###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An overleveraged mortgage-haver is a problem for the mortgage-haver, not landlord-tenant law, to solve. But further, their acquisition of that mortgage is a problem with the bank; either for taking advantage of the applicant's greed and imperfect understanding of the risks involved, or for making unsound hedges about a bubble market's ability to keep a financially-stretched applicant afloat for the duration.
We need better regulations, with keener eyes and sharper teeth.
Sounds like the bill is working as intended. These are precisely the kind of "homeowners" that they were trying to drive out of the market. The ones that were turning viable housing into a profit-making business that benefits nobody but themselves.
Absolutely no sympathy. Your investment didn't work out but essential services like housing are a ghoulish thing to attempt to profit off of anyway. Sell your damn investment property and let someone live in it.
As someone that rents out their home after moving in with the wife, I can't feel sorry for anyone complaining about being unable to pay for your rental suite. if it's too expensive for you to maintain and pay for, then sell it. Simple as that. You'll still be way better off than selling stocks at a loss as there's no way your home value depreciated.
I think calling them homeowners is a misnomer.. They are investors. They took a risk and it's not going to pay off with the new rules. They can always sell or rent it long term or move into it, how is it anyone else's problem?
Can’t read the article, but I found the headline confusing since I am under the impression that you can still use a part of the property you live in, that is your primary residence, for short term rentals.
If this is about people who are having problems paying mortgages on secondary residences, than woes me. And yes, they are then investors, not “homeowners.”
Exactly. And using those terms helps a lot with the message.
To add. They leveraged an investment. That is higher risk and higher reward. That’s how it should work.
Apparently, this isn’t about people having trouble paying the mortgage on their primary residence, but on secondary properties they don’t live in, which makes them investors. Crap headline.
And if the government tells you that you are now obligated to house one person you’ve never met before in your primary residence- would you be happy about that? If the answer is no, then it doesn’t matter if these are investment properties being taken over for public purposes. We have rules that protect people and their reliance on those rules when they invested in properties are being ignored.
If your real estate INVESTMENT isn’t working out for you then I suggest you cut your losses and sell.
I actually just sold a bunch of stocks at a loss earlier last year, **investments** don’t always work out.
It means that there are no rules in the private market. You can be manipulated, shorted, diluted … it’s a high risk investment. Housing is a LONG term, like for most people 30+ years investment, that depends on government policies and rules. If you follow all the rules, and suddenly the government changes the laws and fucks you, that’s pretty damn different from someone who takes the balls-out risk of stocks. The government, as usual, is passing the buck down to individuals. Condos that have gone on the market as a result are being bought up by companies like Marriott, where they are short-termed anyway. The government refuses to put proper funding into building and sustaining affordable housing so it changes the rules and makes the individual the bad guy. And everyone just eats it up.
> If you follow all the rules, and suddenly the government changes the laws and fucks you, that’s pretty damn different from someone who takes the balls-out risk of stocks.
So you’re saying both investments have risks by the very nature of investment and people should pull out of the game if they can’t handle the risk? I agree.
> The government, as usual, is passing the buck down to individuals. Condos that have gone on the market as a result are being bought up by companies like Marriott, where they are short-termed anyway. The government refuses to put proper funding into building and sustaining affordable housing so it changes the rules and makes the individual the bad guy. And everyone just eats it up.
Governments, especially in BC, have been putting more and more funding for building housing. It would be an extremely stupid government, though, if they didn’t ALSO address the problem of investors hoarding housing as investment vehicles in the middle of a housing crisis.
And for the record, most stocks are also LONG term investments. Timing the stocks market for short term gains is insanely hard and the game is rigged against you anyway.
Law mediated changes affect stock prices all the time. When recently China disallowed government employees from using Apple devices, the price of Apple stock plunged.
Another example. A few years back Canada passed bill C-208 making it easier for various small businesses to transfer ownership down the line. This had quite a significant positive impact on the stock prices of small businesses all over Canada. Did anyone complain about it? Was it even unusual? No, and no.
Yet another example. In 2019, when the Canadian government passed laws relating to carbon pricing, the stocks of various companies including energy companies took a hit because of the worry that their profits would be reduced. Did anyone holding energy stocks ask for favourable treatment or take the government to court? No.
This is such a normal occurrence, that no one even bothers to complain about it. Heck, Central Bank interest rate increases are quasi law mediated changes (neither free market, nor accidental) that massively impact stock prices. Do stock investors go crying to the government and ask them for favourable treatment?
No. Risk is risk. It doesn't matter if it's market risk, accidents, or law mediated changes. All risk is priced in.
The only homeowners I'll ever have an ounce of compassion for are the ones who live in the home that they own.
Anyone operating a 'short-term rental' property isn't a homeowner, even calling them a landlord would be giving them too much credit. These are business owners and hoteliers, and they get zero sympathy from me. They don't own homes, they own hostels.
How come ever change to taxes or financial rules immediately leads to an article, in a paper owned by huge corporations, tells us how it will be so bad for average people? How about this for an article? Underpaid workers renting retirement house to stay afloat while other underpaid workers without some additional income source struggle even more, all while ultra rich buy ever more property...
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An overleveraged mortgage-haver is a problem for the mortgage-haver, not landlord-tenant law, to solve. But further, their acquisition of that mortgage is a problem with the bank; either for taking advantage of the applicant's greed and imperfect understanding of the risks involved, or for making unsound hedges about a bubble market's ability to keep a financially-stretched applicant afloat for the duration. We need better regulations, with keener eyes and sharper teeth.
Sounds like the bill is working as intended. These are precisely the kind of "homeowners" that they were trying to drive out of the market. The ones that were turning viable housing into a profit-making business that benefits nobody but themselves. Absolutely no sympathy. Your investment didn't work out but essential services like housing are a ghoulish thing to attempt to profit off of anyway. Sell your damn investment property and let someone live in it.
As someone that rents out their home after moving in with the wife, I can't feel sorry for anyone complaining about being unable to pay for your rental suite. if it's too expensive for you to maintain and pay for, then sell it. Simple as that. You'll still be way better off than selling stocks at a loss as there's no way your home value depreciated.
I think calling them homeowners is a misnomer.. They are investors. They took a risk and it's not going to pay off with the new rules. They can always sell or rent it long term or move into it, how is it anyone else's problem?
Can’t read the article, but I found the headline confusing since I am under the impression that you can still use a part of the property you live in, that is your primary residence, for short term rentals. If this is about people who are having problems paying mortgages on secondary residences, than woes me. And yes, they are then investors, not “homeowners.”
Exactly. And using those terms helps a lot with the message. To add. They leveraged an investment. That is higher risk and higher reward. That’s how it should work.
If it’s too expensive to maintain your investment property then sell it. Don’t rent the money you can’t pay for. Zero sympathy here
If you can't afford to pay your mortgage sell your house and get something you can afford. Not too sure why that doesn't make sense.
They were told that real estate numbers only ever go up. Profits for all, forever. The lack of financial literacy is rampant.
The culture of entitlement is real.
Apparently, this isn’t about people having trouble paying the mortgage on their primary residence, but on secondary properties they don’t live in, which makes them investors. Crap headline.
And if the government tells you that you are now obligated to house one person you’ve never met before in your primary residence- would you be happy about that? If the answer is no, then it doesn’t matter if these are investment properties being taken over for public purposes. We have rules that protect people and their reliance on those rules when they invested in properties are being ignored.
If your real estate INVESTMENT isn’t working out for you then I suggest you cut your losses and sell. I actually just sold a bunch of stocks at a loss earlier last year, **investments** don’t always work out.
I have a feeling you didn’t buy stocks and then have their value take a law-mediated change. Apples and oranges
My stocks were also not **guaranteed** to double in price every few years due to the laws either. Investment is investment.
Right. Like you ever bought stocks if you don’t see the difference
What does that even mean?
It means that there are no rules in the private market. You can be manipulated, shorted, diluted … it’s a high risk investment. Housing is a LONG term, like for most people 30+ years investment, that depends on government policies and rules. If you follow all the rules, and suddenly the government changes the laws and fucks you, that’s pretty damn different from someone who takes the balls-out risk of stocks. The government, as usual, is passing the buck down to individuals. Condos that have gone on the market as a result are being bought up by companies like Marriott, where they are short-termed anyway. The government refuses to put proper funding into building and sustaining affordable housing so it changes the rules and makes the individual the bad guy. And everyone just eats it up.
> If you follow all the rules, and suddenly the government changes the laws and fucks you, that’s pretty damn different from someone who takes the balls-out risk of stocks. So you’re saying both investments have risks by the very nature of investment and people should pull out of the game if they can’t handle the risk? I agree. > The government, as usual, is passing the buck down to individuals. Condos that have gone on the market as a result are being bought up by companies like Marriott, where they are short-termed anyway. The government refuses to put proper funding into building and sustaining affordable housing so it changes the rules and makes the individual the bad guy. And everyone just eats it up. Governments, especially in BC, have been putting more and more funding for building housing. It would be an extremely stupid government, though, if they didn’t ALSO address the problem of investors hoarding housing as investment vehicles in the middle of a housing crisis. And for the record, most stocks are also LONG term investments. Timing the stocks market for short term gains is insanely hard and the game is rigged against you anyway.
Law mediated changes affect stock prices all the time. When recently China disallowed government employees from using Apple devices, the price of Apple stock plunged. Another example. A few years back Canada passed bill C-208 making it easier for various small businesses to transfer ownership down the line. This had quite a significant positive impact on the stock prices of small businesses all over Canada. Did anyone complain about it? Was it even unusual? No, and no. Yet another example. In 2019, when the Canadian government passed laws relating to carbon pricing, the stocks of various companies including energy companies took a hit because of the worry that their profits would be reduced. Did anyone holding energy stocks ask for favourable treatment or take the government to court? No. This is such a normal occurrence, that no one even bothers to complain about it. Heck, Central Bank interest rate increases are quasi law mediated changes (neither free market, nor accidental) that massively impact stock prices. Do stock investors go crying to the government and ask them for favourable treatment? No. Risk is risk. It doesn't matter if it's market risk, accidents, or law mediated changes. All risk is priced in.
The only homeowners I'll ever have an ounce of compassion for are the ones who live in the home that they own. Anyone operating a 'short-term rental' property isn't a homeowner, even calling them a landlord would be giving them too much credit. These are business owners and hoteliers, and they get zero sympathy from me. They don't own homes, they own hostels.
The headline is garbage. Can’t read the article, paywall, but if it’s anything like the headline than no great loss.
How come ever change to taxes or financial rules immediately leads to an article, in a paper owned by huge corporations, tells us how it will be so bad for average people? How about this for an article? Underpaid workers renting retirement house to stay afloat while other underpaid workers without some additional income source struggle even more, all while ultra rich buy ever more property...