When Westbow Construction applied to redevelop the Fraser Village mobile home park on Wolfe Road, it did more than just bring forward a townhouse proposal. It brought a deeper issue into the spotlight — one that Chilliwack hasn’t yet fully addressed.
What happens when people living in affordable rental housing (or in this case a trailer park) are asked to leave so that something new can be built in its place?
To their credit, Westbow didn’t shy away from the challenge. In fact, their team spent nearly two years meeting with residents, buying out homes, offering relocation support, and giving rent-back options for those who needed a little more time. In some cases, they offered a “right of first refusal” so former tenants could return to the site once the new townhomes were built — complete with accessibility upgrades.
That’s not just ticking boxes. That’s going above and beyond.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: They didn’t have to. There’s no policy in Chilliwack requiring any of that.
Under BC’s Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, landlords are required to give tenants 12 months’ notice and $20,000 in compensation when redeveloping a mobile home park. That’s the baseline — and nothing more.
Everything Westbow did beyond that was voluntary. And while we’re glad they acted with empathy and a sense of social responsibility, it’s clear that our system currently relies on developers choosing to do the right thing.
There are no tools in place to enforce this standard. No clear expectations. No formal structure.
Which leads to the bigger question: What happens when the next redevelopment comes along and the developer doesn’t feel so generous?
At its core, a Rental Redevelopment Policy creates a standard set of expectations for what happens when rental housing is torn down and rebuilt. Instead of relying on developers to go above and beyond, it puts clear, enforceable rules in place to ensure tenants aren’t left scrambling — especially in a market as tight as Chilliwack’s.
Here are the core pieces of what that kind of policy usually includes, and what they would look like here:
If a building (or trailer park) has 57 units, a policy would require that all 57 are replaced as part of the new development — either in the same project or nearby.
This matters because many of the city’s older rental units are some of the last truly affordable housing options in Chilliwack. When they're demolished and replaced with newer, higher-end units, we lose that affordability. A replacement requirement ensures we’re not quietly shrinking our rental supply under the banner of growth.
Moving isn’t cheap — especially for people who’ve lived somewhere for decades. A good policy helps tenants through the process, not just financially, but logistically.
That could mean helping them connect with local rental options, working with seniors’ housing providers, or even assigning someone to guide tenants through things like paperwork, packing, and moving day coordination. It’s about recognizing that being forced to move isn’t just a housing issue — it’s a life disruption.
This gives tenants the option to move back into the new development once it’s built, often before the general public and sometimes at a discounted rate.
In a Chilliwack context, this could mean that a senior who lived in the same unit at Fraser Village for 20 years is given first dibs on a unit in the new townhomes, along with accessibility upgrades — and they’re given a fair rent, not just a market rate that's suddenly double what they used to pay.
Not every situation is the same. A policy like this would recognize that and offer graduated compensation — so someone who’s lived in their home for 25 years gets more than someone who moved in six months ago.
That compensation could be scaled based on tenancy length, age, income, or other factors that reflect how difficult it will be for that person to relocate successfully.
Perhaps the most basic part of a policy — but also one of the most important — is making sure tenants are given plenty of notice, clear timelines, and transparent communication.
Instead of finding out through rumours or vague letters, tenants would know what’s happening, when it’s happening, and what their rights are — with everything clearly laid out in a process the city enforces.
When redevelopment timelines allow, a policy could encourage developers to offer month-to-month rent-back agreements, giving former tenants the option to stay temporarily after their unit is sold or compensation is received. This creates a smoother transition, especially for seniors or vulnerable residents, and gives people more time to plan their next steps without facing immediate displacement.
Different cities have taken different approaches — and there’s no one-size-fits-all.
Vancouver’s policy is among the most robust. It requires a 1:1 replacement of rental units, right of return for tenants, and discounted rent in new units based on previous rates. It also mandates detailed relocation plans and tracking.
But Vancouver also has a much larger planning department and more staff to enforce these policies. It’s a high-capacity system that may not translate directly to smaller cities.
Burnaby’s turnaround is one of the more dramatic. In 2018, the city was widely criticized for allowing low-cost rental buildings in Metrotown to be torn down without adequate tenant protection. In response, they created a Rental Use Zoning Policy, requiring full replacement and robust tenant support.
Now, Burnaby is seen as a leader in renter protection — not just because of the policy, but because they had the political will to learn from past mistakes.
Toronto has an older rental protection framework through Section 111, focused on preventing net loss of rental units. It’s more regulatory in nature and tied into development applications. However, the system can be bureaucratic and slow — and doesn’t always reflect real market pressures on renters.
Like any policy, Rental Redevelopment frameworks aren’t perfect.
Some developers argue these rules drive up costs and discourage new projects. Others point out that it’s unrealistic to expect brand-new buildings to match the rent of 40-year-old ones. And they’re not wrong — construction is expensive, and every regulation adds complexity.
Meanwhile, some renters say the policies don’t go far enough. If the new units aren’t affordable, the right of return becomes meaningless. And not all “relocation assistance” is as helpful in practice as it looks on paper.
At the heart of the criticism is this: Real life is messy.
People’s needs don’t fit neatly into policy boxes. Some seniors want to move closer to family, while others want to stay put at all costs. Some tenants can afford to move but don’t want the stress. Others can’t afford to move at all, no matter the help.
Policies won’t fix everything. But having no policy guarantees that people will fall through the cracks.
City staff noted in their April 2025 report on the Wolfe Road project that, while Chilliwack doesn’t currently have a Rental Redevelopment Policy, Westbow’s actions mirrored the kinds of protections that formal policies provide in other cities.
They also made a recommendation: if Council wants to pursue such a policy, it could begin in late 2025, with the goal of having something ready for approval by 2026.
That timeline is realistic, but the urgency is real too.
Fraser Village won’t be the last site like this. As our city continues to grow, older rental buildings will become prime redevelopment targets. If we wait until the next one is already under application, we’ll be stuck in the same position — hoping the developer chooses to do the right thing.
Westbow deserves credit for how they’ve handled this so far. They showed that redevelopment can be done with care and consideration — and that the community matters.
But we can’t rely on kindness as a policy tool. Chilliwack needs something more durable than good intentions.
A Rental Redevelopment Policy won’t fix the housing crisis. But it will give renters a fair shot, give developers a clear process, and give the City the ability to shape growth in a way that doesn’t leave people behind.
If we start now, we can have that in place by the time the next Wolfe Road comes around.
