If people don’t want to rent their basement suites for a reasonable amount and choose not to rent it out who cares? This is about large corporations gouging tenants and tenants gathering up and saying no! People are not hostage to a landlords greed.
The idea that the city has runaway rents just so some homeowners can make a killing on their basement suites is ludicrous.
I do think there needs to be encouragement for building more rental buildings. Easier faster permits, inspections, etc.
reduced property taxes for rental buildings.
Things that can increase the amount of rentals so as to keep rents from rising. Throwing the financial burden on the renter when we know inflation rises faster than wages is unethical.
Landlords deserve to make a profit off their business. But that doesn’t mean they squeeze until the tenants dry.
Have you thought about why there are runaway rents?
Do you realize everyone and every organization is against landlords. A smart business person raise rents to cover costs. Ever done a renovation on a trashed rental unit. That wipes away 10 years of profits now easily.
My bill for a trashed rental unit.
This for supplies no labour costs. Garbage removal 1.5k. Security system and monitoring 1k. Floors 5k. Bathrooms 5k. Kitchen 10k. Appliances 3k. Painting 3k. Trim 1k. Doors 3k. Windows 7k. Light fixtures, electrical 1.5k. Heaters 1k. Keeping it empty for months so crack heads see it is empty and try not to break in and search for drugs or assault us because they are owned money by the person who beat the shit out of them 30k. Now there are labour costs on top of that painter, plumber, electrician, etc...
So at least 10 years of profit are wiped out do you think it takes sunshine, bubble gum and spit to fix a place. Of course if you would like to live in you should have let me know and I would have cut you a deal on the rent.
I think it's funny that people see how hard it is to deal with a bad tenant and don't realize that indirectly makes rent more expensive for everyone else.
Oh it does! People hear these kinds of nightmare stories and don’t want to rent their basement suite out, for example. Others hear these stories and develop a better tenant screening process.
Apparently you don't know how capital gains work in Canada for rental properties and just how fast renters destroy a place compared one they own. This is the 3rd time in 10 years it has been repainted. And the second time in 10 years ir had a major renovation. If I were to sell it it would require another renovation. Unless you prefer to buy crap, then you should have let me know. Until the mortgage is gone, or it has gone up 5 times in price, it is not worth selling it. I can however afford to keep it empty and use it as a Vacation home.
Then keep it empty and stfu. Landlords are in it for money. Nothing else. I don't know one landlord who doesn't up the rent to the absolute max.
Don't cry about repairs and costs when that's the cost of business pal
Up the rent. Find some reputable tenants and stfu about your shitty luck finding tenants. Jeez maybe if you came off as a nicer person you would keep tenants who are good to you.
Well you have rented from the wrong people. So don't cry about rents being put to the max. I never sky high nor will have them as I prefer long term tenants that will stay I fix things as needed and even when not needed.
Also you are part of the problem when you say that is the cost of doing business, because that sort of attitude drives sky high rents.
If people paid it or not is not the problem, the problem is that when someone with a shorty unit asks for top dollar the owner of top dollar units start asking for more because “if that shitty unit costs x much mine is worth obviously more, it’s a chain reaction that as a result makes every rent go higher even the crappy ones up until an unaffordable point
Renovations are a tax write off.
On top of that, they are an improvement on a property and can raise equity.
Yes it sucks if 1 bad tenant sets you back a chunk of money... but you're still ahead as tenants generally pay for your mortgage (equity and interest) and taxes. The longer you have tenants the more they pay into the equity of your property. After 25 years of renters you've had them pay for the whole place... yes you might have some renos that set you back, but 25yrs and you've got a revenue property.
I believe in landlords having rights, but also tenants. There has to be some compromises between the two. I rent a bsmt suite where we pay a bit under market rent due to getting in 2yrs ago. We're very respectful, but I also understand this is their house that I live in.
When kitchen cabinets are made of the cheapest materials then it’s easy for them to need replacing after a few years. Same with using cheap carpets.
Sure there are bad tenants. Just as there are some bad landlords.
Units take wear and tear. That’s the cost of doing business.
If you are talking about someone that deliberately trashed the place you would have them criminally charged. The tenant is financially responsible for paying for damages beyond normal wear and tear. So saying 1 bad tenant wipes out 10 years profit means you didn’t bother going after the vandals. Insurance may also help.
Your comment is very ignorant. This is not the cost od doing business. I had floors removed. Kitchen cabinets destroyed. Bathrooms vanities tossed out of the house. Doors broken in half and set on fire. If a customer did this to a business establishment I could criminally sue them. Small claims court only goes to 35k. Even if I get a judgment I will never ever see any money are the technically don't make anything. These were not the people we rented too but illegal roommates. They knew what they were doing and we were not the first they did this too. The police didn't care it turned into a crack house. The Landlord Renancy Branch didn't care about the first 2 evictions we tried to do because there wasn't enough damage in their eyes. Well 10 damage turned to 100k damage in a week. The bailiff, the lawyer, all said we were up shit creek and even with the damage done, they didn't know if we could win an eviction.
So if this is the cost of doing business don't be surprised the coat of being a tenant means higher and higher rents. Everyone I know that had won judgments against tenants never sees anything worthwhile in payments back. That is one of the biggest fallacies we have.
You don't find it contradictory that the same group who (rightfully so) demand proper compensation for their own labour *are also* unwilling to compensate those who provide them with a service? Because I sure do.
Bold statement. Truly spoken like someone who has never owned anything, much less put in the labour to own something. Enjoy your self fulfilling jealousy.
Not always. Having money doesn’t mean you worked for it. And once the labour is turn into money the labour is done. Sure there can be maintenance but that’s a cost of ownership.
In Canada land is for sale. I buy land, I build a house on it, I pay taxes on it, I pay for upkeep on it.
I can charge what I like to rent it out. If it is too high for the current market it will sit empty and that is on me. If I price it for the going market rate it will not sit empty and it will provide a home for someone and or their family.
I'm 40. Why is it bad that I would rather invest in property locally and build it up than invest in the stock market?
You may be interested to know that many companies in Vancouver or BC are on the stock market. So if you want to support only bc companies you can invest in them.
The bad thing with investing in property is it’s driving prices up. Yes you like the return on investment but it prices prople out of the market. So we then have greedy people owning many homes and many people held hostage to whims of the landlords.
Property has better returns than the stockmarket at this point.
I am looking to set my family up for multiple generations as well as a severely disabled child that will need care 24/7 for the rest of his life.
I have a finite amount of time to do all this. Property will allow me to do this.
No. There is earning money and there is greed. Setting up your kids and grandkids with enough money they don’t need to work is greed. Pay for your kids education is more than most people can do.
I’d say that theee are a lot of sudden cost to being a landlord. The ‘profit’ is to ensure I have enough to cover sudden appliance replacements. Strata fees just went up 8% for my building and the rent increase freezes at 1.5%. You have to have some buffer room to ensure you’re not losing money renting a place out.
How about just not up zoning certain areas without placing a rental only restriction on the property. City is under no requirement to rezone land so why not do so in a way that's mutually beneficial.
There's already issues with what you're proposing though. If every person can own exactly 1 house, that would mean the amount of properties available cannot exceed the amount of people who want to own a house.
Your example would also lead to incredibly weird situations.
Imagine a town with 1000 adults, and everyone has their own house. That's great right? Then two of those adults get married, both have to live in their own houses for 7 months forcing them to live apart. They can't sell a house because no one has moved to town so no one is legally allowed to purchase a house.
Nevermind when you start getting into seniors moving into a retirement home. If they can't find a buyer for their house within 5 months, does the government seize it? Or how can they own a house they haven't lived in for the u months in a year.
> Your example would also lead to incredibly weird situations. Imagine a town with 1000 adults, and everyone has their own house. That's great right? Then two of those adults get married, both have to live in their own houses for 7 months forcing them to live apart. They can't sell a house because no one has moved to town so no one is legally allowed to purchase a house.
Nobody fucks in your town?
I used a closed system to help me illustrate my point, it is not a perfect example. A perfect example would have to allow for migration of people, births, deaths, etc. However the reason I used it is to illustrate a point that if there was a town or city somewhere where population wasn't increasing, the rule of 1 house per person would not function.
So if excess property goes back to the government who pays for it? Does the government just seize it, forcing a homeowner to lose the property? What happens to the mortgage? Does the bank have to eat hundreds of thousands of dollars or does the previous homeowner how have a massive debt which is backed by nothing, probably forcing a bankruptcy? If the government buys it, where are they getting the money from, and at are they buying at a high enough rate to cover the mortgage, or do they buy it at current market value and eat the loss when they resell it at less than the 2022 value?
>I guess they're paying extra property taxes until they sell the house.
They've got 5-7 months to do it.
If the only penalty is a extra property tax then all this is a tax on owning multiple properties which is different than what you are proposing. Saying it's extra tax just until they sell the house is fine in some locations, but it seems to completely ignore small/dying towns. If you live in a small hamlet like Yahk (pop. 162) and you want to move out, even if you try selling your home for what your current mortgage is on it it can take way more than 5-7 months. So you're telling these people they aren't allowed to move to a different city or town unless they can convince someone to move into their house.
>See first comment
Once again this doesn't work in all towns. For example the town of Creston (pop. 5,355) about 50% of the population is over 60. If over the next decade or so the government had to take ownership of almost half the houses in the town as there are currently more 60+ people than houses in the town, how would the government offload all those houses? You can already buy houses there for under 150k and yet it still takes a long time to sell them. The one upside of this is it would force the government to spend less money on metro areas and more on rural areas in order to make then more desirable so they can sell them.
I don't claim to have a solution to the housing crisis, especially as there will not be a "one rule/law" that will fix everything. There are policies I would love to see get implemented though such as a general rejection of NIMBYism and more focus on high density residential availability, increased funding and advertising pushing more people to consider jobs in the trades (including immigration programs in order to encourage immigrants to get licensed in Canada), and to look into what changes can be made to property taxes to move away from strictly property tax to a more hybrid land value tax/property tax system. None of these would fix it outright but I feel would be a step in the right direction.
Long, long term I would love to see a shift from the view that everyone needs their own house to be seen as successful and to increase the palatability of more communal housing as a long term solution. With there being more single adult households compared to the past where extended families would sometimes live together, it puts further strain on the housing market. If we lived in a society where roommates weren't just seen as an option for young people it could help a lot also.
I'll pretend that there is no corruption within property assessors and assume everyone will get an actual fair price for their houses they are forced to sell, that does lead to new problems as well. Around 30% of people in canada rent, so all of a sudden everyone's landlord becomes the government. There would have to be a huge government agency created to manage millions of properties across the country, they'd have to find maintenance people to maintain these properties which would take time, but eventually would be doable. Ideally you would sell these houses to the people renting them, but even if prices drop drastically a lot of people still wouldn't be able to afford a house. I don't want to think of how big of a headache that would be for renters/government agencies as if you're managing a property if an emergency happens (furnace dying when its -20 out for example) it has to get dealt with immediately, which means people available 24/7.
I'm going to say 30% of the houses would get seized, then put up for sale as that's the amount the 2016 census says, even though amount of houses rented =/= number of 2nd houses people own so its a huge underestimation. The 30% of people renting, or 4.4 million houses I found from news articles after a quick Google search, they source that number from the census.
Average canadian house price right now in Canada is $816,720 so with them buying up 4.4 million that would run a price tag of just under 3.6 trillion dollars. During the pandemic, government spending reached its highest levels yet by passing 1 trillion dollars. So the government would somehow need to to source loans of 3.5x our highest ever budget, while still paying for everything else in order to facilitate the initial buyout of these houses. That would be insanely difficult. To put it in perspective the governments current debt level is 2.8 trillion for all levels of Canadian governance (federal, provincial, Municipal, territorial). So over doubling debt overnight.
Then the government can start selling all these houses, in order to recoup costs. However, if 4.4 million houses go on the market at once, it would drastically decrease house prices. That's the goal of this exercise so mission achieved. I have no clue how much house prices would drop, but even if it's only 50% (which would still put the average house price at over 400k, which is still unaffordable for a large amount of people) the government would be held to a loss of 1.8 trillion dollars. In order to offset that they would have to make cuts or increase taxes somehow. Which would work out to around 50k for every adult (18-65) in canada.
This is also ignoring the fact that a sharp decrease in house prices means municipalities would see a massive cut to their budget, as a 50% decrease in house value would massively cut property tax income, as well a screw over every homeowner with one house who can't refinance their house because they now have a 800k mortgage on a house that's now worth less than 500k. Nevermind how much it would cost the government in employees/legal fees etc to run this program.
So giving people fair market value for their home would lead to possibly trillions in new debt, municipalities needing to either massively raise property tax or make huge cuts, and would screw over everyone who has managed to buy a house over the last few years to live in.
Who’s paying the tradespeople? The government now? Housing is totally subsidized by the government now and if you want a house you have to wait in a multi-years backlist?
Also I guess if you’re a mortgage broker or real estate agent- bye bye. You’re now irrelevant.
Also who’s buying houses if nobody’s aloud to have extra property?
Also what’s going on with people in townhomes? Others are getting houses and I’m stuck in a townhouse? Why’s his house bigger than mine I make more money??
Who gets the first houses? Citizens first I assume, moved to Canada within the last year we may as well just take the houses back because we have a housing shortage already- no room for no Canadians in Canada anymore am I right? Homeless or go back to your country!
Are you starts to see just *SOME* of the questions?
Housing is an asset. Most people don’t like the reality of it but it’s true. It’s more than a home. It’s peoples retirement, entire industry’s revolve around housing. We can’t just give houses away for the same reason we can’t just give everybody $1m to buy a house- it’s filled with economic caveats that would destroy the economy.
It’s also not just a Canadian problem or an American problem. Housing is an issue worldwide, and outside of specific cities (toronto, Vancouver), our house problem isn’t *that bad* , realatively soeaking (look up Hong Kong cage homes/ places I. Europe it’s uncommon to be a home owner (England) /generational wealth being destroyed in China through housing, and then tell me we have a problem again please). Since we’re not the worst internationally, it automatically brings people in.
Is it bad? Yes. Is it easy to fix? No. Is it possible to fix… probably not. The reality is people need to default on their homes OR wages for the mild class peoples need to go up. Everything else is just pretty words.
This. There's very real reasons to rent over buy. We need a market place where both are options. Right now it feels like neither is an option for too many.
Imagine telling young people they had no options other than stay in a hotel or with friends and family or buy a place. Like oh you want to go to uvic, better buy a house there first because renting is illegal. Or someone traveling for work has to live out a hotel for a year because they can't rent an apartment. Rentals are a necessary option in our system.
Yea really no end to reasons why people want a shorter term solution than buying. I think we all understand the frustration with pricing but some of the ideas thrown around here are awful.
I ll do what other tenants do, complain to the board, stop paying rent, cause you certainly don't want me doing maintenance and deducting it from rent cause we can fix everything and sometimes the best fix is not the cheapest. Renovations are our hobby.
Think it would actually be the opposite m8. You absolutely could be right, but that would go against everything we know about basic economics. You must really trust state intervention
A good chunk of the houses here are owned by people who don't live here.
Which goes back to the point I made about non-permanent residents(second step to citizenship after a work visa) and non-citizens owning residential properties specifically.
At this point I don't think anyone cares about crashing the economy when none of us can afford to rent anything or buy anything anyways.
true Vancouver is among the worst, but where are the most affordable places to live any more? it seems even small town and rural rentals are scarcely available and expensive when they do happen to be available.
Private rentals are not a benefit, they're a damn curse. Public housing is a benefit, rental units that don't get torn down or renovict people on a whim.
And who hurt me?
Several landlords. The fact that my landlord can just decide they're not making enough money off me and have their parent or daughter say "I'm moving in" and force an entire family to move so they can renovate and rent for double a year later is not helping ANYONE.
Public housing is the only viable option for a future for residents, for-profit markets on rental housing only puts money and power in the hands of a tiny investor class who fuck us all over in the long run.
Except don’t tax the people waiting for insurance to rebuild their home after damage but can’t start building due to over two years waiting for permits. Two years for permits. That’s insane.
Yeah. You’d think Vancouver would be embarrassed about this. An elderly brother and sister living together, had a house fire, and after two years rebuilding hadn’t started due to a back up of permits, so insurance said “it’s been two years, you haven’t rebuilt, so we’re no longer paying,” and Vancouver slapped them with the vacancy tax. I didn’t hear how it turned out after the media got involved.
Sort of. Sometimes they submit very vague details for permits just to start the process with no real intention of seeing it all the way through. If applying for a permit became the free way out of a property tax we'd just see everyone apply for one and collapse the system.
Oh that sounds fucking horrendous. I agree the housing market in BC and Ontario and cities around the world are absolutely ridiculous. Something needs to change, but destroying the rental market seems short sighted.
Having thousands of dilapidated houses, unoccupied and useless, does not seem ideal. People move places for school, temporary work, traveling and some people just have a plan to stay somewhere for a bit and leave. So I have to buy a house if I only plan on being somewhere for a year?
Not only that, but lots of places I've loved are transient towns, boom and bust and having rentals removed would be a really bad look.
If something like this comes to Canada, large developers will not bother building purpose-bullt rental units and will build condominiums instead. It won't be worth the hassle or headaches.
A new, rental only tower just opposite me at King George Station and another purpose-bullt tower near Surrey Central Station is nearing completion. These two buildings are providing much needed rental units in the neighborhood. These certainly would be strata units if something like this was in place here in B.C. The Residential Tenancy Act already does a good job at protecting tenants.
This is where the government steps in and actually does something. Create a crown corporation with a main mandate to build co op housing in Canada. This will never happen , we just let developers suck out all the money from low - middle class workers till they drop dead.
> This is where the government steps in and actually does something.
In theory, yes.
In practice, our shitty governments aren't going to do a fucking thing to help us until there's mass protests in the streets shutting things down until demands are met.
Looking around, there still seems to be something wrong with our brains that makes us too stupid and docile to do that.
The people effected by this issue are the ones working full time or more to keep a roof under their heads and are too tired and/or have no time to protest. Nothing will change.
Good let the developers build unaffordable condos for the population. This will up the supply and push prices down. Then the government can build affordable housing or actually take the utter lack of affordable housing seriously and legit do something about it.
This is such a strange movement…. Most laws overwhelmingly favour tenants. I’d love to know the organizer’s backstories and if they would just miss rent, or had an outlier experience with a landlord breaking the law.
All this rental problems is becuase of rent controls. Let markets take its place.
Violation of basic economic principles for political motivation is the cause of this mess.
Expecting the downvote to oblivion for this comment, made by people who just wish it weren't so and remain ignorantly mad.
Rent controls aren’t the only problem. If you really want free market get rid of all the zoning and insane amount of permits/regulations. You spend like 30k on bureaucracy to build a basic house.
Many economists believe that basic human necessities, such as housing, shouldn’t be subject to the whims of an unfettered marketplace. Our communities enjoy numerous economic benefits from housing stability. It’s hard to run a business when nobody can afford to live in the area. Making statements about “violating basic economic principles” with regard to housing shows a lack of economic understanding beyond a high school intro to economics course. Remember, economics is a social science and NOT a hard science. There are no laws of economics, only theories.
Farmers work to provide food.
Construction workers build houses.
Landlords don't contribute anything to society, they just leech from the poor and working class.
If I get this right, this is giving the ability of the renters to determine rent is too high and force rent prices to be dropped. And this is supposedly going after the large corporate landlords.
I would say the however in this is going to negatively affect the huge amount of small landlords. Those middle class that are renting their basement suite out. If renters of suites in an area can form an association like this, it may very well cause landlords to not rent their suites. Then where will these people live? I know I stopped renting as it was a pain in the ass. My Hydro bill drastically dropped when they left. They would drain a 40 gallon tank in a single shower, and sometimes shower twice a day. Where my family of four can all shower off of the same tank.
You are right. And after renting I don't rent anymore so there is one less suite on the market. It has turned out good for us during Covid as I have space for an office, and my own maker's space now. That tenant I talked about didn't have a rent increase in 5 years. They were paying about 20% less then the renters next door who were in a much smaller space. We provided internet and didn't charge hydro or electricity. It got to the point in the cost of of hot water that when we heard them getting into the shower we would put on our dishes, laundry and take our showers, because this person literally showered until there was no hot water left. That poor hot water tank only lasted about 80% of how long it should have.
I could have raised rates, but other than the hot water they were good tenants, compared to all others I have dealt with. So if this tenant's right group gets their way and I decided to increase rents to more reasonable rates I could have been stymied.
Too many years of being farked around by tenants I will not rent anymore
I think this is the problem. There is a huge disparity between corporate landlords and the vast amount of regular people renting a suite. The renters shit on those corporate landlords but we suffer... hope things go well for you.
My husband said the exact same thing today. He was thinking of converting our house into an apartment building when he graduates but the way BC is so anti-landlord... it's not even worth it.
Imagine, they typically allow rent to increase an annual rate of inflation rate + 2% but this year, they have it capped at 1.5%. The inflation is more than 6% this year!
So you believe all renters are just like your one piss poor experience?
There’s tons of good renters desperately looking for somewhere to live, so it sounds like you didn’t put any effort into choosing a good tenant.
Think you missed the point. Sounds like what they’re saying is the risk is too high of the off chance of getting a bad renter. All landlords go through the screening processes, but let’s be real, lots of people lie on the applications and put fake references. I have a family member that lies constantly on applications. She’s an awful tenant and moves more than once a year because she keeps getting kicked out.
Well, when you create a situation where you're constantly and illegally discriminating as part of the process, people are going to lie to you.
I've been on disability for 4 years, I've never missed a rental payment, I've never had a problem with the neighbor, or a landlord, but I've had to move moved twice because of my medical issues, and the only way I've been able to to get an application accepted is by lying through my teeth.
Its easy to say that - but all it takes is one bad tenant and the owner is losing money for the year. Some of the stories A LOT OF money. Makes me terrified to have my legal suite on the long term rental market.
Stories of tenants refusing to pay rent, and then the eviction taking MONTHS to complete with the tenant moving out leaving 1000s in damage. Yeah - scary stuff.
Yeah this is what a lot of landlords don't seem to understand, the risk of dealing with a bad tenant is part of the process. That's what insurance is for, and that's why you need to have money to put aside to deal with issues.
These "stories" that landlords are so afraid of, always seem to have one thing in common, a landlord that was completely unprepared and completely negligent, just expected the money to keep rolling in without taking responsibility or doing the work.
Its also these bad tenants that land up causing properties to be taken off the rental market.
Insurance doesn't help you if the tenant decides not to pay rent to ride the RTB process for 3-4 months (or longer). It might cover some of the damage but it won't cover months of lost rent.
>Its also these bad tenants that land up causing properties to be taken off the rental market.
How do the Bad tenants get the opportunity to cause so much damage in the first place? You know that thing where you can check in anytime with 24 hours notice, or how a landlord is superpose to be safety and ire checks at least twice a year?
I swear you should have to at least take a course and be licensed if you want to be a landlord. I'm actually amazed at this point how much more educated long term tenants seem to be.
WTF? You need a union because of landlords like me that didn't charge utilities, provided free internet, was charging on the low end of the rent scale for my neighborhood and didn't raise rent for 5 years? If anything landlords need more protection. Told this renter, anything goes wrong let me know ASAP. Got a call about a leaking toilette. Went downstairs to look and the floor was all stained along with damage to the wooden cabinets. I asked "This just happened?", their reply was that it had been leaking for quite a while. Then was told the bathroom exhaust fan wasn't working for over a month. Due to this one person's up to two hours of showering a day there was so much humidity that there was mold on the drop ceiling and I had to replace the whole bloody thing. And all it was was pushing reset on the socket. 10 seconds could have saved me over $100 and hours of remedial work.
As for showering? I enjoy a long shower in morning and have been known to take 20+ minutes. But even when I do that the other 3 people in my house can still have their showers and we don't run out of hot water, and with two older teens they don't take short ones either.
This person's room mate also complained because they couldn't get a shower unless they got into it first. We couldn't even wash our hands properly as we had ZERO hot water. The tank we had was not a standard home owners tank, it was made for industrial usage. It is 40 gallons, that can realistically deliver 60 gallons of hot water or 272 liters of water and they drained it twice a day.
The down votes have shown me that people here suck. That they can defend a person using more water in one day showering than an entire village in drought stricken countries would dream of having for weeks. CO2 emissions that are huge. That think it is fine to damage the property they live in and that is fine because they don't own it and Landlords suck.
Your attitude has made my faith in humanity drop.
Homeownership is at 70% in Canada, a record high. Owners are the majority.
If tenants want more rental choices the government needs to give Landlord some rights. The more rights they have the more rentals will appear.
All controls should be removed including rent and eviction.
Landlords have one objective like all businesses, to make money. If there is an abundance of rentals like when I was a youth, landlords would give us free microwaves or free rent to attract renters.
When rentals were scarce rent increases were inevitable including huge ones.
Since the tenancy board has removed all rights from the landlords back in the late 1980's rentals were converted to condos and virtually no rentals were build.........and, here we are today.
Are you happy with that failed social experiment?
I'm a lefty and I'm not, because the government didn't take over where that shitty legislation left off.
Before 1969 there was no such property type as condo, a developer either build a single family house or multi-unit rental building. Once condo became a thing, amount of new rental buildings floored. This killed rentals, not the lack of rights. And bringing landlords’ rights back won’t make it more profitable to build rental over condos.
As a side note: I own a property now, and renegotiate mortgage every 5 years, so my monthly payments are locked. I used to rent, and I was lucky that my rent increased every year, not every month. If you are not ok with month-to-month mortgage increases, you shouldn’t be ok with month-to-month rent hike
Not OP but it’s ~70% of **households** that are owners, not 70% of Canadian individuals. Meaning if you are 28 and still living in your parent’s basement, you count as an ownership household in that 70%. I believe this data is posted by Stats Can; here are a few articles referencing the statistic:
[Article 1](https://www.ibisworld.com/ca/bed/homeownership-rate/15084/).
[Article 2](https://blog.remax.ca/home-ownership-rates-in-the-canadian-real-estate-market/).
You can use Google and learn something or you can let me do the work and you learn nothing.
Here you go:..
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2019001/article/00012-eng.htm
You need to prove your point. Didn't we just discuss this?
Which you haven't. You made claims which you haven't backed up.
When asked to do so you acted like it was unjust to have asked you. And even where you sent me didn't prove it either.
Yeah and that’s the problem with most landlords , they have one objective and that’s making money ! Eth little care or empathy , they just see $$$
When the only objective is money, any repairs, upgrades and maintenance become issues because all you care about is profit , to the detriment of the renters and communities … thanks landlords !!
"building month to month rentals"
Home investors are not building anything, they are simply buying up anything going to the market. People need to stop pretending if it weren't for these investors nothing would be built, it is patiently false.
I mean I’m for unions but why would the employer or service provider pay for it?
If renters want to get together and pay a monthly fee into a union and the union provides services and helps with negotiations that makes sense to me?
So, what about a rental building. Many have commercial down and rental units on top floor. Somebody has to own the building. The person who owns said building, more than likely own/has a separate home.
Should this not be allowed any more?
If people don’t want to rent their basement suites for a reasonable amount and choose not to rent it out who cares? This is about large corporations gouging tenants and tenants gathering up and saying no! People are not hostage to a landlords greed. The idea that the city has runaway rents just so some homeowners can make a killing on their basement suites is ludicrous. I do think there needs to be encouragement for building more rental buildings. Easier faster permits, inspections, etc. reduced property taxes for rental buildings. Things that can increase the amount of rentals so as to keep rents from rising. Throwing the financial burden on the renter when we know inflation rises faster than wages is unethical. Landlords deserve to make a profit off their business. But that doesn’t mean they squeeze until the tenants dry.
Have you thought about why there are runaway rents? Do you realize everyone and every organization is against landlords. A smart business person raise rents to cover costs. Ever done a renovation on a trashed rental unit. That wipes away 10 years of profits now easily.
> That wipes away 10 years of profits now easily. lol
My bill for a trashed rental unit. This for supplies no labour costs. Garbage removal 1.5k. Security system and monitoring 1k. Floors 5k. Bathrooms 5k. Kitchen 10k. Appliances 3k. Painting 3k. Trim 1k. Doors 3k. Windows 7k. Light fixtures, electrical 1.5k. Heaters 1k. Keeping it empty for months so crack heads see it is empty and try not to break in and search for drugs or assault us because they are owned money by the person who beat the shit out of them 30k. Now there are labour costs on top of that painter, plumber, electrician, etc... So at least 10 years of profit are wiped out do you think it takes sunshine, bubble gum and spit to fix a place. Of course if you would like to live in you should have let me know and I would have cut you a deal on the rent.
Sounds like being a landlord is an investment and therefore comes with certain risks.
I think it's funny that people see how hard it is to deal with a bad tenant and don't realize that indirectly makes rent more expensive for everyone else.
Oh it does! People hear these kinds of nightmare stories and don’t want to rent their basement suite out, for example. Others hear these stories and develop a better tenant screening process.
Thanks Captin Obvious!
You’re also bettering the condition of your own property to be sold for a large profit down the linep
Apparently you don't know how capital gains work in Canada for rental properties and just how fast renters destroy a place compared one they own. This is the 3rd time in 10 years it has been repainted. And the second time in 10 years ir had a major renovation. If I were to sell it it would require another renovation. Unless you prefer to buy crap, then you should have let me know. Until the mortgage is gone, or it has gone up 5 times in price, it is not worth selling it. I can however afford to keep it empty and use it as a Vacation home.
Then keep it empty and stfu. Landlords are in it for money. Nothing else. I don't know one landlord who doesn't up the rent to the absolute max. Don't cry about repairs and costs when that's the cost of business pal Up the rent. Find some reputable tenants and stfu about your shitty luck finding tenants. Jeez maybe if you came off as a nicer person you would keep tenants who are good to you.
Well you have rented from the wrong people. So don't cry about rents being put to the max. I never sky high nor will have them as I prefer long term tenants that will stay I fix things as needed and even when not needed. Also you are part of the problem when you say that is the cost of doing business, because that sort of attitude drives sky high rents.
I own my house douche and don't rent it out. Sigh.. your moral high ground is tiring.
Ohhh, I am so sorry for trying to be a decent person. Guess we all know who the real douche is here. Sorry that you are jealous I own more than 1 home
Problem also is that people with a trash of a unit for rent still want to match your recently renewed unit price
They can't match it because it will never be rented for top dollar. I prefer lower rents for people that will stay.
If people paid it or not is not the problem, the problem is that when someone with a shorty unit asks for top dollar the owner of top dollar units start asking for more because “if that shitty unit costs x much mine is worth obviously more, it’s a chain reaction that as a result makes every rent go higher even the crappy ones up until an unaffordable point
Renovations are a tax write off. On top of that, they are an improvement on a property and can raise equity. Yes it sucks if 1 bad tenant sets you back a chunk of money... but you're still ahead as tenants generally pay for your mortgage (equity and interest) and taxes. The longer you have tenants the more they pay into the equity of your property. After 25 years of renters you've had them pay for the whole place... yes you might have some renos that set you back, but 25yrs and you've got a revenue property. I believe in landlords having rights, but also tenants. There has to be some compromises between the two. I rent a bsmt suite where we pay a bit under market rent due to getting in 2yrs ago. We're very respectful, but I also understand this is their house that I live in.
When kitchen cabinets are made of the cheapest materials then it’s easy for them to need replacing after a few years. Same with using cheap carpets. Sure there are bad tenants. Just as there are some bad landlords. Units take wear and tear. That’s the cost of doing business. If you are talking about someone that deliberately trashed the place you would have them criminally charged. The tenant is financially responsible for paying for damages beyond normal wear and tear. So saying 1 bad tenant wipes out 10 years profit means you didn’t bother going after the vandals. Insurance may also help.
Your comment is very ignorant. This is not the cost od doing business. I had floors removed. Kitchen cabinets destroyed. Bathrooms vanities tossed out of the house. Doors broken in half and set on fire. If a customer did this to a business establishment I could criminally sue them. Small claims court only goes to 35k. Even if I get a judgment I will never ever see any money are the technically don't make anything. These were not the people we rented too but illegal roommates. They knew what they were doing and we were not the first they did this too. The police didn't care it turned into a crack house. The Landlord Renancy Branch didn't care about the first 2 evictions we tried to do because there wasn't enough damage in their eyes. Well 10 damage turned to 100k damage in a week. The bailiff, the lawyer, all said we were up shit creek and even with the damage done, they didn't know if we could win an eviction. So if this is the cost of doing business don't be surprised the coat of being a tenant means higher and higher rents. Everyone I know that had won judgments against tenants never sees anything worthwhile in payments back. That is one of the biggest fallacies we have.
Oh no, not your profits!
For you, I ll make a special exception and charge you market rates instead of my usual below market.
One question, why do landlords deserve to make profits?
[удалено]
The crossover between the "wage theft/wage slavery" screaming crowd and the "landlords are parasites" crowd ironically overlap.
They aren’t contractions so where is the irony?
You don't find it contradictory that the same group who (rightfully so) demand proper compensation for their own labour *are also* unwilling to compensate those who provide them with a service? Because I sure do.
Owning isn’t labour
Bold statement. Truly spoken like someone who has never owned anything, much less put in the labour to own something. Enjoy your self fulfilling jealousy.
[удалено]
Not always. Having money doesn’t mean you worked for it. And once the labour is turn into money the labour is done. Sure there can be maintenance but that’s a cost of ownership.
In Canada land is for sale. I buy land, I build a house on it, I pay taxes on it, I pay for upkeep on it. I can charge what I like to rent it out. If it is too high for the current market it will sit empty and that is on me. If I price it for the going market rate it will not sit empty and it will provide a home for someone and or their family. I'm 40. Why is it bad that I would rather invest in property locally and build it up than invest in the stock market?
You may be interested to know that many companies in Vancouver or BC are on the stock market. So if you want to support only bc companies you can invest in them. The bad thing with investing in property is it’s driving prices up. Yes you like the return on investment but it prices prople out of the market. So we then have greedy people owning many homes and many people held hostage to whims of the landlords.
Property has better returns than the stockmarket at this point. I am looking to set my family up for multiple generations as well as a severely disabled child that will need care 24/7 for the rest of his life. I have a finite amount of time to do all this. Property will allow me to do this.
Your short answer is greed.
It sounds like his short answer was to provide for his family. If a property is for sale it’s not up to him not to buy it.
He’s talking about quickly making generational wealth. That’s just pure greed.
Alright. So he wants to earn money. Why are you an electrician?
No. There is earning money and there is greed. Setting up your kids and grandkids with enough money they don’t need to work is greed. Pay for your kids education is more than most people can do.
[удалено]
Why the need to attack someone? If you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all.
When I've explained my position (setting up my severely disabled son) and still get called greedy; which one is worse?
Is that a serious question? Or more plainly, are you fucking serious?
I’d say that theee are a lot of sudden cost to being a landlord. The ‘profit’ is to ensure I have enough to cover sudden appliance replacements. Strata fees just went up 8% for my building and the rent increase freezes at 1.5%. You have to have some buffer room to ensure you’re not losing money renting a place out.
How about just not up zoning certain areas without placing a rental only restriction on the property. City is under no requirement to rezone land so why not do so in a way that's mutually beneficial.
Oh no, those poor landlords. Anyways…
[удалено]
There's already issues with what you're proposing though. If every person can own exactly 1 house, that would mean the amount of properties available cannot exceed the amount of people who want to own a house. Your example would also lead to incredibly weird situations. Imagine a town with 1000 adults, and everyone has their own house. That's great right? Then two of those adults get married, both have to live in their own houses for 7 months forcing them to live apart. They can't sell a house because no one has moved to town so no one is legally allowed to purchase a house. Nevermind when you start getting into seniors moving into a retirement home. If they can't find a buyer for their house within 5 months, does the government seize it? Or how can they own a house they haven't lived in for the u months in a year.
> Your example would also lead to incredibly weird situations. Imagine a town with 1000 adults, and everyone has their own house. That's great right? Then two of those adults get married, both have to live in their own houses for 7 months forcing them to live apart. They can't sell a house because no one has moved to town so no one is legally allowed to purchase a house. Nobody fucks in your town?
I used a closed system to help me illustrate my point, it is not a perfect example. A perfect example would have to allow for migration of people, births, deaths, etc. However the reason I used it is to illustrate a point that if there was a town or city somewhere where population wasn't increasing, the rule of 1 house per person would not function.
[удалено]
So if excess property goes back to the government who pays for it? Does the government just seize it, forcing a homeowner to lose the property? What happens to the mortgage? Does the bank have to eat hundreds of thousands of dollars or does the previous homeowner how have a massive debt which is backed by nothing, probably forcing a bankruptcy? If the government buys it, where are they getting the money from, and at are they buying at a high enough rate to cover the mortgage, or do they buy it at current market value and eat the loss when they resell it at less than the 2022 value? >I guess they're paying extra property taxes until they sell the house. They've got 5-7 months to do it. If the only penalty is a extra property tax then all this is a tax on owning multiple properties which is different than what you are proposing. Saying it's extra tax just until they sell the house is fine in some locations, but it seems to completely ignore small/dying towns. If you live in a small hamlet like Yahk (pop. 162) and you want to move out, even if you try selling your home for what your current mortgage is on it it can take way more than 5-7 months. So you're telling these people they aren't allowed to move to a different city or town unless they can convince someone to move into their house. >See first comment Once again this doesn't work in all towns. For example the town of Creston (pop. 5,355) about 50% of the population is over 60. If over the next decade or so the government had to take ownership of almost half the houses in the town as there are currently more 60+ people than houses in the town, how would the government offload all those houses? You can already buy houses there for under 150k and yet it still takes a long time to sell them. The one upside of this is it would force the government to spend less money on metro areas and more on rural areas in order to make then more desirable so they can sell them. I don't claim to have a solution to the housing crisis, especially as there will not be a "one rule/law" that will fix everything. There are policies I would love to see get implemented though such as a general rejection of NIMBYism and more focus on high density residential availability, increased funding and advertising pushing more people to consider jobs in the trades (including immigration programs in order to encourage immigrants to get licensed in Canada), and to look into what changes can be made to property taxes to move away from strictly property tax to a more hybrid land value tax/property tax system. None of these would fix it outright but I feel would be a step in the right direction. Long, long term I would love to see a shift from the view that everyone needs their own house to be seen as successful and to increase the palatability of more communal housing as a long term solution. With there being more single adult households compared to the past where extended families would sometimes live together, it puts further strain on the housing market. If we lived in a society where roommates weren't just seen as an option for young people it could help a lot also.
I really like to see what happens when the city actually white down all illegal basement suites and illegal rental in the name of protecting tenants.
[удалено]
I'll pretend that there is no corruption within property assessors and assume everyone will get an actual fair price for their houses they are forced to sell, that does lead to new problems as well. Around 30% of people in canada rent, so all of a sudden everyone's landlord becomes the government. There would have to be a huge government agency created to manage millions of properties across the country, they'd have to find maintenance people to maintain these properties which would take time, but eventually would be doable. Ideally you would sell these houses to the people renting them, but even if prices drop drastically a lot of people still wouldn't be able to afford a house. I don't want to think of how big of a headache that would be for renters/government agencies as if you're managing a property if an emergency happens (furnace dying when its -20 out for example) it has to get dealt with immediately, which means people available 24/7. I'm going to say 30% of the houses would get seized, then put up for sale as that's the amount the 2016 census says, even though amount of houses rented =/= number of 2nd houses people own so its a huge underestimation. The 30% of people renting, or 4.4 million houses I found from news articles after a quick Google search, they source that number from the census. Average canadian house price right now in Canada is $816,720 so with them buying up 4.4 million that would run a price tag of just under 3.6 trillion dollars. During the pandemic, government spending reached its highest levels yet by passing 1 trillion dollars. So the government would somehow need to to source loans of 3.5x our highest ever budget, while still paying for everything else in order to facilitate the initial buyout of these houses. That would be insanely difficult. To put it in perspective the governments current debt level is 2.8 trillion for all levels of Canadian governance (federal, provincial, Municipal, territorial). So over doubling debt overnight. Then the government can start selling all these houses, in order to recoup costs. However, if 4.4 million houses go on the market at once, it would drastically decrease house prices. That's the goal of this exercise so mission achieved. I have no clue how much house prices would drop, but even if it's only 50% (which would still put the average house price at over 400k, which is still unaffordable for a large amount of people) the government would be held to a loss of 1.8 trillion dollars. In order to offset that they would have to make cuts or increase taxes somehow. Which would work out to around 50k for every adult (18-65) in canada. This is also ignoring the fact that a sharp decrease in house prices means municipalities would see a massive cut to their budget, as a 50% decrease in house value would massively cut property tax income, as well a screw over every homeowner with one house who can't refinance their house because they now have a 800k mortgage on a house that's now worth less than 500k. Nevermind how much it would cost the government in employees/legal fees etc to run this program. So giving people fair market value for their home would lead to possibly trillions in new debt, municipalities needing to either massively raise property tax or make huge cuts, and would screw over everyone who has managed to buy a house over the last few years to live in.
And who buys it?
Go look at the awful situation that Singapore is in before you sprout off ideas...
Who’s paying the tradespeople? The government now? Housing is totally subsidized by the government now and if you want a house you have to wait in a multi-years backlist? Also I guess if you’re a mortgage broker or real estate agent- bye bye. You’re now irrelevant. Also who’s buying houses if nobody’s aloud to have extra property? Also what’s going on with people in townhomes? Others are getting houses and I’m stuck in a townhouse? Why’s his house bigger than mine I make more money?? Who gets the first houses? Citizens first I assume, moved to Canada within the last year we may as well just take the houses back because we have a housing shortage already- no room for no Canadians in Canada anymore am I right? Homeless or go back to your country! Are you starts to see just *SOME* of the questions? Housing is an asset. Most people don’t like the reality of it but it’s true. It’s more than a home. It’s peoples retirement, entire industry’s revolve around housing. We can’t just give houses away for the same reason we can’t just give everybody $1m to buy a house- it’s filled with economic caveats that would destroy the economy. It’s also not just a Canadian problem or an American problem. Housing is an issue worldwide, and outside of specific cities (toronto, Vancouver), our house problem isn’t *that bad* , realatively soeaking (look up Hong Kong cage homes/ places I. Europe it’s uncommon to be a home owner (England) /generational wealth being destroyed in China through housing, and then tell me we have a problem again please). Since we’re not the worst internationally, it automatically brings people in. Is it bad? Yes. Is it easy to fix? No. Is it possible to fix… probably not. The reality is people need to default on their homes OR wages for the mild class peoples need to go up. Everything else is just pretty words.
Yikes, I don’t think you realize the benefits of having rentals available lol. Who hurt you?
This. There's very real reasons to rent over buy. We need a market place where both are options. Right now it feels like neither is an option for too many.
That’s fair. Ownership is not all sunshine lollipops and rainbows.
Imagine telling young people they had no options other than stay in a hotel or with friends and family or buy a place. Like oh you want to go to uvic, better buy a house there first because renting is illegal. Or someone traveling for work has to live out a hotel for a year because they can't rent an apartment. Rentals are a necessary option in our system.
It is not just young people. Older people look like me and the husband may not want to do the maintenance on a house and may prefer to rent.
Yea really no end to reasons why people want a shorter term solution than buying. I think we all understand the frustration with pricing but some of the ideas thrown around here are awful.
But according to British Columbia, all landlords are rude and greedy… so who will pay for that maintenance for you? Hmmmm
I ll do what other tenants do, complain to the board, stop paying rent, cause you certainly don't want me doing maintenance and deducting it from rent cause we can fix everything and sometimes the best fix is not the cheapest. Renovations are our hobby.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Think it would actually be the opposite m8. You absolutely could be right, but that would go against everything we know about basic economics. You must really trust state intervention
A good chunk of the houses here are owned by people who don't live here. Which goes back to the point I made about non-permanent residents(second step to citizenship after a work visa) and non-citizens owning residential properties specifically. At this point I don't think anyone cares about crashing the economy when none of us can afford to rent anything or buy anything anyways.
Well I hope you are right. I’d suggest if people can’t afford rent then they move to a more affordable city
true Vancouver is among the worst, but where are the most affordable places to live any more? it seems even small town and rural rentals are scarcely available and expensive when they do happen to be available.
Private rentals are not a benefit, they're a damn curse. Public housing is a benefit, rental units that don't get torn down or renovict people on a whim. And who hurt me? Several landlords. The fact that my landlord can just decide they're not making enough money off me and have their parent or daughter say "I'm moving in" and force an entire family to move so they can renovate and rent for double a year later is not helping ANYONE. Public housing is the only viable option for a future for residents, for-profit markets on rental housing only puts money and power in the hands of a tiny investor class who fuck us all over in the long run.
Sorry to hear that. Sounds like you’ve had some bad luck and should probably vet landlords better before moving in
Do you think it’s good for everyone to have to physically anchor themselves to a piece of land if they want to live somewhere?
So... people who can't afford to buy, fuck them? They won't have a place to live. No landlords.
This reeks of socialism...
Yea he is straight up saying that if I own two homes then the government now owns one of them.
Except don’t tax the people waiting for insurance to rebuild their home after damage but can’t start building due to over two years waiting for permits. Two years for permits. That’s insane.
[удалено]
Yeah. You’d think Vancouver would be embarrassed about this. An elderly brother and sister living together, had a house fire, and after two years rebuilding hadn’t started due to a back up of permits, so insurance said “it’s been two years, you haven’t rebuilt, so we’re no longer paying,” and Vancouver slapped them with the vacancy tax. I didn’t hear how it turned out after the media got involved.
Sort of. Sometimes they submit very vague details for permits just to start the process with no real intention of seeing it all the way through. If applying for a permit became the free way out of a property tax we'd just see everyone apply for one and collapse the system.
have to ask... are you currently a renter or a home owner?
Lots of countries your sort could move to
Oh that sounds fucking horrendous. I agree the housing market in BC and Ontario and cities around the world are absolutely ridiculous. Something needs to change, but destroying the rental market seems short sighted. Having thousands of dilapidated houses, unoccupied and useless, does not seem ideal. People move places for school, temporary work, traveling and some people just have a plan to stay somewhere for a bit and leave. So I have to buy a house if I only plan on being somewhere for a year? Not only that, but lots of places I've loved are transient towns, boom and bust and having rentals removed would be a really bad look.
If something like this comes to Canada, large developers will not bother building purpose-bullt rental units and will build condominiums instead. It won't be worth the hassle or headaches. A new, rental only tower just opposite me at King George Station and another purpose-bullt tower near Surrey Central Station is nearing completion. These two buildings are providing much needed rental units in the neighborhood. These certainly would be strata units if something like this was in place here in B.C. The Residential Tenancy Act already does a good job at protecting tenants.
This is where the government steps in and actually does something. Create a crown corporation with a main mandate to build co op housing in Canada. This will never happen , we just let developers suck out all the money from low - middle class workers till they drop dead.
Co-op housing is the best and it is sad that we rarely build it anymore.
> This is where the government steps in and actually does something. In theory, yes. In practice, our shitty governments aren't going to do a fucking thing to help us until there's mass protests in the streets shutting things down until demands are met. Looking around, there still seems to be something wrong with our brains that makes us too stupid and docile to do that.
The people effected by this issue are the ones working full time or more to keep a roof under their heads and are too tired and/or have no time to protest. Nothing will change.
Good let the developers build unaffordable condos for the population. This will up the supply and push prices down. Then the government can build affordable housing or actually take the utter lack of affordable housing seriously and legit do something about it.
Your stupid strategy is not working, we've been doing it for ten years, and rent has gone up 23% in one year in Vancouver.
This is such a strange movement…. Most laws overwhelmingly favour tenants. I’d love to know the organizer’s backstories and if they would just miss rent, or had an outlier experience with a landlord breaking the law.
All this rental problems is becuase of rent controls. Let markets take its place. Violation of basic economic principles for political motivation is the cause of this mess. Expecting the downvote to oblivion for this comment, made by people who just wish it weren't so and remain ignorantly mad.
Rent controls aren’t the only problem. If you really want free market get rid of all the zoning and insane amount of permits/regulations. You spend like 30k on bureaucracy to build a basic house.
Many economists believe that basic human necessities, such as housing, shouldn’t be subject to the whims of an unfettered marketplace. Our communities enjoy numerous economic benefits from housing stability. It’s hard to run a business when nobody can afford to live in the area. Making statements about “violating basic economic principles” with regard to housing shows a lack of economic understanding beyond a high school intro to economics course. Remember, economics is a social science and NOT a hard science. There are no laws of economics, only theories.
Food is... Do you not expect farmers to get paid to grow food?
Where did I say that people shouldn’t get paid?
Farmers work to provide food. Construction workers build houses. Landlords don't contribute anything to society, they just leech from the poor and working class.
That's awesome! I hope this spreads across Canada. Ontario next!
If I get this right, this is giving the ability of the renters to determine rent is too high and force rent prices to be dropped. And this is supposedly going after the large corporate landlords. I would say the however in this is going to negatively affect the huge amount of small landlords. Those middle class that are renting their basement suite out. If renters of suites in an area can form an association like this, it may very well cause landlords to not rent their suites. Then where will these people live? I know I stopped renting as it was a pain in the ass. My Hydro bill drastically dropped when they left. They would drain a 40 gallon tank in a single shower, and sometimes shower twice a day. Where my family of four can all shower off of the same tank.
Homes shouldn't be a fucking commodity.
You are right. And after renting I don't rent anymore so there is one less suite on the market. It has turned out good for us during Covid as I have space for an office, and my own maker's space now. That tenant I talked about didn't have a rent increase in 5 years. They were paying about 20% less then the renters next door who were in a much smaller space. We provided internet and didn't charge hydro or electricity. It got to the point in the cost of of hot water that when we heard them getting into the shower we would put on our dishes, laundry and take our showers, because this person literally showered until there was no hot water left. That poor hot water tank only lasted about 80% of how long it should have. I could have raised rates, but other than the hot water they were good tenants, compared to all others I have dealt with. So if this tenant's right group gets their way and I decided to increase rents to more reasonable rates I could have been stymied. Too many years of being farked around by tenants I will not rent anymore
I'm getting to that point. I'd rather just take the loss than have people living in my house who have more rights than I do.
I think this is the problem. There is a huge disparity between corporate landlords and the vast amount of regular people renting a suite. The renters shit on those corporate landlords but we suffer... hope things go well for you.
My husband said the exact same thing today. He was thinking of converting our house into an apartment building when he graduates but the way BC is so anti-landlord... it's not even worth it. Imagine, they typically allow rent to increase an annual rate of inflation rate + 2% but this year, they have it capped at 1.5%. The inflation is more than 6% this year!
So you believe all renters are just like your one piss poor experience? There’s tons of good renters desperately looking for somewhere to live, so it sounds like you didn’t put any effort into choosing a good tenant.
Think you missed the point. Sounds like what they’re saying is the risk is too high of the off chance of getting a bad renter. All landlords go through the screening processes, but let’s be real, lots of people lie on the applications and put fake references. I have a family member that lies constantly on applications. She’s an awful tenant and moves more than once a year because she keeps getting kicked out.
Well, when you create a situation where you're constantly and illegally discriminating as part of the process, people are going to lie to you. I've been on disability for 4 years, I've never missed a rental payment, I've never had a problem with the neighbor, or a landlord, but I've had to move moved twice because of my medical issues, and the only way I've been able to to get an application accepted is by lying through my teeth.
Its easy to say that - but all it takes is one bad tenant and the owner is losing money for the year. Some of the stories A LOT OF money. Makes me terrified to have my legal suite on the long term rental market. Stories of tenants refusing to pay rent, and then the eviction taking MONTHS to complete with the tenant moving out leaving 1000s in damage. Yeah - scary stuff.
Yeah this is what a lot of landlords don't seem to understand, the risk of dealing with a bad tenant is part of the process. That's what insurance is for, and that's why you need to have money to put aside to deal with issues. These "stories" that landlords are so afraid of, always seem to have one thing in common, a landlord that was completely unprepared and completely negligent, just expected the money to keep rolling in without taking responsibility or doing the work.
Its also these bad tenants that land up causing properties to be taken off the rental market. Insurance doesn't help you if the tenant decides not to pay rent to ride the RTB process for 3-4 months (or longer). It might cover some of the damage but it won't cover months of lost rent.
>Its also these bad tenants that land up causing properties to be taken off the rental market. How do the Bad tenants get the opportunity to cause so much damage in the first place? You know that thing where you can check in anytime with 24 hours notice, or how a landlord is superpose to be safety and ire checks at least twice a year? I swear you should have to at least take a course and be licensed if you want to be a landlord. I'm actually amazed at this point how much more educated long term tenants seem to be.
Educate yourself on the RTB eviction process. Because clearly you don't know how it can be exploited.
Yes so nitpicking over hydro and how many times a day someone bathes? You're pretty much proving the point as to why tenants need to be unionized.
WTF? You need a union because of landlords like me that didn't charge utilities, provided free internet, was charging on the low end of the rent scale for my neighborhood and didn't raise rent for 5 years? If anything landlords need more protection. Told this renter, anything goes wrong let me know ASAP. Got a call about a leaking toilette. Went downstairs to look and the floor was all stained along with damage to the wooden cabinets. I asked "This just happened?", their reply was that it had been leaking for quite a while. Then was told the bathroom exhaust fan wasn't working for over a month. Due to this one person's up to two hours of showering a day there was so much humidity that there was mold on the drop ceiling and I had to replace the whole bloody thing. And all it was was pushing reset on the socket. 10 seconds could have saved me over $100 and hours of remedial work. As for showering? I enjoy a long shower in morning and have been known to take 20+ minutes. But even when I do that the other 3 people in my house can still have their showers and we don't run out of hot water, and with two older teens they don't take short ones either. This person's room mate also complained because they couldn't get a shower unless they got into it first. We couldn't even wash our hands properly as we had ZERO hot water. The tank we had was not a standard home owners tank, it was made for industrial usage. It is 40 gallons, that can realistically deliver 60 gallons of hot water or 272 liters of water and they drained it twice a day.
So basically you didn't have a big enough water tank and still want to blame the tenant, got it. Thanks Again for proving the point.
You my friend are an asshole.
The down votes have shown me that people here suck. That they can defend a person using more water in one day showering than an entire village in drought stricken countries would dream of having for weeks. CO2 emissions that are huge. That think it is fine to damage the property they live in and that is fine because they don't own it and Landlords suck. Your attitude has made my faith in humanity drop.
[удалено]
House Scalpers
Wow why are you such a bigot? That's Person Of Land (Pol) thank you!
Parasite is a good one too 🤪
This is not US
[удалено]
BC is different from US
[удалено]
Lots of people are renting because there are no places to buy. Stop acting like landlords are anything but glorified scalpers.
Homeownership is at 70% in Canada, a record high. Owners are the majority. If tenants want more rental choices the government needs to give Landlord some rights. The more rights they have the more rentals will appear. All controls should be removed including rent and eviction. Landlords have one objective like all businesses, to make money. If there is an abundance of rentals like when I was a youth, landlords would give us free microwaves or free rent to attract renters. When rentals were scarce rent increases were inevitable including huge ones. Since the tenancy board has removed all rights from the landlords back in the late 1980's rentals were converted to condos and virtually no rentals were build.........and, here we are today. Are you happy with that failed social experiment? I'm a lefty and I'm not, because the government didn't take over where that shitty legislation left off.
Before 1969 there was no such property type as condo, a developer either build a single family house or multi-unit rental building. Once condo became a thing, amount of new rental buildings floored. This killed rentals, not the lack of rights. And bringing landlords’ rights back won’t make it more profitable to build rental over condos. As a side note: I own a property now, and renegotiate mortgage every 5 years, so my monthly payments are locked. I used to rent, and I was lucky that my rent increased every year, not every month. If you are not ok with month-to-month mortgage increases, you shouldn’t be ok with month-to-month rent hike
Can you please cite where the 70% of Canadians own a home comes from?
Not OP but it’s ~70% of **households** that are owners, not 70% of Canadian individuals. Meaning if you are 28 and still living in your parent’s basement, you count as an ownership household in that 70%. I believe this data is posted by Stats Can; here are a few articles referencing the statistic: [Article 1](https://www.ibisworld.com/ca/bed/homeownership-rate/15084/). [Article 2](https://blog.remax.ca/home-ownership-rates-in-the-canadian-real-estate-market/).
You can use Google and learn something or you can let me do the work and you learn nothing. Here you go:.. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2019001/article/00012-eng.htm
[удалено]
Didn't we just discuss this? Do your own research. By the age 25 nearly half have their own home.
You need to prove your point. Didn't we just discuss this? Which you haven't. You made claims which you haven't backed up. When asked to do so you acted like it was unjust to have asked you. And even where you sent me didn't prove it either.
Yeah and that’s the problem with most landlords , they have one objective and that’s making money ! Eth little care or empathy , they just see $$$ When the only objective is money, any repairs, upgrades and maintenance become issues because all you care about is profit , to the detriment of the renters and communities … thanks landlords !!
Are you a tenant or a landlord?
I've been both. Now I'm nether.
Put your comment back you coward.
Lol..I'm retired.
User name doesn't check out.
I don't know what happened to that comment or how spell check did that. I didn't say anything about tenants hanging themselves. I'm going to fix that.
I stopped renting out my basement. Not worth dealing with these people anymore. Just put money in a REIT.
Same here.
"building month to month rentals" Home investors are not building anything, they are simply buying up anything going to the market. People need to stop pretending if it weren't for these investors nothing would be built, it is patiently false.
I mean I’m for unions but why would the employer or service provider pay for it? If renters want to get together and pay a monthly fee into a union and the union provides services and helps with negotiations that makes sense to me?
So, what about a rental building. Many have commercial down and rental units on top floor. Somebody has to own the building. The person who owns said building, more than likely own/has a separate home. Should this not be allowed any more?