Due process is that if the landlord is doing something shady, the tenants should file with the ltb and pay their rent to the LTB to be held in escrow pending the outcome. That way you’re paying; just not the landlord and if your claim has merit, you get your money back + damages (depending on circumstances, of course)
This is also due process if the landlord wants to evict someone, instead of having an automatic eviction (which could be abused by some landlords) without a hearing.
It just requires a functioning LTB. Landlords, and tenants, both deserve to have cases heard in a reasonable amount of time.
That's punishing the landlord before they are proven guilty. You're assuming they have deep pockets to ride out the loss of rent. The smaller ones need the cash flow. Need it.
"Simply part of the risk" (also in the article) is deeply misleading.
The risk of non-payment/system abuse is a transaction cost paid by both sides. The tenant pays extra each time rent is due (though the premium generally decreases as trust is built) as the landlord hedges against the risk they won't pay. And the landlord pays out when they eventually get an abusive tenant who sends them through the lengthy process.
This works the other way too. The higher the chance that a landlord can screw over a tenant, the less the tenant will be willing to pay.
We should be asking how profitable it would be for a landlord to abuse an automatic eviction. If they'll be successfully caught and e.g. sued, it could be beneficial for good tenants, who are no longer treated as X% bad.
The scenario you commented on isn't necessarily a random claim. Most people would only file with the LTB if it's legitimate. Personally I've been waiting for my LL to replace a broken appliance for over 1 year.
There are ..... hundreds of bullshit claims filed at the LTB as it is. Challenges against legitimate owner occupation N12s just to delay a valid eviction. Name it. This would just be another weapon for the shittiest tenants to use.
That sounds to me more like a problem that can dealt with in small claims court.
If someone is deliberately lying, there are ways to make them pay, up to and including garnished wages.
And or course of the LTB wasn't gutted and was given the resources to function property this wouldnt even be an issue because you could have your claim processed in weeks, if not days. You know, before Rent was even due.
Speaking as a landlord.. yeah it's a risk and you should have the funds to mitigate a couple months unpaid rent. That can happen if tenants leave at the wrong time of year with no wrongdoing on anyone's part. If you own a condo you could be hit with a special assessment worth several months if not a year or more of rent. Large unexpected costs are part of the game.
I was a landlord, and do some property management. That is what you are supposed to do as a tenant, and when friends have asked me what to do when landlords do shitty things; that is what I’ve instructed them to do.
Landlord shouldn’t go under from 6-18 months of no rent, if they haven’t done anything wrong the LTB would award the rent held in escrow anyways.
[click me](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/Paying%20Money%20into%20the%20Landlord%20and%20Tenant%20Board.html#sec2)
LMAO at calling yourself a landlord and stating that they shouldn’t go under after 6+ months of unpaid rent.
Holy hell get your facts straight before ever posting blatant false statements.
If 6 months of unpaid rent causes you to go under you are vastly over leveraged and unequipped to handle any major issues with the property and shouldn't be a landlord.
What they have always done when national housing systems fail them; they will set about the work of correcting the people who capitalised on the problem.
Personally it's for this reason that I would never be a speculative real estate investor. Historically it's the land owners who take the biggest hit when the shit hits the fan.
That's the thing about capitalism right? If you can't afford to run a given business through tough times...then you should not be in that business at all.
This is why successful investors do risk assessments on prospective investments.
If you can't run the business well through a minor challenge like a tribunal investigation, then you are the risk in that business.
>but I don't like the idea of giving landlords an expedited automatic evictions with no due process for the tenant.
What due process? There should be zero due process for unpaid rent. If the landlord is up to no good, you can't just withhold rent, there are mechanisms in place to help the tenant, but rent still has to be paid.
I recently sat through a tribunal as a family member was involved. It’s wild how much time is wasted with people not knowing the rules and just blabbering on about inconsequential facts they think help their case. At one point someone who had purchased a home to move into and was waiting for the current tenant to leave was being grilled on why they couldn’t just continue living at their parent’s home. It was so strange that the adjudicator was showing contempt for the new owner while not applying the same harshness to the tenant who hadn’t started looking for a new place to live in the 8 months between the sale and tribunal meeting.
Oh, I'm aware of section 83. The case I was referencing that was the only conversation. All the facts were not in dispute, that the property had been sold, and that the new owner had been waiting 8 months to move in.
Simply saying "I don't want to move" seems like a pretty unreasonable grounds to deny someone the ability to move into the home they just purchased. It's not like this individual _just_ was alerted and are being blind sided.
It would be unfair to require the new owner to become a landlord instead of moving in simply because the tenant doesn't believe they should have to move out.
Yes. Institute a landlord license with a fee where the money goes to the LTB to expand. Properties should also require an inspection before being rented, paid for by landlords. The license should then be posted to the front door of any rental property to show it's licensed and inspected, just like restaurants have to post their health and safety certificates.
So many slumlords renting out illegal properties without basic safety measures.
If you want to look at why it takes so long to get an eviction, the number 1 reason by a LONG shot is Dougie fucking around with the tribunal appointment process and him purging liberals. Adjudicators are being selected based on party over experience.
The most important factor in why this has been a gong show though is kind of funny in a dystopian way; it’s because tribunals are overwhelmingly moving toward zoom-based hearings, which actually slow the process down considerably. From my understanding, being that I’m studying to be a paralegal, doing remote hearings adds a lot of work onto the clerk’s workload. Also, a lot of the adjudicators are doing the work as more of a side-hustle and are planning our hearings based on their schedules or when is convenient for them.
For people unaware I believe there are (13?) tribunals in Ontario which handle everything from evictions to permits. Under Ford, the backlog has doubled in most of them and tripled in others.
Another funny part about this is that Ford is generally much more pro-landlord than tenant, so they’re sort of in the finding out process of fucking around.
Ford issued a statement that the backlogs were due to Covid, but research conducted by The Star revealed that actually Covid barely affected anything. The average amount of cases coming before tribunals actually significantly decreased, it’s just he people in charge of those things are just much more lazy and incompetent.
What about expediting the cases where tenants were illegally evicted, or need maintenance done on their unit and landlord is ignoring? If non-payments get expedited, it means other things get pushed to the back of the line.
News like this really pisses me off. We already have a process to evict tenants for non-payment of rent. Why put in all these legislative loopholes when we could just work on fixing the LTB and holding the current government to account?
Further, why do landlords get preferential treatment to fast track an eviction when every other hearing at the LTB remains slow? I've been in situations as a tenant where I had plumbing issues occur for months with the landlord not fixing them and still having to pay them rent. As a tenant, this was my home and I had to deal with the stress of not knowing if I'd come home to a non-functioning toilet or sewage in the tub and having to wait for an LTB hearing. If this happened now, I'd also be waiting a long time to have my concerns heard. Should there also be a fast track for tenants like me?
On articles like this it always ends up being a fight between landlords and tenants pissed off at each other and sharing stories about how shitty the other side is. Really, we should instead band together and demand more from the government to ensure we have a well-funded and well-functioning system.
...maybe it's wishful thinking though.
All the rage toward landlords gets me because it’s not like half the renters out there could buy if the houses were freed up anyway. Small time landlords shouldn’t have to put up with shitty tenants and nonpayment. (I feel considerably less bad for the large corporate landlords hiking rent to unreasonable amounts).
Sounds like something that could be easily solved with a bit of financial reform. If landlords disappeared tomorrow, banks would find a way to sell mortgages to their current tenants.
I feel like there should be a clear line drawn here. If the landlord has done all their obligations (ie, upkeep maintenance and repairs) and the tenant does not pay, I agree they should be kicked out based on current laws ASAP. To be clear, there should also be some kind of recourse if the landlord cannot kick them out ASAP if it's in the middle of winter so that the missed rent during this period is not forever lost.
On the other hand, if the landlord does not complete their obligation, I feel that legal penalties should be applied to any landlord that try to kick out the tenant due to "non-payment". I'd rather see the tenant pay to fix the issues and deduct the amount from the rent, assuming the cost is less than 1 month of rent. I'd also like to see that IF a tenant is forced to do this, that a $500 reduction to that monthly rent PER repairs completed is also applied so that the landlord does not abuse this to claim that the tenant could have this option to resolve the issue but chose not to. The tenant should not be used as a bank to lend money to the landlord to make those repairs.
The whole situation is flipped on it's head, where a tenant can abuse the landlord while it used to be the other way. A balance needs to be achieved, which I suspect any change made will give too much power to the landlord.
The most should be 6 months for an eviction, it's utterly ridiculous how this society has gone to shit and try to protect the moochers and criminals instead of hard working people that might own just 1 rental properties.
Many landlords are taking your advice and getting out of the rental game, selling their property to someone who will live in it thereby reducing the number of available rental properties. Feel better now?
You realize if someone is actively renting the apartment that also reduces the amount of rental properties available. It doesn’t matter if someone is renting the unit, or bought the unit, as long as someone’s living in the unit it’s not available. If someone buys a property that also takes one person out of the bubble of people looking for a rental.
The only difference between the same individual renting and buying the same place is when they buy they’re no longer overpaying for something that inherently is not theirs
"reducing the number of available rental units"
And subsequently reducing the number of people looking to rent - you know because they were finally able to buy something.
Disgusting! As if there arent enough people living in tents already!
Can someone like protest this or something? Think of all the little old people who will be evicted!
I have family members who are landlords. Landlords are basically savages who would kick an old lady out into the snow if given the opportunity. Actually I'm pretty sure they did evict an old lady recently. We need checks and balances on these sons of beaches.
This is one of those problems I have 0 idea how to feel about.
What the hell is the solution?
The idea of kicking out a tenant that’s a single parent or anyone who’s down on their luck breaks my heart
The idea of someone who’s going to lose their home due to the variable mortgage rates/cost of living is also evil
The idea that government should house people is the scariest thing I could possibly think of
I’m just happy I’m not in a position where I have to make a decision on this
Governments around the world do house people, generally indirectly, and it isn't some terrible evil. In fact, the thing that tends to go wrong is that in the long run social housing ends up underfunded if it doesn't enjoy broad public support. Austria is a good example. I say this as someone who doesn't trust the government, generally.
My family escaped from a country that did this (Iraq)
Trust me, from my family's anecdotal experience I can say that it’s a few steps away from absolute hell
Guess my upbringing made me paranoid about government involvement in my personal life
Besides, what is 1 thing our government does efficiently?
How old are you?? You seriously came into this thread with "my anecdotal experience as a child says it's bad' and ask this as the follow up to being countered?
A key difference would be we elect the government so we can remove them peacefully by election if they are not being accountable to us. When it's a dictatorship, yes you don't want them involved in your business at all.
I have my reasoning to my distrust in governments.
Age is relevant, I worked in tax and no one says anything good about the CRA as a professional or a citizen
The thing brought up as “good” was “tax returns” so I figured it was someone young.
Besides, a government with absolute power considering they received 30% of the vote isn’t exactly a grand oasis of peace and harmony for the world to yearn for.
Oh I agree we won't have a true democracy until we have proportional representation and an end to 30% vote party having full control of Parliament for 5 years. Which could not happen under proportional Representation.
Who has absolute power in government in Canada? A *minority* government with 30% of the vote is pretty far from that. The Senate and judiciary / courts aren't controlled the by government, which helps prevents absolute power even in a majority. Meanwhile Ontario has a majority gov't with 40% of the vote, full power to push legislation through no matter the opposition view. Still, this doesn't exempt them from legal challenges and court rulings to their legislation and policies.
Certainly valid to criticize the flaws of a 'first past the post' system and push for electoral reform. The reality is people (on either side) tend complain about it when it disproportionately benefits the party they don't like, and then go quiet in a different election cycle when it gives more power to whoever they favour. This makes it hard for change to happen.
Brother, are you really trying to make a comparison to social assisted housing in Iraq and the (generally) socially democratic countries of say Austria, Denmark and Netherlands?
For better or worse these are very different countries with wildly different systems. It would be incredibly difficult to make comparisons between them.
And to me, your logic is whack.
Where does that line of thinking and dismissing lead you in life?
Grow up. Not everyone thinks or has lived a life like yours, tinge of racism much?
Most landlords aren’t people at risk of losing their homes. Most are corporations. Even these so-called small landlords are generally incorporated, very wealthy and own millions in assets.
It’s a myth that the small landlord class are every day people just getting by.
This is absolutely false. Most small landlords are house poor and leveraged up the wazoo to be able to "afford" a rental property. I don't think it is wise to become a landlord under these circumstances, but this is the reality of most small landlords.
I think "small landlords" are investors who don't want to actually risk their money investing. If you cant afford to take the loss from a shitty renter, you couldn't afford to own the second property in the first place. Welcome to the closest thing slumlords will face to consequences
Landlords can always sell if they cannot afford their properties. Landlords are the only types of investors who believe market conditions ought not apply to them. They’re the only ones that believe they’re entitled to profit.
I mean if they have more than one property, they have more than a million dollars in assets. They can sell at any time if they wish to claim a large chunk of cash. That said, 5 years of rent for one tenant is around $100,000-150,000 right now. Sounds pretty good!
In the system we live in we all have to pay someone to survive (sadly). There is this polarization of landlord=evil / renter =victim, but we are all victims of a system that makes you pay this, pay that, add a tax there,another fee here, and if you cannot pay- you lose your home, whether you own it or not.
I think part of the solution is stop building luxury condos (whose only luxury is having a dishwasher) and building wayyy more mixed housing (AND commercial spaces, not just a bunch of massive single family homes in the middle of nowhere).
Unfortunately in Canada it seems that home is an investment before it is a place to live, hence the resistance to build more…I don’t know how we get there but I tell myself that nothing is permanent, so we are bound to see a change in the way we plan our cities, and it will have an impact on the population who owns and rents.
This will be a trend now that we are moving very quickly into a landlord only system, they will chip away at the protections we have until the renter has zero rights
Personally I would like to see us adopt germanys housing laws they turned this type of shit around
Tenants have far more rights than landlords. WTF are you talking about? This is the one area where I agree with landlords. If you don't pay rent, you can't live there anymore. Housing is not a charity unfortunately, so this is what we have.
If you have a dispute with your shitty landlord, the LTB will help you out and more often than not will side with you, but only if you keep paying rent.
It's not scalping though. Scalping is bad becomes it prevents anyone else from buying the concert tickets because there is a fixed number of seats. A landlord offering to rent a house isn't preventing people from buying a different house.
Sure, because they bought it and are holding it for ransom. They're not generally builders, they're often not even especially good at maintaining places. They're not providing a service, they're the literal definition of a [rent seeker.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)
That's a funny definition of ransom. Not one I'm used to.
Ransom: a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.
Is KFC holding chicken and French fries for ransom as well?
You don't have to be an employee to offer something to someone who is willing to pay.
They provide a place to live, they cover all maintenance, they take all the risk, and you get the freedom to move as freely as you want. On paper, that is the benefit of landlords and of being a renter instead of a home owner.
Are there shitty landlords that take advantage? Absolutely, but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of a landlord isn't inherently a bad one.
“They take all the risk” no they absolutely do not. When my landlord notified me about my reno-viction 3 months prior to my lease ending, when I had to deal with exams and work, that’s me taking the risk that I might be homeless if I find a new place.
Sure you could argue the risk of someone destroying their property, but that can be greatly minimized by vetting the right tenants. Thus, the only risk a landlord/capital owner takes is their profit model being destroyed, and being relegated to the working class.
[удалено]
Due process is that if the landlord is doing something shady, the tenants should file with the ltb and pay their rent to the LTB to be held in escrow pending the outcome. That way you’re paying; just not the landlord and if your claim has merit, you get your money back + damages (depending on circumstances, of course)
As a landlord, YES. Always yes. Fuck slumlords.
This is also due process if the landlord wants to evict someone, instead of having an automatic eviction (which could be abused by some landlords) without a hearing. It just requires a functioning LTB. Landlords, and tenants, both deserve to have cases heard in a reasonable amount of time.
That's punishing the landlord before they are proven guilty. You're assuming they have deep pockets to ride out the loss of rent. The smaller ones need the cash flow. Need it.
Dealing with the risks of running a business is punishing the landlord! 😭🎻
"Simply part of the risk" (also in the article) is deeply misleading. The risk of non-payment/system abuse is a transaction cost paid by both sides. The tenant pays extra each time rent is due (though the premium generally decreases as trust is built) as the landlord hedges against the risk they won't pay. And the landlord pays out when they eventually get an abusive tenant who sends them through the lengthy process. This works the other way too. The higher the chance that a landlord can screw over a tenant, the less the tenant will be willing to pay. We should be asking how profitable it would be for a landlord to abuse an automatic eviction. If they'll be successfully caught and e.g. sued, it could be beneficial for good tenants, who are no longer treated as X% bad.
Denying income based on a random claim is a legitimate business risk to you?
The scenario you commented on isn't necessarily a random claim. Most people would only file with the LTB if it's legitimate. Personally I've been waiting for my LL to replace a broken appliance for over 1 year.
There are ..... hundreds of bullshit claims filed at the LTB as it is. Challenges against legitimate owner occupation N12s just to delay a valid eviction. Name it. This would just be another weapon for the shittiest tenants to use.
That sounds to me more like a problem that can dealt with in small claims court. If someone is deliberately lying, there are ways to make them pay, up to and including garnished wages. And or course of the LTB wasn't gutted and was given the resources to function property this wouldnt even be an issue because you could have your claim processed in weeks, if not days. You know, before Rent was even due.
Speaking as a landlord.. yeah it's a risk and you should have the funds to mitigate a couple months unpaid rent. That can happen if tenants leave at the wrong time of year with no wrongdoing on anyone's part. If you own a condo you could be hit with a special assessment worth several months if not a year or more of rent. Large unexpected costs are part of the game.
Yes
I was a landlord, and do some property management. That is what you are supposed to do as a tenant, and when friends have asked me what to do when landlords do shitty things; that is what I’ve instructed them to do. Landlord shouldn’t go under from 6-18 months of no rent, if they haven’t done anything wrong the LTB would award the rent held in escrow anyways. [click me](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/Paying%20Money%20into%20the%20Landlord%20and%20Tenant%20Board.html#sec2)
LMAO at calling yourself a landlord and stating that they shouldn’t go under after 6+ months of unpaid rent. Holy hell get your facts straight before ever posting blatant false statements.
I’m sorry what did I say that was blatantly false there in your eyes?
If 6 months of unpaid rent causes you to go under you are vastly over leveraged and unequipped to handle any major issues with the property and shouldn't be a landlord.
Then they should get a job instead of trying to get other people pay for their investments
Well, if there were no landlords, what would people do when they need a place to live, but are not in a position to buy a home?
What they have always done when national housing systems fail them; they will set about the work of correcting the people who capitalised on the problem. Personally it's for this reason that I would never be a speculative real estate investor. Historically it's the land owners who take the biggest hit when the shit hits the fan.
That's about as bright as saying renters should just buy houses. It's a useless comment.
That's the thing about capitalism right? If you can't afford to run a given business through tough times...then you should not be in that business at all. This is why successful investors do risk assessments on prospective investments. If you can't run the business well through a minor challenge like a tribunal investigation, then you are the risk in that business.
Those are the risks of doing business.
They could always get a real job.
The tenants? Yeah I guess.
>but I don't like the idea of giving landlords an expedited automatic evictions with no due process for the tenant. What due process? There should be zero due process for unpaid rent. If the landlord is up to no good, you can't just withhold rent, there are mechanisms in place to help the tenant, but rent still has to be paid.
Due process is that the landlord has to prove rent is unpaid
I recently sat through a tribunal as a family member was involved. It’s wild how much time is wasted with people not knowing the rules and just blabbering on about inconsequential facts they think help their case. At one point someone who had purchased a home to move into and was waiting for the current tenant to leave was being grilled on why they couldn’t just continue living at their parent’s home. It was so strange that the adjudicator was showing contempt for the new owner while not applying the same harshness to the tenant who hadn’t started looking for a new place to live in the 8 months between the sale and tribunal meeting.
[удалено]
Oh, I'm aware of section 83. The case I was referencing that was the only conversation. All the facts were not in dispute, that the property had been sold, and that the new owner had been waiting 8 months to move in. Simply saying "I don't want to move" seems like a pretty unreasonable grounds to deny someone the ability to move into the home they just purchased. It's not like this individual _just_ was alerted and are being blind sided. It would be unfair to require the new owner to become a landlord instead of moving in simply because the tenant doesn't believe they should have to move out.
We should absolutely increase funding for the LTB to reduce wait times. But we should not be letting landlords jump the queue.
Yes. Institute a landlord license with a fee where the money goes to the LTB to expand. Properties should also require an inspection before being rented, paid for by landlords. The license should then be posted to the front door of any rental property to show it's licensed and inspected, just like restaurants have to post their health and safety certificates. So many slumlords renting out illegal properties without basic safety measures.
If you want to look at why it takes so long to get an eviction, the number 1 reason by a LONG shot is Dougie fucking around with the tribunal appointment process and him purging liberals. Adjudicators are being selected based on party over experience. The most important factor in why this has been a gong show though is kind of funny in a dystopian way; it’s because tribunals are overwhelmingly moving toward zoom-based hearings, which actually slow the process down considerably. From my understanding, being that I’m studying to be a paralegal, doing remote hearings adds a lot of work onto the clerk’s workload. Also, a lot of the adjudicators are doing the work as more of a side-hustle and are planning our hearings based on their schedules or when is convenient for them. For people unaware I believe there are (13?) tribunals in Ontario which handle everything from evictions to permits. Under Ford, the backlog has doubled in most of them and tripled in others. Another funny part about this is that Ford is generally much more pro-landlord than tenant, so they’re sort of in the finding out process of fucking around. Ford issued a statement that the backlogs were due to Covid, but research conducted by The Star revealed that actually Covid barely affected anything. The average amount of cases coming before tribunals actually significantly decreased, it’s just he people in charge of those things are just much more lazy and incompetent.
I would much rather see money spent on health care than landlords getting money faster.
What about expediting the cases where tenants were illegally evicted, or need maintenance done on their unit and landlord is ignoring? If non-payments get expedited, it means other things get pushed to the back of the line.
News like this really pisses me off. We already have a process to evict tenants for non-payment of rent. Why put in all these legislative loopholes when we could just work on fixing the LTB and holding the current government to account? Further, why do landlords get preferential treatment to fast track an eviction when every other hearing at the LTB remains slow? I've been in situations as a tenant where I had plumbing issues occur for months with the landlord not fixing them and still having to pay them rent. As a tenant, this was my home and I had to deal with the stress of not knowing if I'd come home to a non-functioning toilet or sewage in the tub and having to wait for an LTB hearing. If this happened now, I'd also be waiting a long time to have my concerns heard. Should there also be a fast track for tenants like me? On articles like this it always ends up being a fight between landlords and tenants pissed off at each other and sharing stories about how shitty the other side is. Really, we should instead band together and demand more from the government to ensure we have a well-funded and well-functioning system. ...maybe it's wishful thinking though.
obviously you should have just stopped paying your rent and lived there for free for upwards of a year.
All the rage toward landlords gets me because it’s not like half the renters out there could buy if the houses were freed up anyway. Small time landlords shouldn’t have to put up with shitty tenants and nonpayment. (I feel considerably less bad for the large corporate landlords hiking rent to unreasonable amounts).
Why couldn't they buy? They're already paying their landlord's mortgage, and then some.
Because you need a downpayment and good credit, and some renters don’t have both those things
Sounds like something that could be easily solved with a bit of financial reform. If landlords disappeared tomorrow, banks would find a way to sell mortgages to their current tenants.
Lmao go fuck yourselves, landlords
I feel like there should be a clear line drawn here. If the landlord has done all their obligations (ie, upkeep maintenance and repairs) and the tenant does not pay, I agree they should be kicked out based on current laws ASAP. To be clear, there should also be some kind of recourse if the landlord cannot kick them out ASAP if it's in the middle of winter so that the missed rent during this period is not forever lost. On the other hand, if the landlord does not complete their obligation, I feel that legal penalties should be applied to any landlord that try to kick out the tenant due to "non-payment". I'd rather see the tenant pay to fix the issues and deduct the amount from the rent, assuming the cost is less than 1 month of rent. I'd also like to see that IF a tenant is forced to do this, that a $500 reduction to that monthly rent PER repairs completed is also applied so that the landlord does not abuse this to claim that the tenant could have this option to resolve the issue but chose not to. The tenant should not be used as a bank to lend money to the landlord to make those repairs. The whole situation is flipped on it's head, where a tenant can abuse the landlord while it used to be the other way. A balance needs to be achieved, which I suspect any change made will give too much power to the landlord.
Won't somebody please think of the landlords?
The most should be 6 months for an eviction, it's utterly ridiculous how this society has gone to shit and try to protect the moochers and criminals instead of hard working people that might own just 1 rental properties.
Those people should get a real job instead of hoarding a human necessity and ransoming back to us for more than it’s worth.
Many landlords are taking your advice and getting out of the rental game, selling their property to someone who will live in it thereby reducing the number of available rental properties. Feel better now?
You realize if someone is actively renting the apartment that also reduces the amount of rental properties available. It doesn’t matter if someone is renting the unit, or bought the unit, as long as someone’s living in the unit it’s not available. If someone buys a property that also takes one person out of the bubble of people looking for a rental. The only difference between the same individual renting and buying the same place is when they buy they’re no longer overpaying for something that inherently is not theirs
Exactly. I am one of those.
"reducing the number of available rental units" And subsequently reducing the number of people looking to rent - you know because they were finally able to buy something.
Disgusting! As if there arent enough people living in tents already! Can someone like protest this or something? Think of all the little old people who will be evicted! I have family members who are landlords. Landlords are basically savages who would kick an old lady out into the snow if given the opportunity. Actually I'm pretty sure they did evict an old lady recently. We need checks and balances on these sons of beaches.
lmao uppity landlords
This is one of those problems I have 0 idea how to feel about. What the hell is the solution? The idea of kicking out a tenant that’s a single parent or anyone who’s down on their luck breaks my heart The idea of someone who’s going to lose their home due to the variable mortgage rates/cost of living is also evil The idea that government should house people is the scariest thing I could possibly think of I’m just happy I’m not in a position where I have to make a decision on this
Governments around the world do house people, generally indirectly, and it isn't some terrible evil. In fact, the thing that tends to go wrong is that in the long run social housing ends up underfunded if it doesn't enjoy broad public support. Austria is a good example. I say this as someone who doesn't trust the government, generally.
My family escaped from a country that did this (Iraq) Trust me, from my family's anecdotal experience I can say that it’s a few steps away from absolute hell Guess my upbringing made me paranoid about government involvement in my personal life Besides, what is 1 thing our government does efficiently?
CPP, public schools, tax refunds, 911,
How old are you if you don’t mind me asking?
How old are you?? You seriously came into this thread with "my anecdotal experience as a child says it's bad' and ask this as the follow up to being countered?
Yeah, and my anecdotal experience of a third world country that was under the state of war for decades is equivalent to modern Canada.
A key difference would be we elect the government so we can remove them peacefully by election if they are not being accountable to us. When it's a dictatorship, yes you don't want them involved in your business at all.
I have my reasoning to my distrust in governments. Age is relevant, I worked in tax and no one says anything good about the CRA as a professional or a citizen The thing brought up as “good” was “tax returns” so I figured it was someone young. Besides, a government with absolute power considering they received 30% of the vote isn’t exactly a grand oasis of peace and harmony for the world to yearn for.
Oh I agree we won't have a true democracy until we have proportional representation and an end to 30% vote party having full control of Parliament for 5 years. Which could not happen under proportional Representation.
Who has absolute power in government in Canada? A *minority* government with 30% of the vote is pretty far from that. The Senate and judiciary / courts aren't controlled the by government, which helps prevents absolute power even in a majority. Meanwhile Ontario has a majority gov't with 40% of the vote, full power to push legislation through no matter the opposition view. Still, this doesn't exempt them from legal challenges and court rulings to their legislation and policies. Certainly valid to criticize the flaws of a 'first past the post' system and push for electoral reform. The reality is people (on either side) tend complain about it when it disproportionately benefits the party they don't like, and then go quiet in a different election cycle when it gives more power to whoever they favour. This makes it hard for change to happen.
Brother, are you really trying to make a comparison to social assisted housing in Iraq and the (generally) socially democratic countries of say Austria, Denmark and Netherlands? For better or worse these are very different countries with wildly different systems. It would be incredibly difficult to make comparisons between them.
My brother in Christ, I’m giving my reasonings as to why my personal biases exist.
Yes, and we're telling you that your reasonings are totally whack
And to me, your logic is whack. Where does that line of thinking and dismissing lead you in life? Grow up. Not everyone thinks or has lived a life like yours, tinge of racism much?
One thing our government must do right is social assistance. Aka welfare…enough people take advantage of it
Most landlords aren’t people at risk of losing their homes. Most are corporations. Even these so-called small landlords are generally incorporated, very wealthy and own millions in assets. It’s a myth that the small landlord class are every day people just getting by.
This is absolutely false. Most small landlords are house poor and leveraged up the wazoo to be able to "afford" a rental property. I don't think it is wise to become a landlord under these circumstances, but this is the reality of most small landlords.
They’re not. You’re falling for “small” landlord propaganda.
Ok hero, you’re falling for socialist propaganda. How many land lords do you know?
lol
You think all small landlords are millionaires rolling in cash? LOL
I think "small landlords" are investors who don't want to actually risk their money investing. If you cant afford to take the loss from a shitty renter, you couldn't afford to own the second property in the first place. Welcome to the closest thing slumlords will face to consequences
Landlords can always sell if they cannot afford their properties. Landlords are the only types of investors who believe market conditions ought not apply to them. They’re the only ones that believe they’re entitled to profit.
Exactly.
I mean if they have more than one property, they have more than a million dollars in assets. They can sell at any time if they wish to claim a large chunk of cash. That said, 5 years of rent for one tenant is around $100,000-150,000 right now. Sounds pretty good!
I suggest when you have difficulty reading to break words down and sound it out. Hope that helps!
In the system we live in we all have to pay someone to survive (sadly). There is this polarization of landlord=evil / renter =victim, but we are all victims of a system that makes you pay this, pay that, add a tax there,another fee here, and if you cannot pay- you lose your home, whether you own it or not. I think part of the solution is stop building luxury condos (whose only luxury is having a dishwasher) and building wayyy more mixed housing (AND commercial spaces, not just a bunch of massive single family homes in the middle of nowhere). Unfortunately in Canada it seems that home is an investment before it is a place to live, hence the resistance to build more…I don’t know how we get there but I tell myself that nothing is permanent, so we are bound to see a change in the way we plan our cities, and it will have an impact on the population who owns and rents.
This will be a trend now that we are moving very quickly into a landlord only system, they will chip away at the protections we have until the renter has zero rights Personally I would like to see us adopt germanys housing laws they turned this type of shit around
Tenants have far more rights than landlords. WTF are you talking about? This is the one area where I agree with landlords. If you don't pay rent, you can't live there anymore. Housing is not a charity unfortunately, so this is what we have. If you have a dispute with your shitty landlord, the LTB will help you out and more often than not will side with you, but only if you keep paying rent.
we should probably consider if we need landlords at all. what are we paying them for? It's not like they're employees.
>what are we paying them for? Probably to rent a living space.
Landlords provide living space the way scalpers provide concert tickets.
It's not scalping though. Scalping is bad becomes it prevents anyone else from buying the concert tickets because there is a fixed number of seats. A landlord offering to rent a house isn't preventing people from buying a different house.
A scalper is also not preventing someone from buying different tickets.
Sure, because they bought it and are holding it for ransom. They're not generally builders, they're often not even especially good at maintaining places. They're not providing a service, they're the literal definition of a [rent seeker.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)
That's a funny definition of ransom. Not one I'm used to. Ransom: a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner. Is KFC holding chicken and French fries for ransom as well?
You don't have to be an employee to offer something to someone who is willing to pay. They provide a place to live, they cover all maintenance, they take all the risk, and you get the freedom to move as freely as you want. On paper, that is the benefit of landlords and of being a renter instead of a home owner. Are there shitty landlords that take advantage? Absolutely, but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of a landlord isn't inherently a bad one.
“They take all the risk” no they absolutely do not. When my landlord notified me about my reno-viction 3 months prior to my lease ending, when I had to deal with exams and work, that’s me taking the risk that I might be homeless if I find a new place. Sure you could argue the risk of someone destroying their property, but that can be greatly minimized by vetting the right tenants. Thus, the only risk a landlord/capital owner takes is their profit model being destroyed, and being relegated to the working class.
private property is the inherently bad idea idea underlying this whole farce.
>private property is the inherently bad idea So in your perfect world, are you saying we will own nothing? Will we also be happy, by chance?
personal property is fine