I love Starbucks Coffee - HOWEVER

Anybody who has known me for more than 10 minutes can attest to my addiction for the roasted bean-flavoured water that comes from the only coffee store in North America named after a fictional character. To some people, even the mention of Starbucks and you get a grimace, sometimes a “yuck”, and a look that questions my basic sanity for preferring the best export possible from Seattle, to Toronto’s own Tim Horton’s.

If you do not like the taste of any of their dozen or so roasted beans, then at least you have tried to introduce your taste buds to new experiences beyond the ever-so-Canadian “Double –Double” (which is a disgusting way to drink coffee under any circumstances). Every so often I run into a person who complains about the price of Starbucks, even if they have never tried their product; e.g.: “… I heard they charge $5.00 for a coffee – they should be reported…”. To these people I suggest you do your own investigation into the reality of prices.
Starbucks just raised their price for a cup of Joe – by a whole penny (which does not even exist in Canada, so nobody even noticed) but they are still within a dime of what Timmies charges for similar quantity for an inferior product. Yes, for a toonie and tax you can have the equivalent of a large Tim’s – not $5 that the uninformed complain about.
If you want something like a coffee milkshake (vs. just  coffee) you can pay $5 or more, for one of the drinks that barely resemble a real cup of heaven.

However

I have an issue with Starbucks “star rewards” system that sounds good on paper, but in some cases are only words on paper and do not reflect my reality. The concept is simple: you buy 12 drinks (earning 12 stars) with one of their reloadable gift cards in a year, and you get a free one, however the free drink is added electronically to your gift card, and only select stores will redeem the gifts. I am fortunate enough to have a Starbucks within walking distance of my home/office, so I earn a couple of free drinks a month, however, the store where I get my coffee is unable to redeem the free drinks, discounts on food, free refills, or my birthday drink, because they are located in a grocery store.  The closest Starbucks that can redeem my free coffee is about 400KM (250 miles) away. When I call the Starbucks customer service line, they will add a $5.00 credit to my card for every free drink I am unable to redeem prior to the 30 day expiration. Not a bad deal if you don’t mind waiting on the phone for a couple of hours for the customer service people to get around to your call.
Last week I made the grievous error of writing to their customer service email address to request the compensation for the missed benefits. I explained very carefully that the three closest Starbucks (between walking distance and 370KM) were not able to redeem the “stars”. Multiple emails later, from a variety of customer “service” people, Starbucks is still insisting that I do  not know where the Starbucks locations are and send me a link to their store locater page, and that all of the store can redeem the stars. In my latest reply I provided Starbucks customer “service” the telephone numbers of the three closest Starbucks locations to me and challenged them to call the stores to ask about their star redemption policies.
YES! I could wait on the phone for a couple of hours and talk to a real person instead of waiting the 48 to 72 hours between emails from people who have no idea what they are talking about, but by now there is an educational principle involved. Starbucks Customer “service” people need to be educated in the reality beyond the scope of their cubicle, and one way or another I intend to assist with that education.

5.28% ROI Vs Environmental Disater

To paraphrase Diogenes …The more I know about Enbridge the more I love the decision to block them.

For the past year or so we have been hearing from Enbridge that there would be permanent economic spin-off for the First Nations communities who allowed the proposed pipeline to be built on their territories. BC Premier Christy Clark even cited approval of the First Nations along the route as one of five conditions to support the pipeline. Enbridge refused to make the details of the permanent economic spin-off for the First Nations communities’ public, as negotiations continued and they did not want to jeopardize their advantage.

Now we know why.

Northern Gateway offered First Nations communities along the route the opportunity to buy into a 10% equity stake in the pipeline. After repayment of the loans which includes a one per cent interest for Enbridge over and above the bank rate – each community would see $70,500 a year – hardly a windfall considering the environmental risk. These funds will not even cover the costs of one full time nurse per community.

With 45 First Nations communities (18 in Alberta and 27 in BC) potentially splitting that 10% equity position valued at $600Million, each community would have to raise $13.34Million each in order to net $70,500/annum a 5.28% ROI.

The First Nations communities can double that return in just about any mutual fund investment without risking the land for the next 50 generations. 

Pets in Apartments

There was a recent news article about a Vancouver City Counsellor who wanted to ensure that pets would be allowed in all apartment buildings. Much to the dismay of pet owners, those with animal companions, or those with family members who walk on all fours and are covered in hair, I do not see this as a reality any time soon.

For a start, the rules and regulations surrounding tenancy in rented accommodations are governed by the BC Rental Tenancy Act (BCRTA), that neither permits nor denies people to include pets in their place of residence, therefore the City of Vancouver needs to appeal to the owners of apartment buildings to change specific policies for individual buildings.

The larger issue is damage caused by animals.

I appreciate that there are responsible pet owners who will walk their pets three times a day, and pay enough attention to them on an ongoing basis so they do not get frustrated or lonely and take out that frustration on their environment, however from a rental application it is impossible to tell the difference between a responsible pet owner and an irresponsible one. Currently, the BCRTA only allows for a maximum damage deposit of 50% of the first month's rent and a pet damage deposit of 50% of the first month's rent. A far cry from the amount paid to replace carpets, fix walls, repaint, and the loss of rental income while all the work is being done.

We have a NO PET policy that has been in place by the owners of the apartment we manage. Earlier this year somebody sneaked an animal into their unit and it was not discovered until they vacated the premises, and we had to replace all of the flooring and repair six of the walls and we were unable to rent the apartment for a week while the work was being done - damage of $5,000.

There are a couple of possible solutions: Assuming maximum cost to replace carpets, drapes and repair wall damage will not exceed $5,000.

1. Have pet owners provide a surety bond of $5,000 per pet that could be accessed when they vacate the building to cover any damage caused by their animal companion. No damage, no problem – full refund. Some damage, it is covered, and any remaining balance is returned. This would have to be a separate agreement, apart from the BCRTA, or have the  BCRTA changed to allow such a bond;

2. Pet Damage Insurance with a limited liability of up to $5,000 per pet. The renters pay the cost of the premium directly to the owners who hold the policy. If/when there is a claim the insurance company pays out the cost of repairs.

Of course, "PET" would have to be clearly defined as domestic cats, and domestic dogs. No snakes, rats, iguanas, tigers, horses, wolves, bears, venomous creatures, exotic animals, etc. Don't laugh, apartment managers throughout the province have been asked about all of these 'pets' at one time or another.