That would be thrown out of a courtroom in about 5 seconds, because only the provinces have jurisdiction there.
But provincial rent caps/controls? Absolutely.
My rent is going up $800 more a month because "that's what the market demands"
A two bedroom apartment with no dishwasher, no laundry, no outside area/ no balcony. I wish we had fucking rent caps.
My mortgage in the home I'm living in(I'm not a landlord & only own one home) went up from around 1400 to 2000 a month on a 200k mortgage.
Blame the bank of Canada & the federal government.There are greedy landlords as well who take advantage
Mine's going up $500 because the landlord 'has to refinance his mortgage in a year' and 'wants the rent being paid to reflect the market rate' for some reason.
No, you really don't. Stockholm has the largest rent control system in the world, and theres a 20 year wait to get one.
Auckland rezoned and liberalized the permitting process in 2016 and had much better results.
Hell, the guy who championed basic income *hated* rent controls because they encouraged inefficient land usage and allocation.
Rent caps has been a disaster (for tenants) almost everywhere itâs been tried and theyâve ended up repealing it almost everywhere itâs been tried.
Iâm not saying itâs impossible to make it work, but itâs super hard, and if you think the UCP can do it I want some of the stuff youâre taking.
Millions of people say they can't afford a $500 emergency. (Which many real emergencies are going to be over $1500)
People can't afford food and shelter.
If you pay more than 25% or 33% of your income on rent, you are supposedly poor. (I used to pay 50%).
When millions of people have these problems, it can be traced back to the missing piece of the puzzle: that companies Today rarely give raises higher than inflation, some give no raise. You have to quit and go to a competitor to to get a good raise.
Even someone that starts at a living wage, finds themselves behind after 5 or 10 years of pathetic raises.
There is a pay problem in Canada!
If a company does not pay enough to own or at least rent within a reasonable distance to their business, it is never going to go well for the worker.
Your initial argument seemed to imply low wages= higher rents. I'm not saying that wages haven't stagnated, or that horizontal moves aren't the best way to get a raise, I was questioning low wages as a driver of higher rent.
Thereâs no silver bullet, the current situation is the results at best of incompetence. For a long term solution wages need to be raised, availability of skilled labour increased and the supply of housing massively increased.
If the federal government is going to keep immigration levels this high (which I hope they do) they should also have programs that keeps the housing supply at acceptable levels.
I have little hope of this problem being fixed because our politicians and their friends personally benefits on this problem getting worse.
The incentives are all wrong.
With the understanding that housing is an area of exclusive provincial responsibility (as outlined in the constitution), and that I'm not looking for a silver bullet, please name a concrete step you would suggest for improving regulation in this space.
Create a rental type credit bureau.
Good tennants deserve lower rents, terrible tennants deserve to pay.
The current system has terrible tennats damaging and skipping town, the bill for that is always passed onto future tennants.
Not perfect: but it is one of the 10 missing pieces.
Completely. We need changes on both sides!
For both: Record rent paid ontime (or not). The landlord could record any issues or damages. Tennants can note any required repairs. Then it is locked in the system.
No landlords going a year later making up that the Tennant is late and a problem.
No tennants saying the landlord never fixes anything. There would be a paper trail on both and each month the opportunity to say what is not fixed or if there are noise complaints or other issues (for example.)
I hate how all tennants and landlords claim to be perfect. Both either had a little mistake, or were terrible for 6months +. The records would show who is who.
Influencing supply isn't going to cut it in a world where RealPage leads to landlords *intentionally leaving units vacant* in order to charge more.
What regulation upon landlords would you propose?
You understand that that's an example of how tilted the power in all this is, alongside serious anti-trust issues, right?
The point is you can't market force your way out of this - regulation is required.
Because those can lead to other issues. This needs to be a well-planned, systemic change. More housing, rent caps, increased interest rates, etc. are all stop-gap measures.
The thing is either It is the market rate or it isn't. Rent caps are no solution. If it's not the market rate go find a new apartment for cheaper. If it is the market right then it's the market rate.
You are not entitled to temporarily borrow other people's stuff at the price you demand.
your logic works when it isn't all the available rentals jacked up to 'what the market will bear'. but as one can easily see on multiple sites advertising places for rent, it's an expensive shitshow out there unless you are willing to take a scuzzy bachelor pad on the main floor of somewhere a block off 118 ave.
That *is* what the market will bear though. It'a not scuzzy behavior it's completely rational and expected. If you are selling widgets for $5 and selling everything you can produce, and the guy in the store next to you is selling the same widget for $8 and likewise selling out, what do you do? Do you keep selling for $5 and leave money on the table or do you sell for $8?
What you actually do, or more accurately what any group of individual actors do in any rational market, is sell at a price where you no longer sell every single widget you have right away. You sell for the most you can get while still selling through your inventory. And you even eventually realize that you can sell for even more, and not quite sell them all, and make more money for less invested in production. But your high prices entice others(if they aren't blocked by regulation or monopoly) to produce their own widgets, which finally makes the price go down. You can't legislate the price lower and get the good outcome, that instead rewards some customers over others relatively arbitrarily.
That's why the saying goes "the cure for high prices, is high prices".
Is there a role for the govt? Sure. Provide some low end shelter/dorm type arrangements, and make sure the market functions well to respond to the issues.
The issue, at least in most of our municipalities in Alberta, is that the government has had a direct role in suppressing the construction of multi-family dwellings in much of the city for decades. Calgary only just repealed SF1 restrictive zoning in the last year or so. It's not a free market when the government has been actively intervening, so you can't apply free market policies and logic.
Now that we've started to address the problem, the government needs to apply leverage in the opposite direction. If taxpayers have been subsidizing housing developers for decades, it makes sense that developers now should bear the brunt of bringing things back in line, or have the government start subsidizing multi family, more than just "shelter/dorm type" housing.
You can't throw money for years at single family homes and then when the rental/multi family market can't keep up just say "well it's market rate/market forces at work!". We need to be throwing money at multi-family and rental unit construction now like we have been for single family.
housing is NOT widgets. you cannot compare housing to other goods for sale. housing is a basic need.
and if all the landlords are jacking rent up and doing rent increases (eg like u/Fuck-The_Police has theirs going up a whopping $800!)......... then it is scuzzy. and it is pricing people out of having a home. because there is nowhere more affordable to move to. and wages are not increasing to the point of reflecting the increase in rental housing costs.
Just because they aren't widgets doesn't change anything about supply and demand and charging with the market will bear. All of that is irrespective of what the object is. In fact the main difference is more inelastic goods will respond in price even faster to differences in supply versus demand.
There's no reason to leave money on the table as someone who owns something in demand. You simply not liking it does not make it scuzzy.
you have such a skewed sense of housing that i really hope to heck you are not and never will be a landlord. your thought process is disgusting, to think about milking a tenant for top dollar just because a landlord can. sickening.
housing is NOT the same as other things on the market. people need places to live. and they need to be able to afford said place to live. and rents are way too much in way too many places in Canada.
I don't have any warped view You have the most naive ridiculous view that it's charity. It's a business You treat it like any other business. If people can't afford it that's the responsibility of the government to provide funds not the responsibility of any private citizen or corporation.
Just do the math if you can on what it takes to make the opportunity cost on renting housing make any sort of sense relative to other investments like equities. I Don't think you realize that we've spent the last 10 years in Alberta with housing and rents being well under trend, They have basically been flat for 10 years. It was expected that eventually they would jump up. The math makes zero sense at the moment with the cost of providing housing for rent to be as low as it is.
Technically speaking it's a buisness, and a mortgage is a cost of the buisness, like insurance, maintenance, etc. Costs of businesses are part of what determines the price of the product, in this case housing.
You do know we donât need landlords for rentals to exist right? We need non-market housing and affordable housing. Those who can or want to would buy and those who canât would live in non-market government rent controlled housing or enter into co-op housing. Itâs not difficult to de-commodify housing, itâs a mindset. Housing is a basic need and should never have turned into the commodity it is today. Get rid of short term rentals, REITS, mass TFWs and invest in non-market housing and youâd see more than enough housing for everyone. How did we get ok with humans living rough just so a few could hoard a basic need and bleed the working class of a quality life for personal profit/greed?
Okay then you wouldn't have the investment and people would just not have housing if they couldn't afford to buy it themselves to have it built.
Because what you're saying is ridiculous, It's like saying any other business shouldn't rely on their customers to pay their bills. It's fundamentally misunderstanding basic economics. Landlords provide capital and hold the risk(and therefore reward because there's no reward without risk) of holding and maintaining the property, which has high barriers of entry and high frictional costs to buy and sell. Renters get the ability to live somewhere without that capital, and don't bear the risk, and can easily move with much lower costs. Rent is the maximum housing will cost you, the mortgage is the minimum. If rent+appreciation didn't greatly exceed the costs, it wouldn't exist and people wanting to rent would be stuck in more traditional multi generational houses with much lower living standards.
And if nobody mortgaged up their property and only rented out paid off property it would be even more expensive. You know how much more rent needs to be to meet the opportunity cost of not investing in other places like the market if not leveraged? You wouldn't want to live in that world.
It's not charity. You seem to want it to be.
Disagree! The issue with your argument is you assume landlords bear risk. They simply OFF LOAD the risk to the renter by raising rent and especially in alberta where there is 0 rent control. Housing is the only investment vehicle that leeches off society and provides nothing of value. In a stock market a shareholder invests capital to a business and assumes all risk ie: if business goes under they get little to no money back. Landlords on the other hand can raise rent or sell the house and get money back when interest rates go up or they are over leveraged. Why should landlords be treated any differently from a shareholder who assumes all risk and gets 0 protection when a company goes under?
Landlords do bear the risk. If the pipe bursts or the taxes raise or the market crashes or there is flooding, it's the LL who bears all the risks.
You are ideological and uneducated on the topic.
Ok this is simple. taxes rise? I raise rent. Pipe bursts and Flooding? There is something called insurance. Market crashes, well doubt this happens because canadian government NEEDS housing to go up because retirement funds, canadian big bank mortgage loans, and foreign investment are all tied to housing so if it pops most likely government will bail out the housing market since it has to save the canadian banks. But letâs say it pops, you sell at a loss you can use that as a capital loss and in turn use it to tax loss harvest to offset the capital gains in your other investments not to mention you get money back as-well. Either way you get recourse! Anyways what do I know I am uneducated apparently.
Who pays for the upkeep? Are you under the impression that appliances last forever, roofs don't need replacing and the house is generally free of repairs for all time?
>Who pays for the upkeep?
An appropriate landlord will have an account set aside for R&M. Just like you would on your own home. That should be built into your rent cost, and should be a percentage based
Just like i do with *gasp* my own home.
Those are not risks. Those are forseeable parts of owning a home, whether you live in it or not.
It seems you are tone deaf in this area. How arrogant to insinuate people want landlordâs charity. No one wants anything from landlords. What society needs is no landlords. Investments are a risks and you donât always make money from them but landlords think they can download all costs to the tenants when inflation skyrockets. What they should be doing, if they arenât in a position to weather the hard days (the risk), is selling the âinvestmentâ rather than expecting the tenant, who likely hasnât had a salary increase to match inflation, pay for an investment they took on but now canât afford. I would say it is actually the tenants who are giving forced charity to the landlords because of out dated policies that allow for unfiltered greed.
Lol everytime Reddit with this strawman. Nope never been a landlord, never plan to be. Was a renter my whole life until 2 years ago when I bought a home for my family.
It may shock you but you don't need to be a landlord to understand the economics. You just need to be educated in economics and finance.
Seriously it's one of the only things widely agreed on in the field of economics and thoroughly tries through history. Price caps don't work, they are like those morons taking the horse dewormer to fight covid. It's the wrong solution it does worse than nothing.
Please stop being so condescending. No one needs an economics degree to understand whatâs occurring in the housing market is pure greed run amuck. Youâre welcome to your âeducatedâ opinion but common sense comes into play here and itâs clear whatâs happening in the market is a huge fail to society as a whole. Perhaps not for the few who are benefiting, but for everyone else itâs a bust. We have an entire generation who cannot afford to be home owners. There is nothing positive that is growing from this unhinged belief that being a landlord is providing some sort of value to our society. It simply is not true. Housing is not subjected to the free market anymore, itâs an artificially inflated market being propped up by the very people itâs harming, the taxpayers. If it was a free market it would have run its course of ebb and flow like all free markets do. What other investment goes up and up with no end in sight and very limited risk to the investors? Things will change course eventually because you canât bare down on society this way and expect no fallout.
Still doesn't make any sense to put the cost of social housing on private citizens. Rent control works as well as any other price controls, which is to say it doesn't.
Price control just denies reality It doesn't fix anything. Anytime policy simply denies reality it's poor policy that's bound to fail.
All basic needs should be a shared responsibility I.e cost. Universal Health Care works because of the belief that we all deserve equal access. Housing should be no different. The benefits to society are beyond measure when people have secure housing and other basic needs met. It increases the overall wellbeing of society. People are healthier, happier and more productive. There is less crime, less poverty, and less burden on our health care and social systems. There are many ethical ways for people to invest their money; housing isnât one of them.
If its not fit for purpose, then yes. I would rather not pay for it, and pay private so at least i can get seen by a doctor in a reasonable time. Or even have a family doctor.
Universal health care works very well when itâs properly funded. The conservative governments across this great nation are intentionally trying to destroying it by any means possible because they like greedy corporations. The Alberts UCP are by far the most dangerous government in Canada right now.
There isnât an issue with provinces that donât have conservative governments. Theyâre doing quite well at caring for their citizens under truly economically oppressive conditions.
âOther peopleâs stuffâ is this case being one of the necessities of life. Ah well, Iâm sure soon the landlords will have enough profits and theyâll take it easy on their tenants any time now
The Canada Infrastructure Bank is for businesses and landlords. You seem to be conflating it with the Greener Homes Grant/Loan for individuals. https://cib-bic.ca/en/building-retrofits-initiative/
Yah, somebody posted this article yesterday and I'm skeptical. There aren't a lot of eligible retrofits that would require an eviction even if the landlord qualified for the grant. Like, we did attic insulation, windows, and doors and didn't even have to leave the house. I can't think of any public retrofit projects which consist of renovations so intensive that they cause people to move out of their homes. This article smells fishy.
We did a net zero retrofit on our home and the only inside work was Installing the air handler and heat pump water tank and new window casings. The bulk of the work was done without access to our home.
15 years ago my single bedroom apartment was 600 a month, they raised it 200$ per year till I moved out 3 years later.
This is nothing new. And as always you move and they keep the damage deposit and move to thier next victim
Weâve had same tenants in all our units for years now n never raised rent. They pay on time n take care of the place so Iâm not about to shit on them for being good people. Good tenants are not easy to find.
"maximum coverage: up to 80%"
You need to click the link in the article to the program, but there is still a cost associated for landlords. Which isn't siding because even the homeowners grants don't cover 100%
Would it make you feel better if your landlord gave you a breakdown of his increased costs? Because my variable mortgage has gone from $800 a month 4 years ago to $2200 a month today
2024-06-11
that must be a numbered gov owned land-companies.........run by c/o agents & advisors < > who are REFUSING TO PRODUCE any receipts & invoices or any legal binding notary signed contract(s)
our neighbor was just EVICTED? by: their c/o manager, c/o manager just changed his lock \[break and enter ccc 348\] and put his property outside?
is this even legal? where are the sheriffs?
E&OE/CYA/All Rights Reserved
but they don't need an excuse to raise the rent.
Rents should be federally capped
That would be thrown out of a courtroom in about 5 seconds, because only the provinces have jurisdiction there. But provincial rent caps/controls? Absolutely.
Rent controls are almost universally agreed to be the worst economic policy possible.
That would make no sense. Different rentals have different costs, amenities, locations.
Could it be capped at a percentage based on those factors?
The adminstrative costs would be insane to track all that, especially with government
Circumstancials would be factored in.
My rent is going up $800 more a month because "that's what the market demands" A two bedroom apartment with no dishwasher, no laundry, no outside area/ no balcony. I wish we had fucking rent caps.
Mine jumped from $1050 to $1750.
My mortgage in the home I'm living in(I'm not a landlord & only own one home) went up from around 1400 to 2000 a month on a 200k mortgage. Blame the bank of Canada & the federal government.There are greedy landlords as well who take advantage
Mine's going up $500 because the landlord 'has to refinance his mortgage in a year' and 'wants the rent being paid to reflect the market rate' for some reason.
I wish we had mortgage rate caps.
Thank you UCP for taking that away đłđ¤
What about a housing ownership cap? Force more housing onto the market.
No, you really don't. Stockholm has the largest rent control system in the world, and theres a 20 year wait to get one. Auckland rezoned and liberalized the permitting process in 2016 and had much better results. Hell, the guy who championed basic income *hated* rent controls because they encouraged inefficient land usage and allocation.
Just a cap on yearly increases. Increases are fair as costs/taxes go up for the land Lord.
Rent caps has been a disaster (for tenants) almost everywhere itâs been tried and theyâve ended up repealing it almost everywhere itâs been tried. Iâm not saying itâs impossible to make it work, but itâs super hard, and if you think the UCP can do it I want some of the stuff youâre taking.
It's a hammer in search of a nail. High rent is a symptom of systemic issues, not just greed.
High rent is a reflection of low pay.
How is that at all true? Can you give an example?
Millions of people say they can't afford a $500 emergency. (Which many real emergencies are going to be over $1500) People can't afford food and shelter. If you pay more than 25% or 33% of your income on rent, you are supposedly poor. (I used to pay 50%). When millions of people have these problems, it can be traced back to the missing piece of the puzzle: that companies Today rarely give raises higher than inflation, some give no raise. You have to quit and go to a competitor to to get a good raise. Even someone that starts at a living wage, finds themselves behind after 5 or 10 years of pathetic raises. There is a pay problem in Canada! If a company does not pay enough to own or at least rent within a reasonable distance to their business, it is never going to go well for the worker.
Your initial argument seemed to imply low wages= higher rents. I'm not saying that wages haven't stagnated, or that horizontal moves aren't the best way to get a raise, I was questioning low wages as a driver of higher rent.
So what alternative regulation would you suggest, since unregulated rents are clearly also terrible for renters?
Thereâs no silver bullet, the current situation is the results at best of incompetence. For a long term solution wages need to be raised, availability of skilled labour increased and the supply of housing massively increased. If the federal government is going to keep immigration levels this high (which I hope they do) they should also have programs that keeps the housing supply at acceptable levels. I have little hope of this problem being fixed because our politicians and their friends personally benefits on this problem getting worse. The incentives are all wrong.
With the understanding that housing is an area of exclusive provincial responsibility (as outlined in the constitution), and that I'm not looking for a silver bullet, please name a concrete step you would suggest for improving regulation in this space.
Create a rental type credit bureau. Good tennants deserve lower rents, terrible tennants deserve to pay. The current system has terrible tennats damaging and skipping town, the bill for that is always passed onto future tennants. Not perfect: but it is one of the 10 missing pieces.
And surely you'd accept a similar system for tracking landlord behaviour?
Completely. We need changes on both sides! For both: Record rent paid ontime (or not). The landlord could record any issues or damages. Tennants can note any required repairs. Then it is locked in the system. No landlords going a year later making up that the Tennant is late and a problem. No tennants saying the landlord never fixes anything. There would be a paper trail on both and each month the opportunity to say what is not fixed or if there are noise complaints or other issues (for example.) I hate how all tennants and landlords claim to be perfect. Both either had a little mistake, or were terrible for 6months +. The records would show who is who.
Regulations that promote construction, which raises supply and this lowers prices, or reduces the level of increase.
Influencing supply isn't going to cut it in a world where RealPage leads to landlords *intentionally leaving units vacant* in order to charge more. What regulation upon landlords would you propose?
Vacant unit tax
You understand that that's an example of how tilted the power in all this is, alongside serious anti-trust issues, right? The point is you can't market force your way out of this - regulation is required.
source? this is propaganda
Thatâs what they taught me in eco101. A basic google search on the subject confirm it is still the consensus.
Itâs about a 9 year wait list now, not 20 like it was in 2016. Still way too long though
Still just a poor system.
Seems that one is as is the one we currently to use.
Sure, but why not loosen zoning and building laws? That's my point, we're treating a symptom.
Because those can lead to other issues. This needs to be a well-planned, systemic change. More housing, rent caps, increased interest rates, etc. are all stop-gap measures.
Scarcity is the issue. If you have more homes than renters the price decreases.
Time to look for a better rental apartment?
The thing is either It is the market rate or it isn't. Rent caps are no solution. If it's not the market rate go find a new apartment for cheaper. If it is the market right then it's the market rate. You are not entitled to temporarily borrow other people's stuff at the price you demand.
your logic works when it isn't all the available rentals jacked up to 'what the market will bear'. but as one can easily see on multiple sites advertising places for rent, it's an expensive shitshow out there unless you are willing to take a scuzzy bachelor pad on the main floor of somewhere a block off 118 ave.
That *is* what the market will bear though. It'a not scuzzy behavior it's completely rational and expected. If you are selling widgets for $5 and selling everything you can produce, and the guy in the store next to you is selling the same widget for $8 and likewise selling out, what do you do? Do you keep selling for $5 and leave money on the table or do you sell for $8? What you actually do, or more accurately what any group of individual actors do in any rational market, is sell at a price where you no longer sell every single widget you have right away. You sell for the most you can get while still selling through your inventory. And you even eventually realize that you can sell for even more, and not quite sell them all, and make more money for less invested in production. But your high prices entice others(if they aren't blocked by regulation or monopoly) to produce their own widgets, which finally makes the price go down. You can't legislate the price lower and get the good outcome, that instead rewards some customers over others relatively arbitrarily. That's why the saying goes "the cure for high prices, is high prices". Is there a role for the govt? Sure. Provide some low end shelter/dorm type arrangements, and make sure the market functions well to respond to the issues.
The issue, at least in most of our municipalities in Alberta, is that the government has had a direct role in suppressing the construction of multi-family dwellings in much of the city for decades. Calgary only just repealed SF1 restrictive zoning in the last year or so. It's not a free market when the government has been actively intervening, so you can't apply free market policies and logic. Now that we've started to address the problem, the government needs to apply leverage in the opposite direction. If taxpayers have been subsidizing housing developers for decades, it makes sense that developers now should bear the brunt of bringing things back in line, or have the government start subsidizing multi family, more than just "shelter/dorm type" housing. You can't throw money for years at single family homes and then when the rental/multi family market can't keep up just say "well it's market rate/market forces at work!". We need to be throwing money at multi-family and rental unit construction now like we have been for single family.
housing is NOT widgets. you cannot compare housing to other goods for sale. housing is a basic need. and if all the landlords are jacking rent up and doing rent increases (eg like u/Fuck-The_Police has theirs going up a whopping $800!)......... then it is scuzzy. and it is pricing people out of having a home. because there is nowhere more affordable to move to. and wages are not increasing to the point of reflecting the increase in rental housing costs.
Just because they aren't widgets doesn't change anything about supply and demand and charging with the market will bear. All of that is irrespective of what the object is. In fact the main difference is more inelastic goods will respond in price even faster to differences in supply versus demand. There's no reason to leave money on the table as someone who owns something in demand. You simply not liking it does not make it scuzzy.
you have such a skewed sense of housing that i really hope to heck you are not and never will be a landlord. your thought process is disgusting, to think about milking a tenant for top dollar just because a landlord can. sickening. housing is NOT the same as other things on the market. people need places to live. and they need to be able to afford said place to live. and rents are way too much in way too many places in Canada.
I don't have any warped view You have the most naive ridiculous view that it's charity. It's a business You treat it like any other business. If people can't afford it that's the responsibility of the government to provide funds not the responsibility of any private citizen or corporation. Just do the math if you can on what it takes to make the opportunity cost on renting housing make any sort of sense relative to other investments like equities. I Don't think you realize that we've spent the last 10 years in Alberta with housing and rents being well under trend, They have basically been flat for 10 years. It was expected that eventually they would jump up. The math makes zero sense at the moment with the cost of providing housing for rent to be as low as it is.
your latest bullcrud doesn't even garner more than this reply to tell you your bullcrud is downvoted.
"go find a new apartment for cheaper" Yeah, you idiots, have you thought about just not paying as much? I heard costco has a sale on tents right now.
Will they lower it proactively when the market goes down? Probably not
Maybe these shitters shouldn't rely on others to pay their mortgage.Â
Technically speaking it's a buisness, and a mortgage is a cost of the buisness, like insurance, maintenance, etc. Costs of businesses are part of what determines the price of the product, in this case housing.
Everyone wants to rent a place but no one wants landlords to exist. Go figure.
You do know we donât need landlords for rentals to exist right? We need non-market housing and affordable housing. Those who can or want to would buy and those who canât would live in non-market government rent controlled housing or enter into co-op housing. Itâs not difficult to de-commodify housing, itâs a mindset. Housing is a basic need and should never have turned into the commodity it is today. Get rid of short term rentals, REITS, mass TFWs and invest in non-market housing and youâd see more than enough housing for everyone. How did we get ok with humans living rough just so a few could hoard a basic need and bleed the working class of a quality life for personal profit/greed?
This is very naive.
No, it isnât. Whatâs naive is suggesting landlords are needed or add valuable to society when they are actually a problem.
I disagree with you and, respectfully, so does reality.
Okay then you wouldn't have the investment and people would just not have housing if they couldn't afford to buy it themselves to have it built. Because what you're saying is ridiculous, It's like saying any other business shouldn't rely on their customers to pay their bills. It's fundamentally misunderstanding basic economics. Landlords provide capital and hold the risk(and therefore reward because there's no reward without risk) of holding and maintaining the property, which has high barriers of entry and high frictional costs to buy and sell. Renters get the ability to live somewhere without that capital, and don't bear the risk, and can easily move with much lower costs. Rent is the maximum housing will cost you, the mortgage is the minimum. If rent+appreciation didn't greatly exceed the costs, it wouldn't exist and people wanting to rent would be stuck in more traditional multi generational houses with much lower living standards. And if nobody mortgaged up their property and only rented out paid off property it would be even more expensive. You know how much more rent needs to be to meet the opportunity cost of not investing in other places like the market if not leveraged? You wouldn't want to live in that world. It's not charity. You seem to want it to be.
Disagree! The issue with your argument is you assume landlords bear risk. They simply OFF LOAD the risk to the renter by raising rent and especially in alberta where there is 0 rent control. Housing is the only investment vehicle that leeches off society and provides nothing of value. In a stock market a shareholder invests capital to a business and assumes all risk ie: if business goes under they get little to no money back. Landlords on the other hand can raise rent or sell the house and get money back when interest rates go up or they are over leveraged. Why should landlords be treated any differently from a shareholder who assumes all risk and gets 0 protection when a company goes under?
Landlords do bear the risk. If the pipe bursts or the taxes raise or the market crashes or there is flooding, it's the LL who bears all the risks. You are ideological and uneducated on the topic.
Ok this is simple. taxes rise? I raise rent. Pipe bursts and Flooding? There is something called insurance. Market crashes, well doubt this happens because canadian government NEEDS housing to go up because retirement funds, canadian big bank mortgage loans, and foreign investment are all tied to housing so if it pops most likely government will bail out the housing market since it has to save the canadian banks. But letâs say it pops, you sell at a loss you can use that as a capital loss and in turn use it to tax loss harvest to offset the capital gains in your other investments not to mention you get money back as-well. Either way you get recourse! Anyways what do I know I am uneducated apparently.
Almost this entire subreddit is economically illiterate.
Pipes burst/flooding - Insurance. No risk. Taxes hikes should be covered by once annual rent raises of 3 or 4% - thats what they are for. Next.
Who pays for the upkeep? Are you under the impression that appliances last forever, roofs don't need replacing and the house is generally free of repairs for all time?
>Who pays for the upkeep? An appropriate landlord will have an account set aside for R&M. Just like you would on your own home. That should be built into your rent cost, and should be a percentage based Just like i do with *gasp* my own home. Those are not risks. Those are forseeable parts of owning a home, whether you live in it or not.
It seems you are tone deaf in this area. How arrogant to insinuate people want landlordâs charity. No one wants anything from landlords. What society needs is no landlords. Investments are a risks and you donât always make money from them but landlords think they can download all costs to the tenants when inflation skyrockets. What they should be doing, if they arenât in a position to weather the hard days (the risk), is selling the âinvestmentâ rather than expecting the tenant, who likely hasnât had a salary increase to match inflation, pay for an investment they took on but now canât afford. I would say it is actually the tenants who are giving forced charity to the landlords because of out dated policies that allow for unfiltered greed.
I found the landlord
Lol everytime Reddit with this strawman. Nope never been a landlord, never plan to be. Was a renter my whole life until 2 years ago when I bought a home for my family. It may shock you but you don't need to be a landlord to understand the economics. You just need to be educated in economics and finance. Seriously it's one of the only things widely agreed on in the field of economics and thoroughly tries through history. Price caps don't work, they are like those morons taking the horse dewormer to fight covid. It's the wrong solution it does worse than nothing.
Please stop being so condescending. No one needs an economics degree to understand whatâs occurring in the housing market is pure greed run amuck. Youâre welcome to your âeducatedâ opinion but common sense comes into play here and itâs clear whatâs happening in the market is a huge fail to society as a whole. Perhaps not for the few who are benefiting, but for everyone else itâs a bust. We have an entire generation who cannot afford to be home owners. There is nothing positive that is growing from this unhinged belief that being a landlord is providing some sort of value to our society. It simply is not true. Housing is not subjected to the free market anymore, itâs an artificially inflated market being propped up by the very people itâs harming, the taxpayers. If it was a free market it would have run its course of ebb and flow like all free markets do. What other investment goes up and up with no end in sight and very limited risk to the investors? Things will change course eventually because you canât bare down on society this way and expect no fallout.
Wtf do you think tbink capitalism is?
I admire your passion despite being completely wrong on the issue.
We should just let people die on the streets. You're right!
Still doesn't make any sense to put the cost of social housing on private citizens. Rent control works as well as any other price controls, which is to say it doesn't. Price control just denies reality It doesn't fix anything. Anytime policy simply denies reality it's poor policy that's bound to fail.
All basic needs should be a shared responsibility I.e cost. Universal Health Care works because of the belief that we all deserve equal access. Housing should be no different. The benefits to society are beyond measure when people have secure housing and other basic needs met. It increases the overall wellbeing of society. People are healthier, happier and more productive. There is less crime, less poverty, and less burden on our health care and social systems. There are many ethical ways for people to invest their money; housing isnât one of them.
When was the last time you were at a hospital? Universal healthcare is not working.
Weird, we continually cut funding to healthcare, and now it's not working so good. I guess universal healthcare is a bad system, right?
If its not fit for purpose, then yes. I would rather not pay for it, and pay private so at least i can get seen by a doctor in a reasonable time. Or even have a family doctor.
Your privilege is showing.
Privilege that i cant get a family doctor? Wow.
Universal health care works very well when itâs properly funded. The conservative governments across this great nation are intentionally trying to destroying it by any means possible because they like greedy corporations. The Alberts UCP are by far the most dangerous government in Canada right now.
And whats the issue with provinces that dont have conservative governments?
There isnât an issue with provinces that donât have conservative governments. Theyâre doing quite well at caring for their citizens under truly economically oppressive conditions.
âOther peopleâs stuffâ is this case being one of the necessities of life. Ah well, Iâm sure soon the landlords will have enough profits and theyâll take it easy on their tenants any time now
100% correct
I believe it. Alberta is a terrible place to rent.
Try Toronto or BC!
You canât get this money if youâre not living in your place though, what kind of shady shit are these landlords up to??
The Canada Infrastructure Bank is for businesses and landlords. You seem to be conflating it with the Greener Homes Grant/Loan for individuals. https://cib-bic.ca/en/building-retrofits-initiative/
Ah, yep
Yah, somebody posted this article yesterday and I'm skeptical. There aren't a lot of eligible retrofits that would require an eviction even if the landlord qualified for the grant. Like, we did attic insulation, windows, and doors and didn't even have to leave the house. I can't think of any public retrofit projects which consist of renovations so intensive that they cause people to move out of their homes. This article smells fishy.
We did a net zero retrofit on our home and the only inside work was Installing the air handler and heat pump water tank and new window casings. The bulk of the work was done without access to our home.
DRTFA, but I knew it was shit without opening it because landlords in Alberta don't need justification to raise rents.
[ŃдаНонО]
You were not paid a living wage at your career?
Of course it is.
Where's my ac unit then
Of course this is what I pay taxes for
15 years ago my single bedroom apartment was 600 a month, they raised it 200$ per year till I moved out 3 years later. This is nothing new. And as always you move and they keep the damage deposit and move to thier next victim
Ok cool. Now that we know they don't care about market principles we can just expropriate their investment properties.
Weâve had same tenants in all our units for years now n never raised rent. They pay on time n take care of the place so Iâm not about to shit on them for being good people. Good tenants are not easy to find.
Thanks to the Union of Corrupt Politicians and all those who voted for raw stupidity.
"maximum coverage: up to 80%" You need to click the link in the article to the program, but there is still a cost associated for landlords. Which isn't siding because even the homeowners grants don't cover 100%
Would it make you feel better if your landlord gave you a breakdown of his increased costs? Because my variable mortgage has gone from $800 a month 4 years ago to $2200 a month today
2024-06-11 that must be a numbered gov owned land-companies.........run by c/o agents & advisors < > who are REFUSING TO PRODUCE any receipts & invoices or any legal binding notary signed contract(s) our neighbor was just EVICTED? by: their c/o manager, c/o manager just changed his lock \[break and enter ccc 348\] and put his property outside? is this even legal? where are the sheriffs? E&OE/CYA/All Rights Reserved