turisas, Masha and Vladimir from Arkona, and, if we’re counting the listening party, Teemu and Jukka from Wintersun.

What’s one thing you have to bring to a concert? Money to buy merch.

What’s the most you’ve paid for a ticket? $78 (Canadian) for the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. (Side note: I looked through my tickets for this question and I’m dying @ the prices I’ve paid for shows there holy fuck metal bands have spoiled me..........)

Best concert you’ve been to? Most concerts I’ve been to have been AWESOME, but my first show will always stand out because it was the first, and it was my favourite band, and it was at the height of my love for them, and I still refer to it as a spiritual experience coz, well, that’s what it felt like. I’ve never felt such a connection to a crowd since, I’ve never had music touch my heart that way since, I’ve never felt that passion and whirlwind of emotion and sheer awe since.

Worst concert you’ve been to? Honestly, probably the first time I saw Children of Bodom. Not because the band or set-up was bad or anything, but because I got pulled down into the pit,grabbed by assorted people, a drunk man put practically all his weight on me and tried to kiss me??? and I had to punch him to get away, I got separated from the people I was with, and I ended up having to spend the whole show near the back, not even able to see the band. And this is literally all I remember from the show!! What songs did they play? What antics did they get up to? HELL IF I KNOW!!

Have you been in a social media post an artist posted after a show? YEAH, since moving back to Finland and making sure to be in the front as often as possible I’ve found myself in loads of after-show pics on Facebook. :D Also, when I saw Ensiferum and Finntroll in Canada, I was mentioned in a Finnish newspaper in Toronto coz they could see my Finnish flag. B) Not social media, but still cool.

Funniest concert memory? The singer of Winterthroned asked if we wanted to hear a joke and we were like YEAH and he was like it’s a bad one and I yelled EVEN BETTER and he applauded me and told the joke: “What does it say at the bottom of a Swedish swimming pool? ... Smoking Prohibited.” ... which I found hilarious for some reason. And the whole thing was so random I was just like lolwat. There are probably funnier things I’ve seen but this is so recent it’s the first thing that came to mind.

Do you buy your tickets as soon as they go on sale, after, or the day of? As soon as possible if it’s a band I love, maybe later if I’m not sure whether I want to/can go, but I never the day of, I don’t wanna risk it being sold out.

Have you ever been noticed by an artist at a concert? Hahaa, yeah. The Finnish flag got me noticed at the Ensiferum and Finntroll show by almost everyone in both bands. I was also front-and-center the first time I saw Korpiklaani at a tiny club in Toronto, so it was kinda hard not to get noticed. I also kinda tugged on Jonne’s hair to get his attention, whoops. I apologized after the show, though. :^D And at Paganfest I was also front-and-center and when Alestorm was setting up I got a fist-bump from Chris!

Have you met any internet friends at a concert? Not yet... :0c

Which concert that you’ve been to has had the best stage setup/production? Trans-Siberian Orchestra’s set-up was pretty boss. MCR’s was definitely impressive when they were touring for the Black Parade, too. I don’t usually pay that much attention to that, since it’s rarely a big deal at the shows I go to. :P

Have you ever caught a guitar pick, drumstick, got a setlist, etc.? I got Finntroll’s setlist when I saw them, and I’ve got picks from Korpiklaani, My Chemical Romance, and Wintersun. Also, when I saw Billy Talent in Finland, I CAUGHT AARON’S DRUMSTICK, but so did the 3 girls to my left, and since they were all there together, they won the tug-of-war. :(

Favorite concert venue? The Opera House in Toronto became a fast fave, and in Helsinki it’s Nosturi, followed by Virgin Oil Co., followed by The Circus.

Least favorite concert venue? The Sound Academy in Toronto annoys me for some reason. Also don’t really like Kaapelitehdas in Helsinki, but I’ve only been there once. I think it’s coz they’re both kinda inconveniently situated, and something about the layout, especially Kaapelitehdas.

Which do you prefer: indoor or outdoor concerts? Indoor.

Which do you prefer: clubs, theaters, arenas, or stadiums? Clubs.

Have you ever missed school or work to go to a concert? LMAO YES. Or, well, when I worked, I’d make sure to book that day or weekend off well in advance, but school? Lol, I was an excellent student, I can miss a day or an afternoon no problem.

Have you ever been surprised with tickets from someone? My mom got me a Billy Talent ticket for my 17th(?) birthday, but other than that, nope, I’m usually the one surprising others with tickets.

Who do you enjoy going to concerts with? Ehh, I’m used to going to concerts alone, so it kinda throws me off when I’ve gone with someone. It’s not bad, it’s just weird. Different. I haven’t gone to shows with anyone one person enough to answer this.

General admission or seated concerts? General admission.

Have you been to multiple dates for one tour? No. :(

Have you been to concerts 2 or more days in a row? No. :(

Have you ever received free tickets from a contest or an artist’s crew? Nope.

Have you been front row and/or back row for a concert? I always strive to be at the front, though sometimes (first time seeing Bodom, last time seeing MCR, only time seeing Stam1na) I started out in the front and either got forced to the back or had to shove my way there lest I have a panic attack and die or something.

Have you ever gotten sick, bruised, or broken a bone after a concert? I’ve probably caught a cold from waiting outside in below-zero temperatures wearing jeans, a tshirt, and a hoodie (ain’t nobody got time for coat check). And of course I’ve found mystery bruises. No broken bones, though.

Have you ever had surprise guests at a concert you attended? Jon Gallant from Billy Talent appeared on stage during the opening band’s set the last time I saw MCR. That was awesome. I knew the bands were friends, but I never saw that coming. :D

Did you start listening to an opening act after you saw them in concert? I really liked what little I heard of Valkeat, who opened for Wintersun. I also liked Winterthroned, though as I said, they weren’t technically an opening act. Both are on my “listen to more of” list.

What’s the latest you’ve got home from a concert? Whenever I went to concerts in Toronto, I’d have to crash at my dad’s place in Richmond Hill and then get home a.s.a.p. the next day if I had school or work, so... latest getting to my dad’s was probably 6:30 to 7:00 in the morning, and if we’re counting actually getting home then like... 11:00 to noon the next day? Haha.

When is the earliest you’ve arrived to a venue for a concert? 8 hours before doors.

Have you seen your favorite artist in concert? Yep, but I’d love to see them more!! Alas, I cannot, as they have broken up.

Longest you’ve waited in line for a concert? 8 hours. In rain and snow. Without a jacket or gloves. #YOLO

Have you ever attended a concert alone? Almost exclusively.

What’s the best part of a concert in your opinion?

Have you ever heard/seen an artist soundcheck before their show? Nope.

What’s the biggest venue you’ve been to a concert at? The Air Canada Center or the Molson Amphitheater. Not sure which one’s bigger.

What’s the smallest venue you’ve been to a concert at? Mod Club, the place in Toronto where I first saw Korpiklaani.

Have you ever had side stage seats? No.

Which venue have you been to the most concerts at? Nosturi, maybe?

Do you post a lot about a concert you’ve attended on social media or very little? I post pictures and might tell a story or two. :^D

Has a concert or tour you were planning on going to got cancelled? No.

Have you seen a band in concert before a member left the band / they broke up? My Chemical Romance for BOTH -- I saw them before Bob Bryar left and after, and obvs before they broke up altogether. Saw C.o.B twice before the Roope debacle, too. And I’m not sure about this, but is Aaron not touring with Billy Talent anymore? Oh, and I’ve seen Ensiferum before Emmi left. Well, other than that I’m not sure about line-up changes and whatnot.

Favorite song you’ve heard live? Probably “Famous Last Words” and “It’s Not a Fashion Statement, It’s a Fucking Deathwish” by MCR.

Have you ever seen an artist/band play an album in full? My Chemical Romance played The Black Parade in full and came back and did a bunch of songs from the previous two albums.

Which artist would you refuse to see in concert? Uh. Anyone I don’t like?? Idk, there are some artists where I probably wouldn’t buy a ticket myself, but if someone wanted to take me, I’d go. It’s hard to think of specific bands/artists I would refuse to see. You couldn’t pay me enough to go to, like, a grindcore show or some screamo shit or techno/DM/whatever you call that nonsense my brother listens to. Oh, and obviously NSBM is completely out of the question.

What’s the craziest thing a fan has done at a concert you’ve been to? Crowd-surfing/stage-diving. I remember at Paganfest while Turisas was on security barely had to do anything, Warlord had that shit under control, he’d just toss bitches back into the crowd.

Which venue(s) would you love to go to for a concert? My favourites...? There aren’t really any special venues I’m dying to see, lmao.

Have you ever been to a concert at a venue that no longer exists? Not that I know of.

Have you ever lost something/got something stolen at a concert? I lost my bus ticket home at an MCR show which fucking sucked coz I was super low on money to begin with and I had to buy a new one using my Finland Fund. >.>

Have people made fun of you or laughed because of how you were acting at a concert? Ehh, one time I covered my nose coz someone behind me was smoking weed and the smell makes me nauseous and I kinda didn’t wanna throw up or pass out, and my boyfriend at the time got all huffy and annoyed and was like “grow up” and I said “you grow up” and rushed off and people laughed a bit, but more like in a “daaamn u fucked up” way imo.

Have you ever been kicked out of a concert? Nope.

Has an artist thrown or spit water on you? Nope.

Have you ever seen a security guard dance to a song at a concert? No.

Have you seen any acts you don’t like at a concert? Huntress and Ex Deo at Paganfest. -_-

Have you ever passed out or thrown up at a concert? No, thank the gods.

Have you seen any artists in concerts that you don’t like anymore? Nope!

[rebeccahpedersen]

What Is A “Tenant In Perpetuity?”

TorontoRealtyBlog

A reader emailed me a rather unique listing the other day, and I figured I’d put it in the mental queue for blog material.

But when a second reader emailed me about it, and when I overheard a conversation at my office about it, I figured it’s probably worth discussing.

What the heck is a “tenant in perpetuity?”  And what does it mean when you’re looking to buy a property with a tenant in perpetuity attached?

Oh boy.  Where do we begin…

I suppose after Monday’s blog, maybe some folks are gun-shy about the subject of tenancy.

I received several emails about Monday’s blog, a few out of genuine concern that the “tenant” may be somebody in a vulnerable position, and of course one email that simply called me an asshole and said I was discriminating.  I wonder why that person didn’t just comment on the blog post?  Personal attacks always make for a good read!

I think the entire subject of “tenancy” has become a bit stickier since the Liberal government introduced a slew of measures to try to discourage any human being from ever being a landlord again, but alas, the might of those capitalists in society is far greater than misguided attempts by politicians to gain favour with voters.

I’ve sold more condos to investors in 2017 than in any previous year, but not once have I ever told a client that being a landlord is easy.

Monday’s blog showed us what kind of potential tenant comes knocking on your door, and in today’s ever-changing societal climate, you have to be very careful, how, and when, you say “no” to somebody.

The story in Monday’s blog was interesting, but not unique.

Every day in Toronto, offers and applications like the one I received in that story are submitted on residential properties.  Not all tenants are truly “Triple-A.”

The story I’m going to tell you today, however, represents a true “new one” for me!

For somebody who thinks he’s seen it all in this business, I’m always excited by new experiences, and the opportunity to wipe my proverbial brow and say, “Well, this is a new one!”

And indeed, this is…

The subject line of today’s blog pretty much tells you where this story is headed.

“A tenant in perpetuity.”

If you’re like me, you’ve never heard the term before.

“Perpetuity,” by definition, simply means an indefinite period of time.

The term has certain meanings in the world of finance, when it comes to a constant stream of identical cash flows with no end, but that’s not the context we’re using today.

For our purposes, “perpetuity” means, forever, or, at least until something changes that is beyond your own control.

“A tenant in perpetuity.”

Just think of what that means.

A tenant…….forever?

Let me cut to the chase here, folks.

A property was listed for sale this week in Toronto, and in the Broker’s Remarks, it made mention of the fact that this property is being sold with “a tenant in perpetuity” attached.

While no explanation of what that meant was provided, the brokerage’s Schedule B provided us with the following four clauses:

  The Seller represents and warrants that the subject property is occupied by (First Name, Last Name), on a month-to-month tenancy, IN PERPETUITY at the current rate of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and TWENTY FOUR Dollars and TWENTY TWO Cents ($1,524.22) per month, including utilities, payable on the FIRST DAY of each month.  The Parties agree that this representation and warranty shall survive and not merge on completion of this transaction, but only apply to those circumstances at completion of this transaction.

The Buyer hereby acknowledges that the subject property is currently tenanted IN PERPETUITY and the tenant can not be removed for the purpose of the buyer’s own use.  The Buyer further acknowledges that, should they choose to sell the property in the future, this “tenancy in perpetuity” runs with the property and no future buyer will be able to remove the CURRENT TENANT for their own use of the property.

The Buyer acknowledges that the current tenant has first right of refusal to purchase the subject property upon the same terms and conditions as any bona fide Offer to purchase the property that the Landlord has received and is wiling to accept.

THIS OFFER IS CONDITIONAL for a period of FOUR (4) business days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and Statutory holidays) after acceptance of this offer upon the Seller not obtaining from the current tenant a bona fide Offer to purchase based on the same terms and conditions of this offer to purchase.  In the event that the Tenant submits to the Landlord, within the same time period described above, a written and signed Offer to purchase for the property upon the same terms and conditions as the Offer initially received by the Seller, this offer shall become null and void and the deposit returned in full to the Buyer without interest or deduction.  In the event that the Tenant fails to deliver to the Seller, within the same time limit described above, a written and signed Offer to purchase the property on the same terms and conditions as the initial Offer, the Seller shall be at liberty to sell the property to the Buyer who submitted the initial Offer and provide written notice to the buyer within the same time limit described above.  This condition is included for the benefit of the Seller and may be waived at their sole option.

  Please tell me you read that, and didn’t skim.

  If you simply read “in perpetuity” a couple of times, and scrolled to the bottom, seriously – read it!

Because I think there’s a reasonable amount of debate to be had about whether or not this is legal.

I asked our in-house legal counsel what he thought, and he said simply:

“It appears that the landlord has granted the tenant unlimited rights to renew the lease at the tenant’s option. This creates a “perpetual lease”, which means that the landlord can’t get rid of the tenant without the tenant’s consent. “

And as the second clause spells out, the clause “runs with the property,” much like a right-of-way, or an easement would.

But if you’re like me, your mind is spinning with questions.  Here’s what my brain rattled off when I first read these clauses:

1) What the hell is going on here?

2) Is this legal?

3) Why would any property owner agree to this lease?

4) What is the actual market rent of the property?

5) Could a buyer fight this in court?

6) Why would any buyer be interested in this property?

And on, and on.

So let’s try to answer these.

1) What the hell is going on?

I can only answer this with more questions!

Why is this property for sale?

What kind of seller thinks this sort of thing will fly in Toronto?

How common is this?

Why have I never seen this before?

Is there a lease in place?

2) Is this legal?

It appears as though it is.

If you think about an apartment building, those tenants are all essentially tenants “in perpetuity,” by virtue of the fact that the individual unit can’t be sold, like a condominium, and thus there’s no option for the new “buyer” to evict the tenant based on the owner-occupancy rule, like a condominium.

The difference here, is that this property is a house, not a unit in an apartment building.

While you cannot contract out of existing law, there’s nothing to stop two parties from entering into a legal agreement, where that agreement runs with the property.

3) Why would any property owner agree to this lease?

This is probably the most interesting part of the equation.

I don’t think any reasonable property owner would agree to this type of lease, so I have to think that the landlord and the tenant are involved in some capacity.

Be creative, think of a scenario.

The owner of the property is related to the tenant, and has found a way for the tenant to live in the property for a discounted rate, even after the owner sells.

There’s a holding company that owns the property, and the owner of the holding company is the tenant.

I’m sure we could think of a dozen other scenarios.

But bottom line, I just don’t see any owner ever agreeing to this, without some sort of personal interest in the equation.

4) What is the actual market rent of the property?

Without having seen it, I’d have to speculate around $2,000 per month.

But bottom line, the contractual rent is far lower than the market rent.

5) Could a buyer fight this in court?

Even though it appears to be legal, I just don’t think it passes the sniff test.

However, despite any argument in court about the Residential Tenancies Act, and how the idea of “perpetual tenancy” might not supersede a buyer’s right to evict a tenant for their own personal use, I think the clauses in the brokerage’s Schedule C would prove that any buyer of this property knew what he or she was doing.

That’s why, after all, the clauses were included in the first place.

Those clauses might be repetitive, but they clearly make the buyer aware of the situation.  There’s no way a buyer could plead ignorance in court down the road.

6) Why would any buyer be interested in this property?

The only conceivable reason why a buyer would be interested in this property would be if it were available at a significant discount.

The rent is below market.

The tenant can live there forever.

The legalese is uncertain.

There’s no reason for any rational buyer to look at this property, unless, the property were available for an amount below fair market value that was enough to make up for the associated risks.

How much under fair market value?

That’s up to each individual buyer.

The second clause clearly specifies that any future sale of this property would also incorporate the “tenancy in perpetuity,” so the discount that a buyer receives today, would also be present when that buyer goes to sell.  Unless, of course, the tenant is no longer living in the property.

And that’s the end-game here.

How long will the tenant live in the property?

If a buyer purchases this property, and the tenant leaves by his or her own free will in five years, then perhaps the discount on the purchase was worthwhile.  But if that tenant is still present in twenty years?  Then is this really a good investment?

–

There’s more to this story, and more information we would could benefit from.

For starters, are there any rental increases outlined in the lease?  If not, that makes the purchase even less appealing than it already is.  And another legal question would arise: can the landlord legally increase the rent by the provincially-mandated amount each year?  Even if it doesn’t state as much in the lease?

We’d also like to know if there are qualifications for the tenancy in perpetuity, ie. if the tenant fails to pay the rent, or commits some other evictable offence, can the landlord kick him or her out?

I know a lot about the Residential Tenancies Act, and I’ve handled probably 150-200 leases over the years.

But I’ve never seen anything like this.

And the idea that one cannot “contract out of existing law” has me scratching my head here.

Like I said, this is a new one for me!

I will be very interested to see when, or if, this property actually sells…

  The post What Is A “Tenant In Perpetuity?” appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2yms0TG

[londonlanded]

Weeks 3 & 4

Alright people, let’s make up for last week’s monotony shall we? 

Monday was business as usual, until the day ended a touch early, and we went on a departmental-new-people field trip to the other Four Seasons property in London. Right off the bat, Four Seasons Hotel London at Ten Trinity square is entirely different from Four Seasons Hotel Park Lane. For starters, the building itself is a statement all on its own. Unlike FS Park Lane, the building at Ten Trinity was built in the 1800s, and is therefore more similar to the rest of the historical architecture in London. While Park Lane underwent significant renovations in 2007, they weren’t allowed to change the face of the building since apparently the building’s facade was “integral to the history of London” in spite of the fact that it was constructed in the 70s. While no one understands that legal logic, the laws were nonetheless binding, and therefore FS Park Lane is relatively “fugly” in comparison to the buildings from before and after that rather depressing architectural period. 

Observe ^ totally not fugly. 

The tour began with the member’s club that makes up most of the Southwest wing of the building. It’s about as elitist as it gets, in that it’s invite only, paid, and quite steep in terms of its rates. Still, it was beautiful - the carpet was designed to compliment the branding of the winemaker that sponsored one of the club’s rooms, where only that brand (whose name I’ve forgotten, whoops) of wine can be consumed. They’ve got bottles dating all the way back to ‘38, with some that cost as much as £15,000. However, what I think is the greatest real benefit of joining the club is access to a private dining area that serves Chef Anne-Sophie Pic’s family favourite recipes. In addition to the usual British fare that’s served down the hall, in the second dining room, the three Michelin-starred chef and her team take over the club kitchen three times a day to create culinary artwork that’s probably too beautiful to eat. I asked if guests of members were allowed, and turns out they are. Now if only I knew someone who was a member…. Finally, there was the cigar room that’s staffed by Paola the cigar sommelier, the only one in Europe if I remember correctly. Quite the star-studded staff at FS Ten Trinity, I must say. 

Then came the real star of the show though - the largest suites in the hotel are all located on the ground floor, and the one we got to look at was, in essence, large enough to house a family of 6, comfortably, without ever having to fight over the bathroom. We’re talking 24K gold and glass tiles in the bathroom, ceilings high enough to fit a second floor (which I’m learning is a typical English thing but it’s still not lost its novelty for me), and la piece de resistance, a toilet that I’m pretty sure costs around $12,000. 

Allow me to set the scene; I walk into the bathroom ahead of my four male coworkers, and upon seeing that the toilet is indeed the same one as was on display at head office while I worked there, I grabbed the controller off the wall and hit the power button. The boys looked at me, not realizing what I had done. I pressed a button, and I cannot express to you the look of awe that crosses a man’s face when he sees the toilet seat lift for the first time without him having to touch it. I wouldn’t say it was a religious experience, but I feel like to them, it might have come close? What ensued was ten minutes of the boys trying to get the butt-sprayer to work without anyone having to take their pants off, and my friend Matteo getting sprayed in the face by electronically-sterilized water once he figured out the seat was pressure-sensitive, and therefore wouldn’t heat up or self clean unless someone was seated on the throne. Matteo’s strategically placed forearms did the trick, and in exchange for his hard work, he received a weight-triggered facial. Thankfully a bathroom is an excellent place if you have to pee yourself with laughter. 

Tuesday, quiet by any standard, but I met up with Lucy (visiting with her family from Toronto) to hit up Taylor Street Baristas, a cafe that was on the “Coffee Lover’s Guide to London” map that Grace had given me over the weekend. Excellent coffee, curious choice of music for a tiny cafe (I feel like dubstep is usually best enjoyed in large spaces?), but overall, nice to have some familiar company. Wednesday, another coffee date, another cup of tea. And the beginnings of a cold….

….which annihilated me until Tuesday!!! I wish I had more to report, but sadly, I wound up spending most of my weekend bedridden, and probably should have continued that trend into this week but my stubbornness combined with the return of my hometown guest (Lucy) made that somewhat challenging to follow through on.��

Monday, Lucy convinced me to venture out to Covent Garden, and we wound up meandering into Neal’s Yard, which is a small open space in the heart of the city. Felt a nice wave of nostalgia as I walked into the colourful courtyard, last time I was there I was with my dad, lunching was a local variety of cheddar and slightly mealy but still sweet apples from a local vendor. 

This time, my stomach decided all it wanted was an Americano, Luce had porridge topped with honey, banana, and cacao nibs. And an edible flower - the English seem quite into them. 

Tuesday, Luce planned another pre-work adventure for me. I was starting to be able to breathe again (or so I thought), so we decided to tackle the St Paul’s Cathedral. I was feeling a little unsteady by the time we arrived, but we were already there, so it was too late to change our minds. And so, the ascent began. Again, let me set the scene. Imagine one wheezing woman who’s sweating a little more than necessary, coughing every couple of steps, wearing far too many clothes to have just undertaken the task of climbing 528 steps, in the company of another young woman who is fixated on nothing but the stairs in front of her, for fear that if she looks anywhere but right in front of her, her paralyzing fear of heights will return and she’ll freak out completely. 

We managed to make it to the very top, and got to admire the view for as long as we could tolerate it, but by the time we got out of the building, I couldn’t tell which one of us was in worse shape. 

Thursday and Friday were quiet, barring the constant bustle of London life, managed to get some life-admin done which included getting my insurance sorted (yay I can pay tax now!!!!!……), getting my headphones repaired, and popping into an art gallery set up down the street from the hotel. Though the artist was remarkable, (the showcase was graphite pencil drawings and I was drawn in by the artist’s depiction of an owl the size of my torso), I wound up being mostly interested in the architecture in the basement of the gallery. 

There was something about the way that brick arch came up and surprised you when you turned around, I was so focused on the drawings in front of the stairs (behind me in this photo) that I didn’t think to turn around. I looked up, expecting more art, and wound up spending most of my time in the gallery admiring the way the light from the world outside shone down through the skylights I hadn’t even noticed I had stepped over. This is something of a theme of London, and Europe in general I’m sure. There is beauty, architecture, history in every corner. Sometimes you wind up looking at something other than what you first came for. 

Since I picked up an extra shift, I took advantage of my only day off on Saturday by heading to the Portobello Road market with some Australian friends I met a few weeks ago. It’s a 2km stretch of shops and booths and so much stuff its more than overwhelming. Lots of antiques, lots of vintage stuff, old cameras to pocketwatches, trench coats to leather soccer balls. There’s a store that specializes in socks beside a stall that sells deep fried potato spirals, plates of paella being prepared next to a store that sells only magnifying glasses. My companions wanted to sleep in, so we arrived at peak time so the streets were teeming with people. Definitely a highlight of London so far, though I think I’ll go back on my own next time so I can properly meander without worrying I might lose my new companions. 

I walked away with a map of Northern Africa that was apparently printed in the 1920s, and a brass stamp so I can sign my name in fancy ink. I would have bought about eighty things more but alas, my bank account said no. 

Also, Saturday marked me being in London for one whole month which frankly has felt like it’s both flown by but also lasted a lifetime. I feel like I’ve lived here forever, and while I know I have an unfathomable amount of exploration left to do, I am starting to feel at home here in this busy buzzy city. 

Sunday, back at work again, this time for a shift I was expecting to have - it was my first where I spent a few hours on my own, which formally marks the end of my training! I have a ton more to learn, of course, but I am now able to be a fully functioning Communications Agent without my seniors looking over my shoulder and wondering what on earth I’m doing. Unfortunately I managed to shut down the phone lines for two of three properties by accident for about half an hour which wasn't my finest moment, but aside from that, disaster sort of averted? So far so good lol.... 

Next week, I’ve got three days off in a row, so I will be sure to have an adventure or two, you can hold me to it! 

e

[rebeccahpedersen]

What Is A “Tenant In Perpetuity?”

TorontoRealtyBlog

A reader emailed me a rather unique listing the other day, and I figured I’d put it in the mental queue for blog material.

But when a second reader emailed me about it, and when I overheard a conversation at my office about it, I figured it’s probably worth discussing.

What the heck is a “tenant in perpetuity?”  And what does it mean when you’re looking to buy a property with a tenant in perpetuity attached?

Oh boy.  Where do we begin…

I suppose after Monday’s blog, maybe some folks are gun-shy about the subject of tenancy.

I received several emails about Monday’s blog, a few out of genuine concern that the “tenant” may be somebody in a vulnerable position, and of course one email that simply called me an asshole and said I was discriminating.  I wonder why that person didn’t just comment on the blog post?  Personal attacks always make for a good read!

I think the entire subject of “tenancy” has become a bit stickier since the Liberal government introduced a slew of measures to try to discourage any human being from ever being a landlord again, but alas, the might of those capitalists in society is far greater than misguided attempts by politicians to gain favour with voters.

I’ve sold more condos to investors in 2017 than in any previous year, but not once have I ever told a client that being a landlord is easy.

Monday’s blog showed us what kind of potential tenant comes knocking on your door, and in today’s ever-changing societal climate, you have to be very careful, how, and when, you say “no” to somebody.

The story in Monday’s blog was interesting, but not unique.

Every day in Toronto, offers and applications like the one I received in that story are submitted on residential properties.  Not all tenants are truly “Triple-A.”

The story I’m going to tell you today, however, represents a true “new one” for me!

For somebody who thinks he’s seen it all in this business, I’m always excited by new experiences, and the opportunity to wipe my proverbial brow and say, “Well, this is a new one!”

And indeed, this is…

The subject line of today’s blog pretty much tells you where this story is headed.

“A tenant in perpetuity.”

If you’re like me, you’ve never heard the term before.

“Perpetuity,” by definition, simply means an indefinite period of time.

The term has certain meanings in the world of finance, when it comes to a constant stream of identical cash flows with no end, but that’s not the context we’re using today.

For our purposes, “perpetuity” means, forever, or, at least until something changes that is beyond your own control.

“A tenant in perpetuity.”

Just think of what that means.

A tenant…….forever?

Let me cut to the chase here, folks.

A property was listed for sale this week in Toronto, and in the Broker’s Remarks, it made mention of the fact that this property is being sold with “a tenant in perpetuity” attached.

While no explanation of what that meant was provided, the brokerage’s Schedule B provided us with the following four clauses:

  The Seller represents and warrants that the subject property is occupied by (First Name, Last Name), on a month-to-month tenancy, IN PERPETUITY at the current rate of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and TWENTY FOUR Dollars and TWENTY TWO Cents ($1,524.22) per month, including utilities, payable on the FIRST DAY of each month.  The Parties agree that this representation and warranty shall survive and not merge on completion of this transaction, but only apply to those circumstances at completion of this transaction.

The Buyer hereby acknowledges that the subject property is currently tenanted IN PERPETUITY and the tenant can not be removed for the purpose of the buyer’s own use.  The Buyer further acknowledges that, should they choose to sell the property in the future, this “tenancy in perpetuity” runs with the property and no future buyer will be able to remove the CURRENT TENANT for their own use of the property.

The Buyer acknowledges that the current tenant has first right of refusal to purchase the subject property upon the same terms and conditions as any bona fide Offer to purchase the property that the Landlord has received and is wiling to accept.

THIS OFFER IS CONDITIONAL for a period of FOUR (4) business days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and Statutory holidays) after acceptance of this offer upon the Seller not obtaining from the current tenant a bona fide Offer to purchase based on the same terms and conditions of this offer to purchase.  In the event that the Tenant submits to the Landlord, within the same time period described above, a written and signed Offer to purchase for the property upon the same terms and conditions as the Offer initially received by the Seller, this offer shall become null and void and the deposit returned in full to the Buyer without interest or deduction.  In the event that the Tenant fails to deliver to the Seller, within the same time limit described above, a written and signed Offer to purchase the property on the same terms and conditions as the initial Offer, the Seller shall be at liberty to sell the property to the Buyer who submitted the initial Offer and provide written notice to the buyer within the same time limit described above.  This condition is included for the benefit of the Seller and may be waived at their sole option.

  Please tell me you read that, and didn’t skim.

  If you simply read “in perpetuity” a couple of times, and scrolled to the bottom, seriously – read it!

Because I think there’s a reasonable amount of debate to be had about whether or not this is legal.

I asked our in-house legal counsel what he thought, and he said simply:

“It appears that the landlord has granted the tenant unlimited rights to renew the lease at the tenant’s option. This creates a “perpetual lease”, which means that the landlord can’t get rid of the tenant without the tenant’s consent. “

And as the second clause spells out, the clause “runs with the property,” much like a right-of-way, or an easement would.

But if you’re like me, your mind is spinning with questions.  Here’s what my brain rattled off when I first read these clauses:

1) What the hell is going on here?

2) Is this legal?

3) Why would any property owner agree to this lease?

4) What is the actual market rent of the property?

5) Could a buyer fight this in court?

6) Why would any buyer be interested in this property?

And on, and on.

So let’s try to answer these.

1) What the hell is going on?

I can only answer this with more questions!

Why is this property for sale?

What kind of seller thinks this sort of thing will fly in Toronto?

How common is this?

Why have I never seen this before?

Is there a lease in place?

2) Is this legal?

It appears as though it is.

If you think about an apartment building, those tenants are all essentially tenants “in perpetuity,” by virtue of the fact that the individual unit can’t be sold, like a condominium, and thus there’s no option for the new “buyer” to evict the tenant based on the owner-occupancy rule, like a condominium.

The difference here, is that this property is a house, not a unit in an apartment building.

While you cannot contract out of existing law, there’s nothing to stop two parties from entering into a legal agreement, where that agreement runs with the property.

3) Why would any property owner agree to this lease?

This is probably the most interesting part of the equation.

I don’t think any reasonable property owner would agree to this type of lease, so I have to think that the landlord and the tenant are involved in some capacity.

Be creative, think of a scenario.

The owner of the property is related to the tenant, and has found a way for the tenant to live in the property for a discounted rate, even after the owner sells.

There’s a holding company that owns the property, and the owner of the holding company is the tenant.

I’m sure we could think of a dozen other scenarios.

But bottom line, I just don’t see any owner ever agreeing to this, without some sort of personal interest in the equation.

4) What is the actual market rent of the property?

Without having seen it, I’d have to speculate around $2,000 per month.

But bottom line, the contractual rent is far lower than the market rent.

5) Could a buyer fight this in court?

Even though it appears to be legal, I just don’t think it passes the sniff test.

However, despite any argument in court about the Residential Tenancies Act, and how the idea of “perpetual tenancy” might not supersede a buyer’s right to evict a tenant for their own personal use, I think the clauses in the brokerage’s Schedule C would prove that any buyer of this property knew what he or she was doing.

That’s why, after all, the clauses were included in the first place.

Those clauses might be repetitive, but they clearly make the buyer aware of the situation.  There’s no way a buyer could plead ignorance in court down the road.

6) Why would any buyer be interested in this property?

The only conceivable reason why a buyer would be interested in this property would be if it were available at a significant discount.

The rent is below market.

The tenant can live there forever.

The legalese is uncertain.

There’s no reason for any rational buyer to look at this property, unless, the property were available for an amount below fair market value that was enough to make up for the associated risks.

How much under fair market value?

That’s up to each individual buyer.

The second clause clearly specifies that any future sale of this property would also incorporate the “tenancy in perpetuity,” so the discount that a buyer receives today, would also be present when that buyer goes to sell.  Unless, of course, the tenant is no longer living in the property.

And that’s the end-game here.

How long will the tenant live in the property?

If a buyer purchases this property, and the tenant leaves by his or her own free will in five years, then perhaps the discount on the purchase was worthwhile.  But if that tenant is still present in twenty years?  Then is this really a good investment?

–

There’s more to this story, and more information we would could benefit from.

For starters, are there any rental increases outlined in the lease?  If not, that makes the purchase even less appealing than it already is.  And another legal question would arise: can the landlord legally increase the rent by the provincially-mandated amount each year?  Even if it doesn’t state as much in the lease?

We’d also like to know if there are qualifications for the tenancy in perpetuity, ie. if the tenant fails to pay the rent, or commits some other evictable offence, can the landlord kick him or her out?

I know a lot about the Residential Tenancies Act, and I’ve handled probably 150-200 leases over the years.

But I’ve never seen anything like this.

And the idea that one cannot “contract out of existing law” has me scratching my head here.

Like I said, this is a new one for me!

I will be very interested to see when, or if, this property actually sells…

  The post What Is A “Tenant In Perpetuity?” appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2yms0TG