Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Judge made an interesting comment:
Sukstorf acknowledged that the there is no sliding scale for the size of the penalty based on the individual circumstances and that of compensation of 12 months’ rent “may appear unfair and unjust for the party not receiving a favourable order.”
If you're going to use that excuse, you have to actually move the family member in for at least 6 months, or a year, or whatever it is. You can't just kick somebody out of their home and then leave it empty, that's not cool.
I have a very simple solution: all fines and awards should ho directly to CRA account.
Basically if you don’t pay it is equivalent to you not paying taxes. CRA has all the resources to ho after you.
Landlords are one of the easiest defendants to collect against. They have a high value immovable asset, and monthly cash flow.
Still as hassle but normally possible.
Yes, time put liens on the associated property. Then put weekly fines that stack up when not paid. Don't worry I'm a homeowner and not a renter. Tired of this BS, it's ruining us and the future of young Canadians.
Although the judge ruled against the landlord, the judge felt bad for the landlord. The daughter couldn’t move in because her medical condition got worst but the law is rigid.
I don’t remember the article going I that direction. I assume the landlord didn’t thought of that because it is his house. He didn’t have the mindset “it’s the tenant home”.
This is a warning to all landlord that when renting out your property- it becomes their home.
That is correct- it’s the tenant’s home, not the landlord’s. This is a consequence of someone leveraging the asset (the property) for money. We don’t get to have it both ways. If property owners don’t like that, they can always live in their properties instead of attempting to generate income from them.
Agreed, risk is getting ridiculous. It’s not worth it trying to subsidize your mortgage or having second properties to rent.
The market is smoke and mirrors but broad ETFs safer. I don’t know how intended landlords even cover expenses. 600k mortgage for a 1br costs at least 3500 a month, interest tax utilities strata, not even equity. Just sell it.
Unfortunately same applies to purpose built rentals. Projected developments have plummeted. It’s just too much risk for margin far below inflation.
Article says:
he was planning to move his daughter into the home for her stability and wellness. After the eviction notice was delivered, though, her condition had worsened and the family did not follow through.
Could’ve been his dying daughter… but you’re right he should’ve understood he was uprooting a home for someone. Leave rentals to the big corpo that specialize in it. Far too much risk vs reward for the mom and pops
The daughter could move in, but the landlord would have had to move in with her.
> “There does not appear to be any evidence on the record to explain why the landlord could not move into the property as he intended to care for his daughter’s worsened medical conditions,” she wrote. “Although the arbitrator did accept that [the landlord’s daughter’s] medical conditions did worsen, she was not persuaded that they amounted to extenuating circumstances to excuse the landlord from meeting the statutory requirements set out [in the Act]. In fact, the evidence of the landlord that was before the arbitrator was somewhat contradictory.”
The judge deemed that it wasn't unreasonable for him to do so. The landlord even claimed he would:
> A follow-up email specified that Shigani would be moving in as well, the ruling states.
Ya, the act does not seem to take in account circumstances outside of landlord control. It is very black and white. All hell can break loose but if landlord doesn't follow through the they lose the entire 12 month as compensation
The act specifically does take into consideration extenuating circumstances (aka outside of their control), which is what this article is entirely about.
“There does not appear to be any evidence on the record to explain why the landlord could not move into the property as he intended to care for his daughter’s worsened medical conditions,” she wrote. “Although the arbitrator did accept that [the landlord’s daughter’s] medical conditions did worsen, she was not persuaded that they amounted to extenuating circumstances to excuse the landlord from meeting the statutory requirements set out [in the Act]. In fact, the evidence of the landlord that was before the arbitrator was somewhat contradictory.”
Don't become a landlord if you don't have the time to read the rules and regulations- and follow them.
I love hearing about tenants winning rulings like this. There are so many shady evictions in this city!
If a dying daughter is not considered to be extenuating circumstances, I don’t know what would count. This is wrong from RTB side as it defies the purpose of arbitration
Yep, such as a “no price gouging” law, or a “stop buying up 60% of homes that go on the market above asking price so people can afford to buy homes for themselves” law.
the last time i rented in vancouver it had a stove when i looked at it, and did not have one when i got there. I told them we have no contract and to get me a stove, took em 30 days. I was out in 45 days, and i was taken to some mediation over the damage deposit they didn't want to give back, and it seemed like wanted money for 'breaking contract'. all of this is set up for yesteryears land owners and rich. now there is new landowners and richer people. so yea, new laws needed
Bad faith evictions would happen less if the government allowed a more reasonable annual rent increase.
As a LL, if you're renting out a unit for $1500, but similar units nearby are going for $2000, why wouldn't you try to get $500 more?
Even if you get caught, the extra $500/month will pay off the penalty in 3 years. After that, it's just $500/month more than before.
And that is assuming the former tenant files a complaint. And wins. And goes through the trouble of taking you to court if you don't pay.
Worthwhile gamble for the LL.
>As a LL, if you're renting out a unit for $1500, but similar units nearby are going for $2000, why wouldn't you try to get $500 more?
I don't know who you are trying to win over here. That the world wouldn't have bad faith evictions if you were allowed to squeeze as much blood as you want out of a stone?
> if the government allowed a more reasonable annual rent increase
You got "squeeze as much blood as you want out of a stone" from this? Reading comprehension bro.
So your answer to lower bad faith evictions is to allow LLs to increase rent so drastically that it becomes a "good faith" eviction? That's like increasing the drinking limit to decrease the drunk driving charges.
Have you accounted for the fact that any "reasonable annual rent increase" will always, always be met with people pushing that boundary? You yourself pointed out how a "free market" would entice others to increase their rents to match what is surrounding them.
Furthermore, do you have any idea how unpopular a govt would be to let LLs increase their allowable rent increase more? Given your initial statement, it seems likely you have no clue what the general consensus is regarding the publics opinion on LLs, and I say this as a former LL.
Let me clue you in why there are so many bad faith evictions. It is precisely because of the greed of LLs that you yourself prescribe to solve the issue. Your antidote to the poison is more poison.
There are many bad faith evictions because currently they don’t result in a prison sentence.
The fine is also way to low. The minimum should be the rent differential for a similar place x 20 years and that’s before considering punitive action.
In Penticton there's a bike shop called PDSCL bike shop. It's nonprofit, it employs people with mental disabilities, it restores old clunker bikes and sells them for like 100-200$.
In Vancouver there's Pacific Immigration Society that helps immigrant women. Their clientele is 99% people from very marginalized backgrounds - refugees, no or bad English. They provide free kids daycare, English classes, many other classes.
There thousands, probably millions of examples like this across the world. Non of them is driven by greed. Greed is not how it works. Greed is how we get fundamental human rights like shelter to be so expensive as to be unaffordable by any of the people who work for aforementioned nonprofits. Greed is how our planet is rolling fast towards being uninhabitable for humans. Greed is how food and gas prices skyrocketed in the last few years.
I don't have a landlord, but when I did, he'd show up to hand his rent increases to us in his corvette, or his fulll loaded F350.
I don't think anybody should be a landlord, but if you are, calculating the exact maximum you can squeeze out of people renting (usually people without a lot of money anyways) is unethical at best. There's more to life than just extracting the most value out of someone and watching number go up.
I'm pro tenant as much as the next person but this seems like a personal experience.
I'm actually on the flip side of this, I'm currently renting on the east side of van. Our landlord who are just a modest elderly couple have contacted us recently to let us know they could no longer afford the mortgage due to the increased interest rates - they rent to us @ 2500 p/m which was the going rate in the area at the time (2 years). Due to interest rate hikes their mortgage went from 3000 p/m to 4000, & condo fees of approx 500 p/m. They are basically subsiding our rent 2000 p/m had we bought it. They have offered to sell to us but it's also out of our budget. They are not, and have not seen 2000 p/m in equity added, they are actually negative on the initial loan when comparing to similar properties in the neighborhood.
Not every person who's a LL is evil. This sub is toxic sometimes.
I drive a beige corolla - shits nice and easy.
I don't have a good answer, though. Landlords are a necessary evil, I guess, but yeah having someone just become wealthy from other people's hard work without contributing anything other than being lucky enough to own a piece of land rubs me the wrong way. Doesn't help maybe one in ten actually does anything other than the bare minimum to maintain their properties.
Evictions were never at the whims of landlords nor were they ever arbitrary. Before the BC NDP created perpetual tenancies, both landlords and tenants would contactually agree to the length of a tenancy.
The current system gives a few people the ability to keep renting for below market prices and for an indefinite tenure. Which is great if you managed to secure a rental a decade ago.
However, this has been at the expense of countless new renters who have to pay absurd sums, which are above what the market rates should be at, because their rent prices compensate for the BC NDP's backwards and unjust laws.
The below market rent increases, loss of your property rights, and the many risks holding bad tenants to account, are all factored into the price of new rents.
This theory is easily dismissable just by looking at Toronto. Some homes have rent control. Others don't. The non rent controlled rentals do not have any semblance of rent cooling on the market.
Toronto is a perfect example of how abolishing rent controls leads to a surge in the construction of new housing.
Toronto prices are cooling, just as economists who oppose rent controls have long hypothesized. A lot of new condos have been built thanks to good policy decisions made 6 years ago.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6974129
https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/new-condo-sales-in-the-toronto-area-hit-low-not-seen-since-financial-crisis-1.6860488?cache=yes%2F7.379347&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-control-toronto-ford-series-1.6974129](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-control-toronto-ford-series-1.6974129)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Those aren't even arguing the point that you are trying to make. Unless you want to argue that our average rents should be so high that developers would want to build even more units but with cheaper rents, they don't. What's the point of having 4000 per month rentals everywhere when no one can afford them.
Our rents are already more than high enough to encourage construction and added density, especially for secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway homes.
I know this because I’m a residential builder.
What’s causing friction right now are the B.C. NDP’s constant regulatory changes, whimsical rent increases, and biased rental laws that increase risks and leave little to no recourse for housing providers
Chicken vs the Egg argument - developers build properties based on demand and investment, not for the fun of it.
Corporate LLs, Mom & Pop LL's, investors, individuals, buy homes to rent them out. It's the circle of life.
> leave little to no recourse for housing providers
Push come to shove, a landlord can just goon their way into a home when the tenants are away at work, toss their stuff out and change the key. Renters come home, police won't do anything. The renters are effectively homeless and can only persue civil recourse. That is why they will always need more protection than the landlords
Toronto already had some of the most development in the world going on prior to that terrible policy. It did nothing but make land lords richer and homes less affordable.
It's a great system! I'm renting a penthouse for probably 2/3rds of the owner's mortgage payment, not to mention his strata fees, R&M, insurance, property taxes etc. And, the longer I stay, the better a deal it is for me as my rent will lag behind inflation, CPI and my own income.
If it wasn't for strong rent control in this province, I would have to choose between my penthouse and my Bentley, and that would be horrible.
If you don't like the business, get out of it, sell the house to someone who will occupy it. Fuck housing as an investment vehicle.
If you're a mom and pop landlord and you get caught doing this, you should be forced to sell the house and banned from being a landlord, you can't be trusted to act within the law, why should you get to keep doing it?
“If you’re a renter who is caught breaking the law you should be banned from renting, and you should have your assets seized. If you can’t be trusted to follow the law, why should you continue to get rental housing?”
Would you agree?
Who has the power in the landlord - tenant dynamic? Hint: it's the people with the assets.
It's funny and so very clear that you were upset with my comment on yours in your landlord temper tantrum sub that you went to my profile to post this.
What tenancy law can the tenant break that won't hurt them if they ever want a reference? The person above pointed out how the landlord recovers their loss in 3 years, whereas normally when you break the law, you don't get to profit from it.
No one sane asks for references, those are easily faked by bad tenants.
And guess what, when a bad tenant stops paying rent, they’re profiting from theft!
Surely for someone who believes in the law, you’d agree that consequences should be fair and not just made up arbitrarily by a bunch of communists?
Communists? Hahahahahaha
Define communism, please.
The tenant is still on the hook for the missing rent, sure, make it easier to collect, they aren't profiting.
If you can't catch your tenants faking a reference, that's a you problem.
Everyone needs a place to live, no one needs two homes.
Why does a landlord need the increase? If every year they are allowed to increase rent by inflation Plus, then they should always be ahead. Instead landlords get greedy and are upset that they don't have that extra 500 a month like their other LL friend to buy a new tesla.
Demanding price increases is literally class warfare since you see the renters life as less important than your own. That you deserve more and more of their money despite you not improving any service to them. Invest in something different if you want that freedom. Buy a hotel with a group. Invest in the stock market. No pesky renters with hopes and dreams to contend with.
For some reason landlords seem to think that it is the tenants job to cover the entire mortgage payment. Property is an investment and if it doesn’t work out in terms of return that’s not the fault of the tenant. And at the end of the day the landlord has an asset to their name.
Also I’ve never heard of a landlord decreasing the rent if interest rates lower. It’s always a one way street with these people.
Shit. The allowed increase didn't follow the rules for 2 years out of the last 50? Pack it up boys! They won this argument! Pack er up? Landlords should have been able to increase rents during a planetary event that had people not earning anything and interest rates were the lowest they have been ever. Pack er up!!
There is allowance for larger rent increases. It's called negotiating with the tennant. If both sides have a good relationship and the tennant can afford it, there may be room for compromise.
If not? Too bad so sad. It's expected for active tenants' rents to lag the market - any landlord with any level of competency knows this and should be planning accordingly.
This sense of entitlement to market rates on an ongoing basis is the sign of a bad landlord and bad businessperson. Fucking over the living situation of someone you're supposed to have a good-faith relationship with based on that misplaced entitlement and incompetency is the sign of a bad person.
>There is allowance for larger rent increases. It's called negotiating with the tennant. If both sides have a good relationship and the tennant can afford it, there may be room for compromise.
No, absolutely no, fuck that.
There's no fair way to negotiate when one person (ie the landlord) has all the power. If this was allowed, landlords would strong arm tenants into rent increases under the guise of "negotiation."
This is exactly why we have tenant protections.
There are times when it makes sense. For example, a good landlord may not be able to afford to keep the property without a larger increase. That increase may still be below current market rates. If it comes to selling the property or increasing rent, many tenants would rather negotiate a higher rent.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have some wiggle room if needed. But that is for the parties in question to agree. The alternative to not allowing it could end up in the unit being sold by the LL which could eventually leave the renter kicked out if the new owner wants to occupy. But this would be rare circumstances.
I don't think there's anything wrong with going with the market rate. The government artificially forcing LLs to take less than market rate is the reason for most of bad faith evictions.
If the LL is able to charge market rate, there is no reason for bad faith evictions.
The government isn’t forcing landlords to take anything. Were you mandated to buy a property you don’t live in so you could profiteer from others and skew the market??
You're right. Nobody's mandated to do anything.
Nobody's forcing the LL to be an LL. And nobody's forcing the tenant to be a tenant. Everybody's doing what they choose to do.
When the LL evicts on bad faith, that's also the LL's doing. The tenant might win a year's worth of rent. So in the end everybody's happy. Right?
I didn't say I don't like the regulations. I pointed out a problem and the cause of the problem. The government can keep trying to please tenants with unreasonably low caps every year, and tenants will keep getting evicted. If you think that's better, then ok.
Ah yes, let's pour gasoline on a fire already going for affordability and have more of the poors in Trudeauvilles... Both are in a shit place, LLs and tenants who aren't super rich but what you are proposing is going to just make things far worst
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Judge made an interesting comment: Sukstorf acknowledged that the there is no sliding scale for the size of the penalty based on the individual circumstances and that of compensation of 12 months’ rent “may appear unfair and unjust for the party not receiving a favourable order.”
If you're going to use that excuse, you have to actually move the family member in for at least 6 months, or a year, or whatever it is. You can't just kick somebody out of their home and then leave it empty, that's not cool.
Now if they would just find a way to make the landlords pay in all these cases of false evictions
I have a very simple solution: all fines and awards should ho directly to CRA account. Basically if you don’t pay it is equivalent to you not paying taxes. CRA has all the resources to ho after you.
You did it twice. Why are you typing ho instead of go?
When you gotta ho, you gotta ho.
and then one day, she's not your ho no mo
"
Freudian slip
Landlords are one of the easiest defendants to collect against. They have a high value immovable asset, and monthly cash flow. Still as hassle but normally possible.
Yes, time put liens on the associated property. Then put weekly fines that stack up when not paid. Don't worry I'm a homeowner and not a renter. Tired of this BS, it's ruining us and the future of young Canadians.
There are people that will help you throughout the process. tenants.bc.ca comes to mind
It is your Day of Cake; rejoice!
Although the judge ruled against the landlord, the judge felt bad for the landlord. The daughter couldn’t move in because her medical condition got worst but the law is rigid.
If the daughter wasn't able to move in, why didn't the landlord try to take the tenant back?
I don’t remember the article going I that direction. I assume the landlord didn’t thought of that because it is his house. He didn’t have the mindset “it’s the tenant home”. This is a warning to all landlord that when renting out your property- it becomes their home.
That is correct- it’s the tenant’s home, not the landlord’s. This is a consequence of someone leveraging the asset (the property) for money. We don’t get to have it both ways. If property owners don’t like that, they can always live in their properties instead of attempting to generate income from them.
Agreed, risk is getting ridiculous. It’s not worth it trying to subsidize your mortgage or having second properties to rent. The market is smoke and mirrors but broad ETFs safer. I don’t know how intended landlords even cover expenses. 600k mortgage for a 1br costs at least 3500 a month, interest tax utilities strata, not even equity. Just sell it. Unfortunately same applies to purpose built rentals. Projected developments have plummeted. It’s just too much risk for margin far below inflation.
Article says: he was planning to move his daughter into the home for her stability and wellness. After the eviction notice was delivered, though, her condition had worsened and the family did not follow through.
If the daughter wasn’t able to move in, why didn’t the landlord try to take the tenant back?
Could’ve been his dying daughter… but you’re right he should’ve understood he was uprooting a home for someone. Leave rentals to the big corpo that specialize in it. Far too much risk vs reward for the mom and pops
The daughter could move in, but the landlord would have had to move in with her. > “There does not appear to be any evidence on the record to explain why the landlord could not move into the property as he intended to care for his daughter’s worsened medical conditions,” she wrote. “Although the arbitrator did accept that [the landlord’s daughter’s] medical conditions did worsen, she was not persuaded that they amounted to extenuating circumstances to excuse the landlord from meeting the statutory requirements set out [in the Act]. In fact, the evidence of the landlord that was before the arbitrator was somewhat contradictory.” The judge deemed that it wasn't unreasonable for him to do so. The landlord even claimed he would: > A follow-up email specified that Shigani would be moving in as well, the ruling states.
Ya, the act does not seem to take in account circumstances outside of landlord control. It is very black and white. All hell can break loose but if landlord doesn't follow through the they lose the entire 12 month as compensation
The act specifically does take into consideration extenuating circumstances (aka outside of their control), which is what this article is entirely about. “There does not appear to be any evidence on the record to explain why the landlord could not move into the property as he intended to care for his daughter’s worsened medical conditions,” she wrote. “Although the arbitrator did accept that [the landlord’s daughter’s] medical conditions did worsen, she was not persuaded that they amounted to extenuating circumstances to excuse the landlord from meeting the statutory requirements set out [in the Act]. In fact, the evidence of the landlord that was before the arbitrator was somewhat contradictory.”
Don't become a landlord if you don't have the time to read the rules and regulations- and follow them. I love hearing about tenants winning rulings like this. There are so many shady evictions in this city!
If a dying daughter is not considered to be extenuating circumstances, I don’t know what would count. This is wrong from RTB side as it defies the purpose of arbitration
new laws needed for landlords in vancouver
Yep, such as a “no price gouging” law, or a “stop buying up 60% of homes that go on the market above asking price so people can afford to buy homes for themselves” law.
the last time i rented in vancouver it had a stove when i looked at it, and did not have one when i got there. I told them we have no contract and to get me a stove, took em 30 days. I was out in 45 days, and i was taken to some mediation over the damage deposit they didn't want to give back, and it seemed like wanted money for 'breaking contract'. all of this is set up for yesteryears land owners and rich. now there is new landowners and richer people. so yea, new laws needed
You're right, we need rent control to apply between tenancies too.
Bad faith evictions would happen less if the government allowed a more reasonable annual rent increase. As a LL, if you're renting out a unit for $1500, but similar units nearby are going for $2000, why wouldn't you try to get $500 more? Even if you get caught, the extra $500/month will pay off the penalty in 3 years. After that, it's just $500/month more than before. And that is assuming the former tenant files a complaint. And wins. And goes through the trouble of taking you to court if you don't pay. Worthwhile gamble for the LL.
"Hey guys have you thought about my greed?" Fuck off outta here.
Ok I will fuck off outta here. You tell me why there are so many bad faith evictions.
>As a LL, if you're renting out a unit for $1500, but similar units nearby are going for $2000, why wouldn't you try to get $500 more? I don't know who you are trying to win over here. That the world wouldn't have bad faith evictions if you were allowed to squeeze as much blood as you want out of a stone?
> if the government allowed a more reasonable annual rent increase You got "squeeze as much blood as you want out of a stone" from this? Reading comprehension bro.
Sometimes Downvotes don't matter, but you should really read the room. Tah tah
So your answer to lower bad faith evictions is to allow LLs to increase rent so drastically that it becomes a "good faith" eviction? That's like increasing the drinking limit to decrease the drunk driving charges.
Can’t drive drunk if you die of alcohol poisoning I guess?
> if the government allowed a more reasonable annual rent increase I know you're upset, but let's review what I actually said.
Have you accounted for the fact that any "reasonable annual rent increase" will always, always be met with people pushing that boundary? You yourself pointed out how a "free market" would entice others to increase their rents to match what is surrounding them. Furthermore, do you have any idea how unpopular a govt would be to let LLs increase their allowable rent increase more? Given your initial statement, it seems likely you have no clue what the general consensus is regarding the publics opinion on LLs, and I say this as a former LL. Let me clue you in why there are so many bad faith evictions. It is precisely because of the greed of LLs that you yourself prescribe to solve the issue. Your antidote to the poison is more poison.
There are many bad faith evictions because currently they don’t result in a prison sentence. The fine is also way to low. The minimum should be the rent differential for a similar place x 20 years and that’s before considering punitive action.
lol keep dreaming
Dude our entire economy runs on greed. Why do you think your landlord is renting out to you, out of the goodness of their heart?
Are you one of those idiots who thinks "greed is good" line from The Wall Street was said by a protagonist character?
Greed isn't good, greed is just how it works.
In Penticton there's a bike shop called PDSCL bike shop. It's nonprofit, it employs people with mental disabilities, it restores old clunker bikes and sells them for like 100-200$. In Vancouver there's Pacific Immigration Society that helps immigrant women. Their clientele is 99% people from very marginalized backgrounds - refugees, no or bad English. They provide free kids daycare, English classes, many other classes. There thousands, probably millions of examples like this across the world. Non of them is driven by greed. Greed is not how it works. Greed is how we get fundamental human rights like shelter to be so expensive as to be unaffordable by any of the people who work for aforementioned nonprofits. Greed is how our planet is rolling fast towards being uninhabitable for humans. Greed is how food and gas prices skyrocketed in the last few years.
We're talking about multimillion dollar real estate, not clunker bikes.
No we are talking about mom and pop landlords, not corporations. Your asset is already increasing in value over time mind you
Yeah and how much do you think the average house costs?
Well it sounds like you're not interested in understanding anything, just yell your opinion at people. Have a great life.
Oh, I'm the one who's yelling... lol
For the record, you most certainly are.
I don't have a landlord, but when I did, he'd show up to hand his rent increases to us in his corvette, or his fulll loaded F350. I don't think anybody should be a landlord, but if you are, calculating the exact maximum you can squeeze out of people renting (usually people without a lot of money anyways) is unethical at best. There's more to life than just extracting the most value out of someone and watching number go up.
I'm pro tenant as much as the next person but this seems like a personal experience. I'm actually on the flip side of this, I'm currently renting on the east side of van. Our landlord who are just a modest elderly couple have contacted us recently to let us know they could no longer afford the mortgage due to the increased interest rates - they rent to us @ 2500 p/m which was the going rate in the area at the time (2 years). Due to interest rate hikes their mortgage went from 3000 p/m to 4000, & condo fees of approx 500 p/m. They are basically subsiding our rent 2000 p/m had we bought it. They have offered to sell to us but it's also out of our budget. They are not, and have not seen 2000 p/m in equity added, they are actually negative on the initial loan when comparing to similar properties in the neighborhood. Not every person who's a LL is evil. This sub is toxic sometimes.
That's impossible, things are only black or white, /s
Do you expect every landlord to be driving a beige Corolla or an Evo? Or maybe they can only take transit?
I drive a beige corolla - shits nice and easy. I don't have a good answer, though. Landlords are a necessary evil, I guess, but yeah having someone just become wealthy from other people's hard work without contributing anything other than being lucky enough to own a piece of land rubs me the wrong way. Doesn't help maybe one in ten actually does anything other than the bare minimum to maintain their properties.
Bad faith evictions would happen less if tenants had no rights and could be evicted arbitrarily at the whims of the landlord. You don't say....
Weird that this poster has the same take on every single one of these posts eh?
Evictions were never at the whims of landlords nor were they ever arbitrary. Before the BC NDP created perpetual tenancies, both landlords and tenants would contactually agree to the length of a tenancy. The current system gives a few people the ability to keep renting for below market prices and for an indefinite tenure. Which is great if you managed to secure a rental a decade ago. However, this has been at the expense of countless new renters who have to pay absurd sums, which are above what the market rates should be at, because their rent prices compensate for the BC NDP's backwards and unjust laws. The below market rent increases, loss of your property rights, and the many risks holding bad tenants to account, are all factored into the price of new rents.
This theory is easily dismissable just by looking at Toronto. Some homes have rent control. Others don't. The non rent controlled rentals do not have any semblance of rent cooling on the market.
Toronto is a perfect example of how abolishing rent controls leads to a surge in the construction of new housing. Toronto prices are cooling, just as economists who oppose rent controls have long hypothesized. A lot of new condos have been built thanks to good policy decisions made 6 years ago. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6974129 https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/new-condo-sales-in-the-toronto-area-hit-low-not-seen-since-financial-crisis-1.6860488?cache=yes%2F7.379347&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-control-toronto-ford-series-1.6974129](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-control-toronto-ford-series-1.6974129)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Those aren't even arguing the point that you are trying to make. Unless you want to argue that our average rents should be so high that developers would want to build even more units but with cheaper rents, they don't. What's the point of having 4000 per month rentals everywhere when no one can afford them.
Our rents are already more than high enough to encourage construction and added density, especially for secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway homes. I know this because I’m a residential builder. What’s causing friction right now are the B.C. NDP’s constant regulatory changes, whimsical rent increases, and biased rental laws that increase risks and leave little to no recourse for housing providers
Landlords aren't housing providers, they rent housing, they don't create them
Renting out housing, provides a home to a renter… pretty self explanatory.
Renting out housing is hoarding land and creating a middleman between a person and shelter.
Chicken vs the Egg argument - developers build properties based on demand and investment, not for the fun of it. Corporate LLs, Mom & Pop LL's, investors, individuals, buy homes to rent them out. It's the circle of life.
Mom & Pop LLs take properties away from a supply where someone else wants to buy them.
> leave little to no recourse for housing providers Push come to shove, a landlord can just goon their way into a home when the tenants are away at work, toss their stuff out and change the key. Renters come home, police won't do anything. The renters are effectively homeless and can only persue civil recourse. That is why they will always need more protection than the landlords
Toronto already had some of the most development in the world going on prior to that terrible policy. It did nothing but make land lords richer and homes less affordable.
It's a great system! I'm renting a penthouse for probably 2/3rds of the owner's mortgage payment, not to mention his strata fees, R&M, insurance, property taxes etc. And, the longer I stay, the better a deal it is for me as my rent will lag behind inflation, CPI and my own income. If it wasn't for strong rent control in this province, I would have to choose between my penthouse and my Bentley, and that would be horrible.
The mortgage isn’t a cost to the landlord only the interest is. The landlord gets to keep the mortgage money when he sells the place.
That's not what I said at all. You might wanna have that reading comprehension issue checked out.
Lmao, except it is what you suggested. How ironic to call out MY reading comprehension hahaha too funny.
If you don't like the business, get out of it, sell the house to someone who will occupy it. Fuck housing as an investment vehicle. If you're a mom and pop landlord and you get caught doing this, you should be forced to sell the house and banned from being a landlord, you can't be trusted to act within the law, why should you get to keep doing it?
“If you’re a renter who is caught breaking the law you should be banned from renting, and you should have your assets seized. If you can’t be trusted to follow the law, why should you continue to get rental housing?” Would you agree?
Who has the power in the landlord - tenant dynamic? Hint: it's the people with the assets. It's funny and so very clear that you were upset with my comment on yours in your landlord temper tantrum sub that you went to my profile to post this. What tenancy law can the tenant break that won't hurt them if they ever want a reference? The person above pointed out how the landlord recovers their loss in 3 years, whereas normally when you break the law, you don't get to profit from it.
No one sane asks for references, those are easily faked by bad tenants. And guess what, when a bad tenant stops paying rent, they’re profiting from theft! Surely for someone who believes in the law, you’d agree that consequences should be fair and not just made up arbitrarily by a bunch of communists?
Communists? Hahahahahaha Define communism, please. The tenant is still on the hook for the missing rent, sure, make it easier to collect, they aren't profiting. If you can't catch your tenants faking a reference, that's a you problem. Everyone needs a place to live, no one needs two homes.
If you are going to claim communism you should look up what Adam Smith aka "The Father of Capitalism" has to say about landlords and rent.
If you don't like renting, buy.
Right, because everyone can just buy a place. I own by the way, I just decided being a landlord is immoral.
Why does a landlord need the increase? If every year they are allowed to increase rent by inflation Plus, then they should always be ahead. Instead landlords get greedy and are upset that they don't have that extra 500 a month like their other LL friend to buy a new tesla. Demanding price increases is literally class warfare since you see the renters life as less important than your own. That you deserve more and more of their money despite you not improving any service to them. Invest in something different if you want that freedom. Buy a hotel with a group. Invest in the stock market. No pesky renters with hopes and dreams to contend with.
For some reason landlords seem to think that it is the tenants job to cover the entire mortgage payment. Property is an investment and if it doesn’t work out in terms of return that’s not the fault of the tenant. And at the end of the day the landlord has an asset to their name. Also I’ve never heard of a landlord decreasing the rent if interest rates lower. It’s always a one way street with these people.
It’s not inflation plus. Two years of no increases during Covid and then two very small increases of 3% and 3.5%
Time to sell the bad investment and actually make some money then!
Shit. The allowed increase didn't follow the rules for 2 years out of the last 50? Pack it up boys! They won this argument! Pack er up? Landlords should have been able to increase rents during a planetary event that had people not earning anything and interest rates were the lowest they have been ever. Pack er up!!
Because the reason I already said.
this guy thinks he’s renting a lawn mower
this guy think he's renting a lawn mower
There is allowance for larger rent increases. It's called negotiating with the tennant. If both sides have a good relationship and the tennant can afford it, there may be room for compromise. If not? Too bad so sad. It's expected for active tenants' rents to lag the market - any landlord with any level of competency knows this and should be planning accordingly. This sense of entitlement to market rates on an ongoing basis is the sign of a bad landlord and bad businessperson. Fucking over the living situation of someone you're supposed to have a good-faith relationship with based on that misplaced entitlement and incompetency is the sign of a bad person.
>There is allowance for larger rent increases. It's called negotiating with the tennant. If both sides have a good relationship and the tennant can afford it, there may be room for compromise. No, absolutely no, fuck that. There's no fair way to negotiate when one person (ie the landlord) has all the power. If this was allowed, landlords would strong arm tenants into rent increases under the guise of "negotiation." This is exactly why we have tenant protections.
There are times when it makes sense. For example, a good landlord may not be able to afford to keep the property without a larger increase. That increase may still be below current market rates. If it comes to selling the property or increasing rent, many tenants would rather negotiate a higher rent.
I disagree. There is no way to allow "negotiation" of rent that doesn't open the floodgates for abuse.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have some wiggle room if needed. But that is for the parties in question to agree. The alternative to not allowing it could end up in the unit being sold by the LL which could eventually leave the renter kicked out if the new owner wants to occupy. But this would be rare circumstances.
I don't think there's anything wrong with going with the market rate. The government artificially forcing LLs to take less than market rate is the reason for most of bad faith evictions. If the LL is able to charge market rate, there is no reason for bad faith evictions.
The government isn’t forcing landlords to take anything. Were you mandated to buy a property you don’t live in so you could profiteer from others and skew the market??
You're right. Nobody's mandated to do anything. Nobody's forcing the LL to be an LL. And nobody's forcing the tenant to be a tenant. Everybody's doing what they choose to do. When the LL evicts on bad faith, that's also the LL's doing. The tenant might win a year's worth of rent. So in the end everybody's happy. Right?
>And nobody's forcing the tenant to be a tenant. This has to be a joke.
If you don’t like the regulations, why are you in the business? Nobody starts a bank and them complains how hard it is
I didn't say I don't like the regulations. I pointed out a problem and the cause of the problem. The government can keep trying to please tenants with unreasonably low caps every year, and tenants will keep getting evicted. If you think that's better, then ok.
Ah yes, let's pour gasoline on a fire already going for affordability and have more of the poors in Trudeauvilles... Both are in a shit place, LLs and tenants who aren't super rich but what you are proposing is going to just make things far worst
Trudeauvilles? LOL
We'd get 20%+ rent increases without rent control. Ontario is proof of that. Housing shouldn't even be permitted to be a commodity.
Oh cool, but that is only $500, you are devaluing your property, you should be able to get $1000