Hunt over, me found hut

Well that was quick.

We have already found a place to live, deal gets finished up this week, sale closes end of March and we move in April 1. It feels almost impulsive to have found a real estate agent on a Monday, gone to see places Thursday and Friday night, then gone to re-see three condos in one building Saturday night and bought one. Just like that. But under the surface of what seems quick is hours and days and weeks of agonizing, not to mention surfing MLS.ca, so we felt like we knew every place possible in Chilliwack.

Finally I'm a homeowner . . .well, an apartment owner. Took me long enough. (By me of course I mean we.) Fourth floor two-bedroom plus den of a four-storey condo with really great high ceilings and pretty darned good views. Not tons of space, but we were living in less than 600 square feet in Toronto and this is over 1,000 square feet so we can't complain. Well, we can and we will probably, but we shouldn't.

Anyway, all very exciting and tumultuous times around here and in our lives. Joanne's practice is really getting busier, my old friend and the person whom I replaced here at the Times has come back so we have a tight and super-solid news team, Joanne has bought a wedding dress, and now we have bought a condo.

On Feb. 18 I said this should be my year since it is the Chinese year of the pig and I'm a pig. (Although so is Stephen Harper so should that make me nervous?)

For now here's a couple of snapshots of the outside of the front of the building and our place. Better ones with views from inside should follow soon.



Note the tall windows, which are only on the fourth floor. Not quite floor to ceiling but really high and that is south-facing too, so really nice and bright. Probably will be real hot in the summer too . . . hmmm . . .



Here, obviously, is the front of the building and Jo.

Hovel huntin'

Joanne and I have officially begun the hunt for a new place to live whereby we can be in debt to a bank for decades to come, but at least stop flushing money down the toilet in the world of rent.

We have a real estate agent, who is doing a great job so far, and we started seeing places two evenings ago, saw some more last evening and we'll see some again tonight.

One townhouse we saw was kind of nicely sided in dark cedar and built in 1977. Then we went inside and realized we were in 1977. Shag carpets, cheap wooden door frames, even photos on the wall of a family that tragically looked stuck in the 70s. In the back yard was a barbecue, swinging patio chair, hot tub and waterfall and pond with goldfish. I wonder if they have key parties with the neighbours.

Things in our budget are looking like this so far:



Not bad. A bit of a fixer-upper, but room for a garden at least.

OK, not a real place we looked at. Basically we are looking at condos or townhouses, but we have quickly realized that in our price range we can get a new or near-new, if smallish, condo, or a large, old, and a bit sketchy townhouse. And once you've seen gleaming barely used appliances and bathroom fixtures, new laminate and tile and carpet, flawless walls and doors and trims, it's hard to get excited about a few extra hundred square feet and a patch of grass in a townhouse from the 1970s. So we are leaning hard toward condo.

Two other observations so far as a first time homebuyer who has never done this before:

1. It's really difficult, at least for me, to separate a place from its decor. To look beyond bilious green and fuschsia walls at what a place could be like in normal colours isn't easy. To ignore hand-stictched Home-Sweet-Home wall-hangings and Archie Bunkeresque sofas and stinky hockey equipment is a challenge. And conversely I find it easy to be sucked in to a stylishly appointed pad with pictures of beautiful people on the wall.

2. We are having a hard time getting over the number of 19- or 21- or 45- or 55-and-over condo and townhouse complexes there are around. We know there are a lot of elderly people in Chilliwack, but why this fear and loathing of children? Is it even legal to discriminate so blatantly because of age like that? I don't know, maybe it is, but there seems to be something wrong with that. And what happens when you live in a 19-plus complex and you get pregnant? Does the strata gestapo come marching down the carpeted halls to remove your satanic procreating ass? I'll bet they would have no legal means to kick you out of a building where you are an owner becuase you have a baby. But then, I guess you wouldn't be the most popular person in the buidling after doing that, and that in itself might be not worth it. I can maybe understand a really elderly-focused place like 55- or even 45-plus, but many are 19-plus. So, two pot-smoking, partying 20-year-olds is A-OK (who we saw in one building below an elderly woman who desperately wanted to sell because of them), but a quiet couple with a new baby is shunned at the outset. I don't get it.

So far of what we've seen we are pretty keen on one building—with no age restrictions, babies may come at some point—that has three units for sale. We saw all three last night, and all were very similar with pros and cons, but we are so interested we want to be reminded and will see them again tonight.

One we like because it is the top floor with great views, high ceilings and really feels stylish. Another we like because it is on the ground floor and has a ridiculously gigantic south-facing patio. Enough room to play badminton (except that it is concrete). You could have a party with 30 people out there and not be crowded, although more realistically for our lifestyle (the party days are over), we could put out planters, as many as we want, and Joanne could grow tomatoes and other great stuff. And the third unit is on the second floor and has really nice unobstructed views to the west, mountains and sunset over an elementary school yard and, oddly, the owner is leaving behind not just furniture, but everything except the art on the wall and his underwear. That includes all dishes, cups, kitchen stuff of every kind, two beds, sofa set, side tables, and more, including a 40 or 50-inch flat screen TV. The only problem is, unsurprisingly, is that his furniture is so hideously tasteless it boggles the imagination. But still, the TV, some furniture and some other odds and ends would be good to have and we could sell the rest and would be worth some money for sure.

So will it be behind door number 1, 2 or 3? High ceilings, killer patio or big screen TV? Hmmmm . . .

A week in photos, and some drama too . . .

Here are a few snapshots from my last week or so working at the paper. Some fun, some interesting, some crappy.

This was the cover photo for our Tuesday paper from the Bridal Show in town on Sunday. Sometimes cute goes a long way.



Another cute one, but we didn't run it.



And here is a crazy German guy who has so far cycled 153,000 kilometres all over the world while suffering from malignant melanoma. He's trying to show people that cancer shouldn't get you down. His huskies help him while going up hills and then they ride in his trailer going down. Pretty interesting guy actually.



This is actually a little older of a shot, but we keep holding on to it for a stand alone filler. Kind of an amusing demonstration of how useless this plastic owl is in keeping roofs in Sardis free of seagull shit.



Here are a couple of shots of the aftermath of a nasty apartment fire that trashed this building sending 100 people looking for somewhere else to stay.





Lot's of fun. I had a great adventure yesterday writing an editorial that the publisher took issue with. We had a little head to head debate about it, but in the end, it was good. The incident was a little scary given that he is an ex-CFL lineman and could snap me in two like a twig. And, of course, he's my boss.

But those who know me well won't be surprised that I have an opinion and have expressed it even in the face of a gigantic, conservative boss.

Here are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences of the original editorial, which the publisher disliked and changed/eliminated.

"Environmentalism was—and really still is—a bit of a bad word to big C and little c conservatives alike, as it butted heads way too much with economic growth.

Eventually we have come to a place where the even the most staunchest deniers of manmade climate change in government are coming around to the reality. The reality not just of the science, but, more importantly for politicians, the reality of public opinion."

Of particular distaste was my deciding what big C or little c conservatives think, but more importantly were the words "deniers" and "reality." He felt the former was a moral statement, and the latter left no room for debate. I disagree and still find it somewhat amusing that conservatives fall all over themselves to look to science to confirm their opinions and theories until that science disagrees with them. But I guess lefties do that a little too.

Here is the sanitized version the publisher OK'd:

There was a time when, to quote Kermit the Frog, it wasn’t easy being green.
Eventually we have come to a place where even the staunchest critics of manmade climate change in government are coming around to the political reality—the reality of public opinion.
Both Stephen Harper and Gordon Campbell have suddenly and somewhat miraculously been hit with a green streak, and those on all sides would be wise to watch with measured caution.
Campbell’s speech from the throne called for some pretty dramatic initiatives to tackle climate change giving hope to those who trust them, skepticism to those who don’t, and a big headache to those who don’t accept there is a problem.
Will the government be able to reduce greenhouse gas emission targets one third below current levels by 2020? Will they be able to require all electricity produced have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016?
These are noble if difficult goals, and while we support the effort if it is even attainable, we are concerned at what cost. Will the costs of going this green this fast cripple the economy?
A lot of questions come out of Campbell’s speech from the throne, and time will tell if they can get it right—if the government can maintain and grow the current strong economy while meeting all their green priorities.
We’ll be watching closely to see if they can get the balance right, and a delicate balancing act it is.
But at least the subject is on the table, at least some acceptance of the issues have been given mainstream support, and at least the provincial government claims to be taking a stab at greening the province.
And even Kermit concluded in his melancholic song: “I am green and it’ll do fine, it’s beautiful! And I think it’s what I want to be.”

Notice the difference? Subtle, but powerful.