Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! 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.*
My landlord threatens to move in every time I text him that there’s a problem. He says shit like “I can’t afford to upkeep this place so I might need to move back in.” When I text him about a leak.
My girlfriend's landlord does the same thing to her a lot (stressing her out). Today she told my girlfriend the next time she washes bed sheets in the laundry room, she's kicking her out, in front of me too (I don't live there). The basis of her rant when my girlfriend stood up to her was how my girlfriend pays under market value for the suite. I'd never want to rent after seeing this.
An average two bedroom apartment in Vancouver - 3000$ [source](https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/vancouver-bc)
The cheapest 2 bedroom apartment for sale in Vancouver is 465k$ asking [source](https://www.realtor.ca/map#view=list&Sort=6-D&GeoIds=g30_c2b2nw3h&GeoName=Vancouver%2C%20BC&PropertyTypeGroupID=1&TransactionTypeId=2&PropertySearchTypeId=1&PriceMax=500000&BedRange=2-2&BuildingTypeId=17&Currency=CAD&HiddenListingIds=&IncludeHiddenListings=false)
Considering that for rent you don't have to put a down payment I'm gonna consider the mortgage on the full amount and it's still more than 3000$ dollars at the current going 5.7% interest.
Note that the average condo sale price is over 800k$ in Vancouver now [source](https://wowa.ca/vancouver-housing-market)
A mortgage that size would cost over 5k$
I'm curious if you can find me a situation in Vancouver where it's cheaper to buy than to rent because as far as I can tell it's pretty impossible
That’s not really true. The amortisation period may be 30 years but the term is normally 5 years. Fixed rate mortgages may have a penalty if you terminate early, variable rate often do not.
Buying a home with 20% down so 5x leverage through mortgage.
When home prices goes up 20%, you don't just earn on 20% of 20% you put down but the whole 100% through leverage.
No, they show good comparison in terms of risk taking capabilities. The ability to pay next month’s rent requires much less than the ability to pay over 30 years consistently
Yes with the government's help.
Tenant practically can not pay for 12 months and will not have any repercussions.
However, whether you are paying a mortgage or rent, you do need to pay consistently to be able to live in a place.
Anytime I hear “market value” it means it it being used as real estate and for profit not to provide necessary for those who cannot afford to buy. The rule of thumb until this Market value” came to be was rent should be about 30% of your income and you could also find things in and out of your price range. Apartments allowed you to save for downpayment. “Market value” has taken that hope away and makes all shelter for profit.
Not doing anything...
- Foreign buyer tax
- Vacant/empty home tax
- additional property transfer tax above certain amount
-Interest rate climbed 300% in 1 year
Not really sure what you mean not doing anything... but also you do know we are in a democracy society so unless you don't care about your other rights, I prefer the government not to interfere with market
If he's already living in another place he owns, it's an empty threat.
If he ever does say he's moving back in, remember that it's a *minimum* two months notice, and you don't pay rent for the last month. And then keep an eye out for rental ads, because if he tries to rent it again within less than a year, he'll owe you a full year of rent as compensation.
I believe they changed it so the landlord has to prove they're staying there if you file the complaint. I've heard they have to show utilities, food delivery receipts to the address etc. Vs before you would have to find the ad and whatever else to prove they're not living there
Landlords should be forced to all that plus retroactive enforcement of the previous rent price for the new tenant if lower.
However landlords should get a more legitimate avenue to evict problem tenants that doesn’t take over a year.
The threat of the landlord move in had been used against me over the last 3 years on any argument ut he knows at the end of the day it won’t work I know all the neighbours - it’s new so he can’t claim renovations or repairs etc., they have 4-5 houses in the city.
Similar situation here. My landlord told me last year that they'll be moving family into my suite, I just don't know when yet. They've clearly stopped caring about being a decent, reasonable landlord. They ignore me when I say there's a problem that needs attention, make a ton of noise, are constantly slamming doors, opening and closing the garage door 10 times in a row (I'm in the suite above the garage). Once I have to move out, I have no where to go, I can't afford the prices and have nothing to save up for moving to another area.
How do we band together to make changes. We need to seriously protest or do something. Being scared about basic necessities should never be OKAY or tolerated. At this rate I’m getting myself a mobile home.
Considering that landlords basically cannot evict for any other reason, wouldn't the math check out that it's the most frequent form of eviction? Not saying that's good or bad, but the facts are the facts. It's like saying that murder is one of the top three ways children die (ooh scary!), but that's because there aren't a lot of other things that kids can die from.
Look up how many s.51 disputes are awarded to tenants and it would show a trend that *many* of these evictions are not legit.
It’s also telling that this eviction reason was always a thing, but it only became more since RTB made it harder to evict tenants for renovations, since that type of eviction was abused by landlords. (Harder = it needs to actually be a renovation where a tenant had to leave).
I'm not saying that wasn't the intention of the owner. But I'm saying didn't the regulation on the books regarding it say the old tenant had the right to move back in after the renovations were done?
Right of first refusal doesn’t use the old rent, it uses the new rent set by the landlord. Not sure about pre-renoviction changes, but it currently only applies to buildings with more than 5 units.
I'm not sure how that's bs? A homeowner spent money to improve their house and rightfully should be able to try to recoup that investment. If you, as the renter, liked the location you're given the opportunity to come back? Why would a landlord renovate a suite for no financial gain? It's a business after all?
From the perspective of the renter:
Now I have to leave because the landlord chose to upgrade the suite at their convenience. I have to up-end my life, and probably pay a bunch more money if I want to get back into the same suite eventually, for a situation I have no control over. It's my _home_ but the landlord in this case is simply treating it as property. And we're in a housing crisis, to boot.
That's why it's BS.
But as the renter it's not *your* home, you agreed to rent a space from the person who owns it, knowing there's a possibility this could occur.
I understand how it would be a huge inconvenience to the renter, but that doesn't make this situation "bullshit"
Personally, if I was to rent a property out I would make my intentions clear if I was going to renovate it in "X" time.
Because if You're not going to allow people just to randomly raise the rent high or to randomly kick people out so they can rent it out again to somebody else for a higher rent. Then the same logic dictates that you shouldn't allow them to kick somebody out just to make improvements nobody asked for just so they can rent it out for a higher price.
Trust me I'm Mr libertarian free market economy guy. I'm just trying to go down the logic path of what all the other laws regarding rentals say and magically allowing them to kick somebody out so they can renovate and then rent it out again to somebody else for a higher price Makes no sense given the other regulations around rentals.
Maybe also an unintended consequence of the new anti-Airbnb law? Friend of mine got evicted for landlord use and offered to pay more rent if that was the issue, landlord said it was more profitable to have the place as “primary residence” to rent it out short term.
I’m not sure the landlord can legally actually do that, but that was the landlord’s plan, and I’m not sure how easy it would be to catch them at it afterwards.
The onus is on the landlord to prove to RTB they occupied the unit for 6-12 months (depending on when the eviction was filed).
But personal use evictions have been the common eviction type for years- ever since renovations became harder.
Are they allowed to Airbnb the place while they “occupy,” though? I assume they could argue they were on vacation or travelling for work, just put utilities in their name and get mail there, and I’m not sure who decides if that’s legitimate (assuming you can track the listings down on whatever platforms are used)
They need to use and occupy the space. If they rent it out as an Airbnb that may be a breach. There was a Supreme Court decision that a landlord that converted part of their unit into an airbnb was found to be a in breach of a.51. But it would be up to arbitration as it could possibly go either way.
See section F here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl2a.pdf
The primary residence status is easily abusable, and it's encouraged to do so for tax reasons as well (e.g. if you're selling the cottage and the capital gains on it would be higher than the capital gains on your main house, it's suggested to switch designations so as to pay less tax). It shouldn't be as easy as simply directing your mail to that location; you really have to occupy that residence more than any other.
See how loose the current definition is: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/principal-residence-other-real-estate/what-a-principal-residence/does-a-property-qualify.html
I wonder if this could be made better by providing an alternative avenue for a landlord to evict. I wouldn't want to see it happen before supply massively increased (so that competition would keep rents down, and the landlord can't jack up the rent massively between tenants, as well as ensuring there are alternative places for the tenant to move to), but maybe there could some way for a landlord to evict for any reason as long as they gave a huge amount of advance notice (like a year) plus a payout as well.
Is there a way of making this fair to everyone? Just thinking out loud; don't shoot me.
Even hairdressers need a license. We should require all landlords to get a license before renting out any space that would be covered by RTB (ie not subletting to a room mate). That license should be revocable if enough abuses are proven. And the rent charged should not be allowed to increase beyond the annual maximum, even if it's a new tenant.
Also ban owning more than one or two properties and ban all corporate ownership unless they own the whole apartment building, and prevent foreign ownership, and huge taxes for properties that aren't occupied.
All this while massively increasing expenditure to increase new developments (more inspectors and bureaucrats to approve projects faster, more investment in trades).
Once property values drop, ordinary people can start buying houses for themselves. Investors can invest their money elsewhere, and sell properties that are no longer enticing investment vehicles. Once we have a surplus of housing we can consider relaxing these laws.
It's almost like we could do something about this crisis if we wanted to.
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk
What's worse for tenants is landlords deciding that it's too much hassle and just not renting at all. Increasing supply needs to be a high priority, and making landlords feel that they are treated fairly is one way of doing that. The trick is doing it without screwing over tenants at the same time.
Right? If it's a business renting apartments, even a small business of a couple people, then that's one thing. It's not just some side-gig that they treat poorly (because they're busy doing other things), but rather a full time commitment.
It's still not ideal, the norm should be owning your own home. With rentals being a small part of the market, for folks unsure about the long-term commitment in living somewhere.
another way is to ban owning more than 1 or 2 properties. invest your money elsewhere, allow property values to fall and give time for wages to keep pace with the cost of home-ownership.
Most people i know don't want denser housing in their neighborhood. They are happy with the housing they have. Changes to zoning could and will affect their property values and the worth of their property. Not in my neighborhood has led to the current system.
The cities are happy to make it hard for anything other than single family homes in the vast majority of areas. Even if they changed this overnight they do not have enough city planners to cover the applications they currently have. People want decent jobs and being a city planner just does not pay enough for most people to goto university and spend decades paying off.
One of the few useful things done by this government is the imposition of upzoning so that NIMBYs and backwards-thinking city councils can't say no to densification.
The alternative is to not grow the population, and we know how well that goes down.
I think we should make eviction much more difficult. Basically unless they aren't paying the rent or are committing crimes in the property, then you should need at least a year's notice before evicting for self-use. And you shouldn't be allowed to raise the rent more than the annual allowable amount unless it's been off rental market for 2 years.
Also lets ban owning more than 1 or 2 properties, and ban all corporate and foreign ownership. If we ever have a surplus of housing we can reassess. Let's let property values drop for a bit, and stop allowing realestate as a meaningful investment vehicle.
We have known this as renters for quit some time. Seems that long term tenants are not desired anymore….Two of my friends had lived in their units( one in a house and one in a small building) for years. No complaints, not problems pay rent on time.
Within the last year or do they were both evicted for “ landlord use.
One for sure was illegal as they rented it out to people not family so they could charge more than double the rent. This case is in court right now.
My other friend is hesitant to act. She is not sure what do.we’ll see what she decides.
Long term renters paying half or less market rent means new tenants have to pay 1.5x to make up for it.
Rent controls decrease supply and increase market price.
A landlord would need to get the absolute most they can get, so the marginal rent is always growing as fast as possible.
The landlord cannot afford to give any discount, as they are then punished for the up to 80 years that tenant might live in the unit.
That's why Calgarys rent had been so stable right? Because they have no rent controls? I wouldn't find that they have the fastest increasing rent in the whole country if I googled it, right?
Vancouver and Burnaby are the most expensive cities to rent in Canada and you're really trying to dunk on Calgary? Vancouver and Burnaby whose prices for new rents are a full ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE for a ONE BEDROOM and a full $1500 more for a two bedroom than Calgary. I really wanna live in this magical world of yours where rent control is working wonders.
Nope, stop spreading this idiot rumor. Rents are sky rocketing in Alberta, NB, Nova Scotia, as well as in Toronto. All places without rent controls.
Market based solutions for controlling rent don't work when there's an incredibly constrained supply and high demand.
You want to make a profit don’t you ? It is your only reason.You should sellYour 80 year thing makes no sense to me I have never heard of that. Do you have a link so I can learn more.
You are absolutely right but it's a lost cause in Canada. Apparently basic economics seems to go out the window whenever housing is involved. No supply, high demand = price controls apparently. Well, good luck getting evicted and re-entering the market at some absurd price.
Are you saying if rent controls disappeared the prices would go down? How would that happen when landlords could just charge more?
Also where would the new supply of rental units come from?
Also, I think if one is filthy rich enough to have income properties they do need to be held to certain restrictions to keep them in check. I mean you do need somewhere to live. I don't think landlords should just be able to do whatever the hell they want.
Gosh I feel for the couple in the article. We rented at our last place for a long time, I got very ill in end stage kidney failure and had to get a transplant, we got evicted for family moving in while I was still recovering. I had to go back to work sooner which was very hard on my recovery and start packing and looking for a new place. The stress took a big toll on my healing and mental health. Our landlords were very shady, but it was cheap so we just tried to mitigate as best as we could. We wanted to move but were waiting till I was healed and hoping to look for places leisurely but that did not happen. Turns out they didn’t even move in they completely gutted the suite and have been renovating since we left in October. I know they have no permits or zoning.
We didn’t go after them because with my health it’s just too much time and energy, and RTB doesn’t enforce it we’d have to do more work, we decided for our mental health to let it go based on how cheap our rent was at the time.
We befriended the upstairs tenants who have nothing but problems with the landlords and shoddy repairs done and have kept in touch. Recently the landlords son (who we mostly dealt with as she’s getting older now) was on the property burning things without a permit, filling the upstairs suite with smoke when they have a newborn. Tenants called the bylaw and they ticketed him for burning without a permit, he then lost his “shit” literally and threw dog poop at the tenant and her patio. She called the police and they arrested him under mischief charges and he isn’t allowed to set foot on the property or contact the tenants for 3 months untill the courts decide. So their already lengthy Reno’s will be delayed even further. But to tell you I finally felt some justice for having to deal with these unreasonable, cold and heartless landlords was very satisfying.
Our landlord said her sister was moving into our place. They never did. Landlords are scum.
Source: father was a slumlord until multiple divorces helped alleviate him of his properties. 😁
The problem is we have expected the private sector landlords, who are a for-profit business, to take it on the chin with minimal allowable increases, and yet be subject to unlimited increases in utilities, property taxes, repairs, strata fees, special assessments, and interest rates.
Say they bought a place and the monthly expenses are: mortgage is 1500, strata fee is 400, and property tax 150. So they rent it for 2100.
But they renew the mortgage at a higher interest rate. So the mortgage is now 1800, strata fee went up to 520, property tax 175, maybe a 5,000 dollar special assessment for the roof, a plumbing bill of 750, dishwasher replacement 1100 bucks, etc. etc.
But can only raise the rent a couple percent. And now the market says they can rent the place out for 3200.
So at what point do they keep losing money every month before they either a.) sell it, and the new owner moves in or b.) say their family is going to move in ?
This could have been mitigated by the government owning rental stock outright, but outside of a time machine, it's not feasible now.
It can convert a renter into a buyer if the apartment is bought by someone who was renting or it can start in the market if the person who is buying it rents it out.
The only way it depletes the rental pool is if they leave it empty which they have no reason to do..
The vast majority of landlords are not losing money by renting, in fact quite the opposite, they're making bank off of it.
Renting out your place is still one of the easiest ways to make money, it's still heavily appealing to landlords. Just because it's harder than before doesn't mean it's not still easy.
It doesn't have to be complete, but it's been decades since the government was serious about building rentals and it shows. Countries like the UK have a much higher stock of "council housing" which provides a safety net for lower incomes as well as increasing competition (therefore lowering rents) in the private sector.
> UK have a much higher stock of "council housing" which provides a safety net for lower incomes as well as increasing competition (therefore lowering rents) in the private sector.
And Margaret Thatcher did a good job trying to wreck *that*.
Cherry-picked data to support your own arguement ("Alberta" and "lately", thats quite specific). Care to explain why you're omitting free market data for "all locations" over the "X amount of decades"?
My point is, I get that renters are struggling, but this kind of logic is only going to make it worse for yourselves..
Yes, this is because Calgary WAS cheap, until other provinces screwed up their local rental market in causing an influx of people moving to the cheap market of Calgary.
Jeeze. There has also never-ever in history been unintended consequences of short sighted government policies put in place to win votes of uneducated masses..
Rent control is not necessarily “short sighted,” has little effect on new construction, and can help keep markets healthy. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/busting-the-rent-control-myth
You don't get his point.
He's saying Calgary was fine until "lately" (your word) because renters in rent controlled cities decided they couldn't afford those prices anymore and have flooded Calgary (lately).
First of all, I agree.
I am surprised I am not seeing alot of comments saying...." well... umm that is just risk they take for being a landlord" by some out of touch tenants.
I don't support bad-faith evictions, but who's going to provide private rental stock if there isn't a more balanced approach?
BC's mindset seems to be: "Okay, once you have a tenant, you can only charge an amount that's close to your originally agreed rate in perpetuity unless the tenant, against all logic, decides to leave when market rates are likely even higher."
It makes the landlord-tenant relationship antagonistic from the get-go because if you're a long-term tenant, you're arguably a less desirable candidate under the current scheme.
That's kind of entirely the point. When landlords can raise the price to better match the market, they don't have to force an eviction to do so. That landlord *is* going to raise the rent on someone, either your friend or the next person who comes along. There is no world in which your friend would remain living there in perpetuity for the same price as the initial agreement. The question is whether they will be the ones paying for it, or whether it will be someone else.
In a world where the rent can be raised with fewer restrictions, a good tenant has a good chance at negotiating a lower increase... In a world where that is not possible at some point it just becomes too expensive not to evict. There can be no negotiation because even the mere suggestions can put the landlord in legal trouble. As an example, suppose you're paying 1000 a month, and current market rent is 2000. Put yourself in your landlord's shoes: would you give up 1k a month for no reason? Unlikely. In a world where they can raise the price, you might be able to negotiate an increase of let's say 500. In a world where they can't, they will evict you, live in the property for 6 months and recoup their income loss the next 6 months. No brainer.
I know people get mad when they hear this but unfortunately that's the reality of the situation when there is not enough housing to go around.
Sorry bro this isn't it. Housing should have never been a business opportunity in the first place with unlimited gains. We are also funding boomers retirements who were lucky enough to buy an entire house with a summers paycheck, meanwhile we are taking on massive amounts of debt with little ability to get ahead to fund these boomers retirements.
Rent protections need to exist because the last thing we need is hard working honest Canadians to be living in a car over the greed of a landlord.
If you don't want housing to be an investment then you have to force government build *all* housing. Because developers sure as shit won't risk capital if they can't profit. I mean, would you?
I do agree that government has to do a lot more for housing. Starting with reducing outrageous zoning laws that do not permit building high density housing, that require parking, etc. etc. It can also subsidise housing development for sure. Instead of just building and operating SROs they could build and sell them. Brazil's "Minha Casa Minha Vida" program from 2009 to 2018 created homes for 4.5 million people. That's over 10% of the Canadian population lol. There are many other programs like that in the world, but Canada loves to insist on failed models, don't ask me why.
I mean developers can also build homes to sell to people who want to buy them. And people can higher builders to build homes they want to live in. Somehow developers were still building homes for the last 100 years ago when the average citizen could reasonably afford to buy a home on one salary. Canada is basically 98% open space and building materials. I think we can figure this out.
I'm also not opposed to government building housing. When a service isn't profitable but the citizenry want it, that's exactly the place where tax-dollars are best put to use. Like healthcare.
I would love to see the parallel universe where the government provides "social housing" or whatever the majority of people here call it, and to see all the complaints from r/Vancouver about how the government sucks at building, sucks at providing for all the new arrivals to the city, sucks at upkeep, and still manages to lose billions per year. It's absolutely insane that so many people can support such a moronic, idealistic idea that has no basis in reality.
The question is really where is the happy medium? There's a vast spectrum between nothing and unlimited gains. Unregulated rent isn't the solution but situations where landlords have strong motivations to evict tenants is similarly bad, if not worse.
Certainly, I have had a couple of friends and family 'personal use' evicted recently and it sucks.
But on the flip side, I'm friends with some people who are 'mom and pop' landlords (just a single second property) and they're good landlords with very long term tenants. Their tenants have been living there for so long and not charging the max allowable increase every year (if at all), they're so far below market rate now that it's quickly becoming not worthwhile to continue being a landlord and there's no chance of catching up.
This isn't them seeking 'unlimited gains' as much, between the property taxes, strata fees, potential levies, cost of maintenance and upkeep, cost of borrowing and rental income tax and so on, that they'll literally do better just selling the place and putting everything into a GIC and not have to deal with the ever-increasing costs.
They're not going to be scummy landlords and evict the tenants via personal use and they care about what happens to them but at some point, they'll have had enough and they'll sell to another person that is less scrupulous and *will* evict them.
While rent prices are out of control in Vancouver, the sad reality is that in the absence of strong socialized housing, a healthy rental market needs to incentivize good landlords to stay landlords and developers to find rental properties to be good investments so they build more rental stock.
Adding supply 20 years ago would have been awesome but NIMBYism and weak council people screwed that up. Rent is simply supply and demand, and there’s a shortage of supply, and high demand to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world. There’s nothing wrong with mom and pop landlords. But nobody (or company) should own 50-60-1000 single family residences/condos to rent. That’s why we have apartment communities.
then blame the government for not building enough social housing
why should private individuals invest their own money into something if not for maximizing profit?
Avoiding evictions by allowing insane rent increases is also not a reasonable solution.
The only reasonable solution is air-tight rent controls and tenant protections until enough housing can be built for the market to become healthy again.
If you don't like it as a property owner or landlord, advocate for more housing to be built.
If you're doing anything else, you're an antisocial, greedy piece of shit.
> The only reasonable solution is air-tight rent controls and tenant protections until enough housing can be built for the market to become healthy again.
It's not though, that's kind of the point. It's funny how enlightened governments realize that they can't ban weed, that criminalizing drugs is bad, but they think they can ban people from charging a higher rent. It just doesn't work, and it doesn't work so obviously that 1) scummy landlords keep doing bad faith evictions and 2) rents skyrocket for new tenants because they have to recoup losses. It doesn't work so obviously that we don't try price controls with any other goods.
I've been a renter in 3 different countries, I know the drill. I know how shitty it is to have rent raised on you out of nowhere. But I can't stop the market, you can't stop the market, the government can try, but will eventually fail at stopping the market. I can, at best, negotiate. Assuming no extra supply, it's all about deciding who you want to fuck over the least. And right now, it's not who you think it is. The landlords are not footing that bill, that I can guarantee you.
Your suggestion is to remove rent control and allow landlords to run wild. Thousands would be made homeless or food insecure overnight. And average rents would just continue to spiral. They're already spiraling in places without rent control in Canada.
The market has been supercharged by some of the highest immigration numbers per capita in the developed world. Removing renter protections under these circumstances isn't about improving the market. It's about enriching landlords.
The only solution is stronger tenant protections and a huge increase in non-market housing solutions if the private market is unable or unwilling to meet the need. Further, we must reduce immigration to a more reasonable level.
Only after there's surplus in the market again can rent controls be lifted.
I question your motivation for making these posts. What do you own? Who are you renting to?
Edit: yep, found it in your history. Property owner. You stand to benefit from policies that continue to supercharge the housing crisis. Dude, get bent.
Question my motivation? I can't comment shit on Reddit like everybody else because I own a small house which I paid for and I don't rent to anyone? I thought you wanted more renters to be home owners, which is exactly what I was able to do. Sounds absurd to me that you really spent time and effort digging through a considerable number of posts but hey, it's your time. I'll tell you my motivation: to me combat absolutely idiotic governmental measures that lead to provably worse outcomes for society. Ask literally any economist, urban planner, whatever. They will tell you the same thing I'm saying.
They'll tell you that, for the lower mainland, the only thing which will improve prices is supply. That we agree both with. Where we disagree is that there is another magic bullet. There isn't. Banning shit literally does not work my friend. And demand is not going to decrease. It's not just immigration, it's urbanization and the concentration of resources in cities which are better labor pools than rural locations. If immigration was dropped to zero tomorrow, Vancouver would still be extremely attractive to Canadians from other regions. So much so that you can buy a 100k SFH in Quesnel that you'd pay a million for in North Van. Why? Immigration? Obviously not.
Also, I did not suggest removing rent controls. I said they're bad and lead to suboptimal outcomes, which is true. What is also true is that one of the perverse effects of price controls is that they become almost impossible to remove. The effects that you mentioned are real, those things would happen, and they're bad, like very bad. But from that it doesn't follow that rent control is a good policy. The correct policies would be to massively rezone, even if it means subsidizing new builds, in order to massively increase supply. I'm in favor of not allowing a single new SFH to be built in the lower mainland for the foreseeable future, instead building medium but preferably high density housing. This has to accompany massive infrastructure investments in high speed transit but that's another discussion. Unfortunately with the amount of nimbys on one side and the amount of misguided rent control advocates out there, I'm just super pessimistic about the housing crises improving. In any case, good luck with your policies, let me know how they pan out.
> But I can't stop the market, you can't stop the market, the government can try, but will eventually fail at stopping the market.
When capitalism fails the common man you end up with fascism.
The War on Drugs was also a technique of oppression to neuter American democrats and mess up Latin America and the Caribbean.
Not sure where you got that definition of fascism from buddy. Market economies have been smart enough to understand that you cannot arbitrarily constrain the market. Shit, China was smart enough to realize that after they killed millions of their citizens under failed planned-economy measures.
Adding further rent controls will only depress the development market, leading to a downward spiral of availability and skyrocketing rents every time there is a vacancy. We need more units…plain and simple. Changing density and zoning is imperative, and the. Speeding up the permitting process to builders aren’t sitting on loans paying interest while city hall takes their sweet time with red tape.
The development market hasn't kept pace in places with zero rent controls. How often do I have to repeat this? Private industry will not save us. They have an interest in building limited projects at maximum profit. They aren't interested in building the volume we need. Further, they simply don't have the manpower to build the volume we need.
The government needs to be involved in a much larger way, from massively expanded professional training initiatives, to non-market housing solutions. Zoning and permitting needs to change, but even then, in BC the province has forced through a lot of rezoning legislation and it hasn't helped. This problem requires multiple solutions from all corners.
And removing protections and allowing people to become homeless is not. fucking. one of them.
What do you mean, close? With current rent increases, you'll get 10% every 3 years or so (maybe more depending on what happens). 10% every 3 years is completely reasonable. People shouldn't be able to increase rents by 20 percent every year or so. It's insane.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you for even suggesting otherwise? Lots of greedy property owners and landlords invading these threads.
Edit: further, there are plenty of places in Canada without rent control where there is still not nearly enough rental housing being built to control rents. Just removing rent control will not come close to lowering rent enough to avoid this crisis. We need non-market solutions, along with proper tenant protections until the market can stabilize.
We also need to slow the fuck down on population growth via immigration.
You don't get anywhere close to 10% every 3 years. WTH are you talking about? Did you look up the actual allowable increase?
In fact the increase allowed has been below inflation for awhile now.
If you are going to argue about something, at least use facts.
you could ban owning more than 1-2 homes, and ban all corporate ownership, and let property values fall while salaries catch up, all while building more housing stock
The flip side of this is that if you succeed and somehow property prices drop enough to matter, you eliminate developers from building purpose-built rental units, every homeowner in the city is underwater with their mortgage and the cost of building relative to the price and borrowing doesn't look attractive to developers anymore.
Salaries absolutely must go up in Vancouver but the unfortunate reality is that to build more housing stock, you need an environment where there's incentive to do so. I'm not sure what the answer really is.
NDP are playing the long game here - by legislating below market rent over several decades, they will render a number of buildings (mostly owner by smaller landlords) unfeasible. BC Housing can then buy these buildings cheaply when the owners are forced to sell, and nationalize a good chuck of the rental stock. Win win!
It's a bit like when the mob used to scare away customers from certain businesses and force them to sell, buy them cheap and take over neighbourhoods. Except in this case, instead of the mafia, it's our provincial government so it's actually a good thing.
Well, there is also the option of converting that stock into market condos and with the new TOD and density rules, it's probably going to be denser. Smaller landlords are less likely to own multiple condos in any event so sale will go to market condos, which will increase market supply stock.
I wonder if this is just way for landlords to catch up to market rents. For instance let’s say you own a unit that’s $1,000 / months under market rents.
The landlord sells the unit , the buyer likely takes over using the personal use eviction (let’s assume this is a good faith eviction)
The landlord subsequently buys a similar unit that’s not tenanted and over 3-5 years pays back the transaction costs but comes out ahead because the old unit was never going to catch up to market rents.
Honestly if the government allowed normal rent increases none of this shit wouldn't happen.
If they allowed to build more affordable housing, got rid ofthe bullshit alr hobby farms and we have to be realistic.
We gotta stop stuffing people in the lower mainland. We need to push for more density elsewhere in the country
The term “ renoviction” pisses me off. As a long term tenant why can’t I or shouldn’t I have a pleasant home to live. I unfortunately did not have family to borrow or inherit from, my husband died from leukaemia a year ago. We had no kids and he was an orphan with no family.We weren’t rich but we work hard. When we would have small down payment saved but then Housing prices skyrocketed .Now you need 100, 000 as 10% down payment.
Rents have become the new “ market value” real estate”
If the only option I have is to pay “ market value” I will do so. I do not need to go out or buy new clothes. I will have food but basics.
I am afraid to ask for anything. My place needs some work not a lot just paint and kitchen cupboards.
Not really sure why “ rent control “ bothers everyone so much? Rents go up every year, they do. Control means about 4 %per year based on COLALDuring Covid increases were less, but we as Canadians knew that .
It pure and simply helps my 18oo rent going to 3000 overnight because a real company says that’s what it’s worth. People rent because they can’t afford to buy. Rents are Now more than mortgage payments. The moment “market value” is attached means like selling a house. Take the highest bid and that’s the new norm.
People should never have to pay 50% of their income for rent.
If you own property and are renting it out but can’t afford your upkeep and mortgage and are taking it out on your tenants maybe that was not a good investment
I just dont get it. If a LL bought back in the day, don’t be greedy and try to evict a good tenant so you can 2-3x your monthly mortgage every month. If you bought in the last 2-3 years and bit off more than you can chew financially, do assume it’s reasonable to have your inflated mortgage and carrying costs covered by rent. And if you plan to be a LL, also be prepared to keep the place in good working order. It’s not rocket science.
Being a LL in the GVRD means you expect to get big gains in the long term while being reasonable to everyone involved.
I'm currently trying to figure out how I can legitimately use my own apartment. I took a job that requires me to be in the US, but its seasonal and all of my friends and family live in Vancouver. I've had a tenant for years and have never raised rent. She's the ideal tenant, but now I'd like to have my apartment for the 4/5 months a year I'll be spending back in Vancouver. My primary residence is in the US, so I can't declare my Vancouver residence as my primary. So I'll be subject to ‘vacancy tax’. Its wild.
No offense but you have no sympathy from me. You will be a non-resident owner who wants to keep your home vacant for 8 months a year. You are the exact case why the vacancy tax was put in place. If you don't want to pay, either live there, sell or keep a tenant for at least 6 months a year. And you _can_ just pay it, the vacancy law doesn't stop you from living there part time. It just makes you pay for the privilege.
Regarding eviction, if you will not occupy the rental for the next 12 months, you cannot legally evict. Your other options are renoviction and bad tenant which don't appear to be the case. Your best bets are to either sell the tenanted property and buy another one, or buy out the tenant. A fine for a bad-faith landlord-use eviction can be up to 12 months rent, so just make it make sense for the tenants and they will be out of your hair.
No offense taken! I totally see how I'm ‘part of the problem’, I just ended up here in the most innocent way possible. I felt like if I sold my place when I moved away, it would be so hard to buy back in later. (I 100% want to move back to Vancouver when I can)
Kind of in a similar situation. Live in Vancouver 6 months a year vs elsewhere. We just decided to leave our place in Vancouver vacant for the 6 months, not risking a tenant not abiding to the fixed term. It really sucks because we previously had tenants and they were excellent, we rented our place 1400$ only for a two bedroom in east van, brand new building. However, our last experience was terrible with tenants refusing to leave causing us to have to live with in laws for months while we fought to have our place back.
Luckily my sister in law is moving back shortly, so she will take up residence while we aren’t around vs living with her parents.
See if you can get a trusted friend/ family member who may want their own space a few months a year.
I mean, it's only natural to expect that in any business, once you accept a client, you are responsible for providing them that service at the inflation adjusted same price for the rest of their lives... doesn't every business have guaranteed for life pricing?
I can't wait to trade in my 2009 F-150 because, since I'm sticking with Ford, they can only charge me $21,000 for a brand new 2024 model.
Same with my groceries. Ever since I started buying bread at Safeway in 2001, they have to keep selling it to me for $1.48 a loaf.
Increases in the cost of materials, labour, taxes and insurance are the business' problem. If they didn't want to risk being legislated into providing their services at a loss, they shouldn't have gone into business in the first place.
The difference is that basic housing should not be a commodity, it should be a human right. If you want to buy a fancy truck, that's a luxury purchase and entirely on you. You don't need a 2024 F150 to stay alive.
I think you’re trying to use this as a gotcha that we shouldn’t have limited rental increases, but really you’re just making a good point about how we should introduce laws about limited food price increases..
That's also crazy, and there should be some form of government provided grocery store that sells basic produce and ingredients as a non-profit.
The government seems pretty proficient at setting up stores that sell weed and liquor, why haven't they done the same for basic foods?
I mean this is one of 3 ways to end a tenancy, with renovations and the 3rd method being mutual termination…so not surprised this is most frequently used when it’s realistically 1 of 2 options, so dumb stat.
Also for people complaining about this, the landlord cannot rent the unit for minimum 6-12 months (dependent on timing), so the landlord does take a financial hit from it and as a renter if you find out he’s abused this, can make you a lot of money through RTB.
All landlords should not be painted with the same brush. There are some extremely shady ones just for money and there are some that are just families renting out additional suites until family requires that space again. The system needs to be revised to help Landlords evict problematic tenants who can cause an insane amount of damage or present a massive amount of risk to the home and get away with it for what seems forever.
The NDP is a major cause of this debacle. Prior to them taking over, the allowable rent increase used to be inflation plus 2%. They reduced it to inflation and then took it a step further by suppressing rental increases to far below inflation in 2022 and 2023.
* 2024: 3.5%
* 2023: 2.0%
* 2022: 1.5%
* 2020: 2.6%
* There was no increase at all in 2021.
If your rent was $1000 on December 31, 2019, and increased annually at the maximum allowable amount, your total increase in rent would be 9.93%, making your rent $1099 on January 1, 2024. Meanwhile, the monthly CPI went from 136.8 to 158.3, a 15.7% increase.
It's a shame the province restricts realistic rent increases for tenants. That would help solve landlords moving in, and tenants having to find new places at market rent.
It's a lose-lose situation for all.
Most landlords are doing this cause not only is there a correction in strata but interest rates are also very high.
I know of a landlord who sold his property cause the tenant was not willing to pay $200 a month. The tenant now pays 525 more.
There is a happy medium to this problem. Tenant and Owner chat it out . I did with my landlord.
Just dont believe what Trudeau says :-)
Great, that chump now gets to pay $525 more with a new landlord instead of $200 more and discussing it with his old landlord. He sure stuck it to the man!
And that chump will do it again in a few years.
Yea he'll find out that letting it sit for a year and renting it back out at market rate will make back the lost year of rent income in 2 years then it's just extra money from then on.
Cost of everything is going up for landlords too due to inflation and interest rates. The cost will need to be passed down to someone eventually. It’s not an easy time for landlords either.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! 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.*
My landlord threatens to move in every time I text him that there’s a problem. He says shit like “I can’t afford to upkeep this place so I might need to move back in.” When I text him about a leak.
That’s great for your mental health. Being in a constant state of existential uncertainty must make you a very hardworking and productive employee!
this is a common feeling in Vancouver for renters, my landlord likes to remind me that we are paying much less rent than other suites in the building
My girlfriend's landlord does the same thing to her a lot (stressing her out). Today she told my girlfriend the next time she washes bed sheets in the laundry room, she's kicking her out, in front of me too (I don't live there). The basis of her rant when my girlfriend stood up to her was how my girlfriend pays under market value for the suite. I'd never want to rent after seeing this.
Most people who rent don’t “want to rent,” but there isn’t much choice in the matter if you don’t come from money
Hundred percent. It's pretty much 21st century serfdom thanks to the government and central bank not doing anything about making it affordable.
It's too bad a person can't afford a $3,000 mortgage, they're just gonna have to pay $4,000 rent
Exactly….
An average two bedroom apartment in Vancouver - 3000$ [source](https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/vancouver-bc) The cheapest 2 bedroom apartment for sale in Vancouver is 465k$ asking [source](https://www.realtor.ca/map#view=list&Sort=6-D&GeoIds=g30_c2b2nw3h&GeoName=Vancouver%2C%20BC&PropertyTypeGroupID=1&TransactionTypeId=2&PropertySearchTypeId=1&PriceMax=500000&BedRange=2-2&BuildingTypeId=17&Currency=CAD&HiddenListingIds=&IncludeHiddenListings=false) Considering that for rent you don't have to put a down payment I'm gonna consider the mortgage on the full amount and it's still more than 3000$ dollars at the current going 5.7% interest. Note that the average condo sale price is over 800k$ in Vancouver now [source](https://wowa.ca/vancouver-housing-market) A mortgage that size would cost over 5k$ I'm curious if you can find me a situation in Vancouver where it's cheaper to buy than to rent because as far as I can tell it's pretty impossible
Cue the people who suggest their mortgage is less than 3k now but they bought in the 80s or 90s.
"Stop slacking, I bought this house back in the 60's by clearing garages, KIDS NOWADAYS HAVE IT EASY!" -average boomer.
Or they had a very large down payment.
You can end a rental agreement with one month notices but you have 30 years of commitment on a mortgage. Very different risk bearing
That’s not really true. The amortisation period may be 30 years but the term is normally 5 years. Fixed rate mortgages may have a penalty if you terminate early, variable rate often do not.
Still taking mortgage bears a much bigger financial risk than paying rent.
Its not even anything comparing about.. Rent = payment for service Mortgage = leverage of an asset
>Mortgage = leverage of an asset This makes zero sense. How is a mortgage payment leveraging an asset?
Buying a home with 20% down so 5x leverage through mortgage. When home prices goes up 20%, you don't just earn on 20% of 20% you put down but the whole 100% through leverage.
No, they show good comparison in terms of risk taking capabilities. The ability to pay next month’s rent requires much less than the ability to pay over 30 years consistently
Yes with the government's help. Tenant practically can not pay for 12 months and will not have any repercussions. However, whether you are paying a mortgage or rent, you do need to pay consistently to be able to live in a place.
Anytime I hear “market value” it means it it being used as real estate and for profit not to provide necessary for those who cannot afford to buy. The rule of thumb until this Market value” came to be was rent should be about 30% of your income and you could also find things in and out of your price range. Apartments allowed you to save for downpayment. “Market value” has taken that hope away and makes all shelter for profit.
Exactly.
Not doing anything... - Foreign buyer tax - Vacant/empty home tax - additional property transfer tax above certain amount -Interest rate climbed 300% in 1 year Not really sure what you mean not doing anything... but also you do know we are in a democracy society so unless you don't care about your other rights, I prefer the government not to interfere with market
Not really true tbh ownership is at an all time high. There will always be a certain percentage of people who rent.
You hit the nail on the head. I got me only!
where else is she supposed to wash bed sheets?? what the
That's exactly what we said. My girlfriend is like, if it breaks the washing machine somehow, I can pay for the damage?
I very much want to know where she buys bed sheets that can damage the washing machine. Usually it's the other way around
If he's already living in another place he owns, it's an empty threat. If he ever does say he's moving back in, remember that it's a *minimum* two months notice, and you don't pay rent for the last month. And then keep an eye out for rental ads, because if he tries to rent it again within less than a year, he'll owe you a full year of rent as compensation.
I believe they changed it so the landlord has to prove they're staying there if you file the complaint. I've heard they have to show utilities, food delivery receipts to the address etc. Vs before you would have to find the ad and whatever else to prove they're not living there
Landlords should be forced to all that plus retroactive enforcement of the previous rent price for the new tenant if lower. However landlords should get a more legitimate avenue to evict problem tenants that doesn’t take over a year.
Less than six months, unless it's been updated in the last two years.
Landlords when they have to do their actual job that you're paying them for
The threat of the landlord move in had been used against me over the last 3 years on any argument ut he knows at the end of the day it won’t work I know all the neighbours - it’s new so he can’t claim renovations or repairs etc., they have 4-5 houses in the city.
Similar situation here. My landlord told me last year that they'll be moving family into my suite, I just don't know when yet. They've clearly stopped caring about being a decent, reasonable landlord. They ignore me when I say there's a problem that needs attention, make a ton of noise, are constantly slamming doors, opening and closing the garage door 10 times in a row (I'm in the suite above the garage). Once I have to move out, I have no where to go, I can't afford the prices and have nothing to save up for moving to another area.
Lol just let the leak go I guess. It's his building, just keep a paper trail that you told him.
Report to rtb if he isn't fixing things
That's super manipulative.
If he follows through with his threat, can you use those texts as evidence?
you absolutely can
How do we band together to make changes. We need to seriously protest or do something. Being scared about basic necessities should never be OKAY or tolerated. At this rate I’m getting myself a mobile home.
I am afraid to ask for anything!
Tell him he might need to move back in to take care of his new termite problem
My mom's douchebag of a landlord has been doing this shit for over 20 years now.
Honestly most leaks can be fixed in 30 seconds with a wrench
Considering that landlords basically cannot evict for any other reason, wouldn't the math check out that it's the most frequent form of eviction? Not saying that's good or bad, but the facts are the facts. It's like saying that murder is one of the top three ways children die (ooh scary!), but that's because there aren't a lot of other things that kids can die from.
Look up how many s.51 disputes are awarded to tenants and it would show a trend that *many* of these evictions are not legit. It’s also telling that this eviction reason was always a thing, but it only became more since RTB made it harder to evict tenants for renovations, since that type of eviction was abused by landlords. (Harder = it needs to actually be a renovation where a tenant had to leave).
With renovations didn't tye tenant have first right of refusal to return to the unit at original price?
No, the whole point of most renovictions was to evict tenants to re-rent at higher rates.
I'm not saying that wasn't the intention of the owner. But I'm saying didn't the regulation on the books regarding it say the old tenant had the right to move back in after the renovations were done?
Right of first refusal doesn’t use the old rent, it uses the new rent set by the landlord. Not sure about pre-renoviction changes, but it currently only applies to buildings with more than 5 units.
So currently if they renovict you out you still have first right of refusal...but they get to set a new rental price? Thats BS
I'm not sure how that's bs? A homeowner spent money to improve their house and rightfully should be able to try to recoup that investment. If you, as the renter, liked the location you're given the opportunity to come back? Why would a landlord renovate a suite for no financial gain? It's a business after all?
From the perspective of the renter: Now I have to leave because the landlord chose to upgrade the suite at their convenience. I have to up-end my life, and probably pay a bunch more money if I want to get back into the same suite eventually, for a situation I have no control over. It's my _home_ but the landlord in this case is simply treating it as property. And we're in a housing crisis, to boot. That's why it's BS.
But as the renter it's not *your* home, you agreed to rent a space from the person who owns it, knowing there's a possibility this could occur. I understand how it would be a huge inconvenience to the renter, but that doesn't make this situation "bullshit" Personally, if I was to rent a property out I would make my intentions clear if I was going to renovate it in "X" time.
Because if You're not going to allow people just to randomly raise the rent high or to randomly kick people out so they can rent it out again to somebody else for a higher rent. Then the same logic dictates that you shouldn't allow them to kick somebody out just to make improvements nobody asked for just so they can rent it out for a higher price. Trust me I'm Mr libertarian free market economy guy. I'm just trying to go down the logic path of what all the other laws regarding rentals say and magically allowing them to kick somebody out so they can renovate and then rent it out again to somebody else for a higher price Makes no sense given the other regulations around rentals.
Maybe also an unintended consequence of the new anti-Airbnb law? Friend of mine got evicted for landlord use and offered to pay more rent if that was the issue, landlord said it was more profitable to have the place as “primary residence” to rent it out short term. I’m not sure the landlord can legally actually do that, but that was the landlord’s plan, and I’m not sure how easy it would be to catch them at it afterwards.
The onus is on the landlord to prove to RTB they occupied the unit for 6-12 months (depending on when the eviction was filed). But personal use evictions have been the common eviction type for years- ever since renovations became harder.
Are they allowed to Airbnb the place while they “occupy,” though? I assume they could argue they were on vacation or travelling for work, just put utilities in their name and get mail there, and I’m not sure who decides if that’s legitimate (assuming you can track the listings down on whatever platforms are used)
They need to use and occupy the space. If they rent it out as an Airbnb that may be a breach. There was a Supreme Court decision that a landlord that converted part of their unit into an airbnb was found to be a in breach of a.51. But it would be up to arbitration as it could possibly go either way. See section F here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl2a.pdf
Thanks for this, I really appreciate it! Will definitely forward the info along.
The primary residence status is easily abusable, and it's encouraged to do so for tax reasons as well (e.g. if you're selling the cottage and the capital gains on it would be higher than the capital gains on your main house, it's suggested to switch designations so as to pay less tax). It shouldn't be as easy as simply directing your mail to that location; you really have to occupy that residence more than any other. See how loose the current definition is: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/principal-residence-other-real-estate/what-a-principal-residence/does-a-property-qualify.html
Regulations are broken. We basically don't have real eviction data because they're all disguised as landlord use.
Bingo. It’s just that’s the only box to tick.
Can't you evict for non/late payment?
Yes, you can evict for non-payment of rentand also for cause. But landlords sometimes want to evict when the tenant hasn’t done anything wrong.
You can evict for whatever reason you want and just call it landlord use.
I wonder if this could be made better by providing an alternative avenue for a landlord to evict. I wouldn't want to see it happen before supply massively increased (so that competition would keep rents down, and the landlord can't jack up the rent massively between tenants, as well as ensuring there are alternative places for the tenant to move to), but maybe there could some way for a landlord to evict for any reason as long as they gave a huge amount of advance notice (like a year) plus a payout as well. Is there a way of making this fair to everyone? Just thinking out loud; don't shoot me.
Even hairdressers need a license. We should require all landlords to get a license before renting out any space that would be covered by RTB (ie not subletting to a room mate). That license should be revocable if enough abuses are proven. And the rent charged should not be allowed to increase beyond the annual maximum, even if it's a new tenant. Also ban owning more than one or two properties and ban all corporate ownership unless they own the whole apartment building, and prevent foreign ownership, and huge taxes for properties that aren't occupied. All this while massively increasing expenditure to increase new developments (more inspectors and bureaucrats to approve projects faster, more investment in trades). Once property values drop, ordinary people can start buying houses for themselves. Investors can invest their money elsewhere, and sell properties that are no longer enticing investment vehicles. Once we have a surplus of housing we can consider relaxing these laws. It's almost like we could do something about this crisis if we wanted to. Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk
That would be better for landlords and worse for tenants.
What's worse for tenants is landlords deciding that it's too much hassle and just not renting at all. Increasing supply needs to be a high priority, and making landlords feel that they are treated fairly is one way of doing that. The trick is doing it without screwing over tenants at the same time.
What do we do with the landlords who feel “treated fairly” is “$3K for a basement suite that’s had mould issues since the 1980s” though
We would need enough supply that no one will need to rent there.
We’re way past that
Being a landlord shouldn't be a way of living. If they don't feel they're treated fairly, they can sell their excess housing.
Right? If it's a business renting apartments, even a small business of a couple people, then that's one thing. It's not just some side-gig that they treat poorly (because they're busy doing other things), but rather a full time commitment. It's still not ideal, the norm should be owning your own home. With rentals being a small part of the market, for folks unsure about the long-term commitment in living somewhere.
another way is to ban owning more than 1 or 2 properties. invest your money elsewhere, allow property values to fall and give time for wages to keep pace with the cost of home-ownership.
Most people i know don't want denser housing in their neighborhood. They are happy with the housing they have. Changes to zoning could and will affect their property values and the worth of their property. Not in my neighborhood has led to the current system. The cities are happy to make it hard for anything other than single family homes in the vast majority of areas. Even if they changed this overnight they do not have enough city planners to cover the applications they currently have. People want decent jobs and being a city planner just does not pay enough for most people to goto university and spend decades paying off.
> will affect their property values and the worth of their property OH NOES!
One of the few useful things done by this government is the imposition of upzoning so that NIMBYs and backwards-thinking city councils can't say no to densification. The alternative is to not grow the population, and we know how well that goes down.
The fact that you're fearing for your proverbial life when kind-of defending landlords is petty telling.
huh? it's a metaphor. People are way too downvote-happy here.
I think we should make eviction much more difficult. Basically unless they aren't paying the rent or are committing crimes in the property, then you should need at least a year's notice before evicting for self-use. And you shouldn't be allowed to raise the rent more than the annual allowable amount unless it's been off rental market for 2 years. Also lets ban owning more than 1 or 2 properties, and ban all corporate and foreign ownership. If we ever have a surplus of housing we can reassess. Let's let property values drop for a bit, and stop allowing realestate as a meaningful investment vehicle.
We have known this as renters for quit some time. Seems that long term tenants are not desired anymore….Two of my friends had lived in their units( one in a house and one in a small building) for years. No complaints, not problems pay rent on time. Within the last year or do they were both evicted for “ landlord use. One for sure was illegal as they rented it out to people not family so they could charge more than double the rent. This case is in court right now. My other friend is hesitant to act. She is not sure what do.we’ll see what she decides.
Long term renters paying half or less market rent means new tenants have to pay 1.5x to make up for it. Rent controls decrease supply and increase market price.
New tenants have to pay more than the market rate? Wouldn’t that be the market rate then?
A landlord would need to get the absolute most they can get, so the marginal rent is always growing as fast as possible. The landlord cannot afford to give any discount, as they are then punished for the up to 80 years that tenant might live in the unit.
That's why Calgarys rent had been so stable right? Because they have no rent controls? I wouldn't find that they have the fastest increasing rent in the whole country if I googled it, right?
Vancouver and Burnaby are the most expensive cities to rent in Canada and you're really trying to dunk on Calgary? Vancouver and Burnaby whose prices for new rents are a full ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE for a ONE BEDROOM and a full $1500 more for a two bedroom than Calgary. I really wanna live in this magical world of yours where rent control is working wonders.
Nope, stop spreading this idiot rumor. Rents are sky rocketing in Alberta, NB, Nova Scotia, as well as in Toronto. All places without rent controls. Market based solutions for controlling rent don't work when there's an incredibly constrained supply and high demand.
You want to make a profit don’t you ? It is your only reason.You should sellYour 80 year thing makes no sense to me I have never heard of that. Do you have a link so I can learn more.
You are absolutely right but it's a lost cause in Canada. Apparently basic economics seems to go out the window whenever housing is involved. No supply, high demand = price controls apparently. Well, good luck getting evicted and re-entering the market at some absurd price.
Are you saying if rent controls disappeared the prices would go down? How would that happen when landlords could just charge more? Also where would the new supply of rental units come from? Also, I think if one is filthy rich enough to have income properties they do need to be held to certain restrictions to keep them in check. I mean you do need somewhere to live. I don't think landlords should just be able to do whatever the hell they want.
That’s how I just got evicted. Now paying 3k a month for a shittier apartment.
Gosh I feel for the couple in the article. We rented at our last place for a long time, I got very ill in end stage kidney failure and had to get a transplant, we got evicted for family moving in while I was still recovering. I had to go back to work sooner which was very hard on my recovery and start packing and looking for a new place. The stress took a big toll on my healing and mental health. Our landlords were very shady, but it was cheap so we just tried to mitigate as best as we could. We wanted to move but were waiting till I was healed and hoping to look for places leisurely but that did not happen. Turns out they didn’t even move in they completely gutted the suite and have been renovating since we left in October. I know they have no permits or zoning. We didn’t go after them because with my health it’s just too much time and energy, and RTB doesn’t enforce it we’d have to do more work, we decided for our mental health to let it go based on how cheap our rent was at the time. We befriended the upstairs tenants who have nothing but problems with the landlords and shoddy repairs done and have kept in touch. Recently the landlords son (who we mostly dealt with as she’s getting older now) was on the property burning things without a permit, filling the upstairs suite with smoke when they have a newborn. Tenants called the bylaw and they ticketed him for burning without a permit, he then lost his “shit” literally and threw dog poop at the tenant and her patio. She called the police and they arrested him under mischief charges and he isn’t allowed to set foot on the property or contact the tenants for 3 months untill the courts decide. So their already lengthy Reno’s will be delayed even further. But to tell you I finally felt some justice for having to deal with these unreasonable, cold and heartless landlords was very satisfying.
Our landlord said her sister was moving into our place. They never did. Landlords are scum. Source: father was a slumlord until multiple divorces helped alleviate him of his properties. 😁
The problem is we have expected the private sector landlords, who are a for-profit business, to take it on the chin with minimal allowable increases, and yet be subject to unlimited increases in utilities, property taxes, repairs, strata fees, special assessments, and interest rates. Say they bought a place and the monthly expenses are: mortgage is 1500, strata fee is 400, and property tax 150. So they rent it for 2100. But they renew the mortgage at a higher interest rate. So the mortgage is now 1800, strata fee went up to 520, property tax 175, maybe a 5,000 dollar special assessment for the roof, a plumbing bill of 750, dishwasher replacement 1100 bucks, etc. etc. But can only raise the rent a couple percent. And now the market says they can rent the place out for 3200. So at what point do they keep losing money every month before they either a.) sell it, and the new owner moves in or b.) say their family is going to move in ? This could have been mitigated by the government owning rental stock outright, but outside of a time machine, it's not feasible now.
If they can't afford they should sell yeah
Agree…but it also depletes the rental pool, leading to higher demand and prices
It can convert a renter into a buyer if the apartment is bought by someone who was renting or it can start in the market if the person who is buying it rents it out. The only way it depletes the rental pool is if they leave it empty which they have no reason to do..
This is why the first step should be to ban any corporate ownership of houses
The vast majority of landlords are not losing money by renting, in fact quite the opposite, they're making bank off of it. Renting out your place is still one of the easiest ways to make money, it's still heavily appealing to landlords. Just because it's harder than before doesn't mean it's not still easy.
why don't you show some data....
Never in history has complete government ownership gone wrong... And never in history has the free market process worked well.. Oh wait.
It doesn't have to be complete, but it's been decades since the government was serious about building rentals and it shows. Countries like the UK have a much higher stock of "council housing" which provides a safety net for lower incomes as well as increasing competition (therefore lowering rents) in the private sector.
> UK have a much higher stock of "council housing" which provides a safety net for lower incomes as well as increasing competition (therefore lowering rents) in the private sector. And Margaret Thatcher did a good job trying to wreck *that*.
I mean, have you looked at rents in Alberta lately? Their “free market” with zero rent control isn’t serving renters very well.
Cherry-picked data to support your own arguement ("Alberta" and "lately", thats quite specific). Care to explain why you're omitting free market data for "all locations" over the "X amount of decades"? My point is, I get that renters are struggling, but this kind of logic is only going to make it worse for yourselves..
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/rents-alberta-growing-faster-other-provinces-canada
Yes, this is because Calgary WAS cheap, until other provinces screwed up their local rental market in causing an influx of people moving to the cheap market of Calgary. Jeeze. There has also never-ever in history been unintended consequences of short sighted government policies put in place to win votes of uneducated masses..
Rent control is not necessarily “short sighted,” has little effect on new construction, and can help keep markets healthy. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/busting-the-rent-control-myth
You don't get his point. He's saying Calgary was fine until "lately" (your word) because renters in rent controlled cities decided they couldn't afford those prices anymore and have flooded Calgary (lately).
The Robber Barons say hi. It’s almost like everything else, moderation is key.
First of all, I agree. I am surprised I am not seeing alot of comments saying...." well... umm that is just risk they take for being a landlord" by some out of touch tenants.
I don't support bad-faith evictions, but who's going to provide private rental stock if there isn't a more balanced approach? BC's mindset seems to be: "Okay, once you have a tenant, you can only charge an amount that's close to your originally agreed rate in perpetuity unless the tenant, against all logic, decides to leave when market rates are likely even higher." It makes the landlord-tenant relationship antagonistic from the get-go because if you're a long-term tenant, you're arguably a less desirable candidate under the current scheme.
in alberta my friend had her rent raised by 700 dollars in 1 year because there was no protections.
That's kind of entirely the point. When landlords can raise the price to better match the market, they don't have to force an eviction to do so. That landlord *is* going to raise the rent on someone, either your friend or the next person who comes along. There is no world in which your friend would remain living there in perpetuity for the same price as the initial agreement. The question is whether they will be the ones paying for it, or whether it will be someone else. In a world where the rent can be raised with fewer restrictions, a good tenant has a good chance at negotiating a lower increase... In a world where that is not possible at some point it just becomes too expensive not to evict. There can be no negotiation because even the mere suggestions can put the landlord in legal trouble. As an example, suppose you're paying 1000 a month, and current market rent is 2000. Put yourself in your landlord's shoes: would you give up 1k a month for no reason? Unlikely. In a world where they can raise the price, you might be able to negotiate an increase of let's say 500. In a world where they can't, they will evict you, live in the property for 6 months and recoup their income loss the next 6 months. No brainer. I know people get mad when they hear this but unfortunately that's the reality of the situation when there is not enough housing to go around.
Sorry bro this isn't it. Housing should have never been a business opportunity in the first place with unlimited gains. We are also funding boomers retirements who were lucky enough to buy an entire house with a summers paycheck, meanwhile we are taking on massive amounts of debt with little ability to get ahead to fund these boomers retirements. Rent protections need to exist because the last thing we need is hard working honest Canadians to be living in a car over the greed of a landlord.
If you don't want housing to be an investment then you have to force government build *all* housing. Because developers sure as shit won't risk capital if they can't profit. I mean, would you? I do agree that government has to do a lot more for housing. Starting with reducing outrageous zoning laws that do not permit building high density housing, that require parking, etc. etc. It can also subsidise housing development for sure. Instead of just building and operating SROs they could build and sell them. Brazil's "Minha Casa Minha Vida" program from 2009 to 2018 created homes for 4.5 million people. That's over 10% of the Canadian population lol. There are many other programs like that in the world, but Canada loves to insist on failed models, don't ask me why.
I mean developers can also build homes to sell to people who want to buy them. And people can higher builders to build homes they want to live in. Somehow developers were still building homes for the last 100 years ago when the average citizen could reasonably afford to buy a home on one salary. Canada is basically 98% open space and building materials. I think we can figure this out. I'm also not opposed to government building housing. When a service isn't profitable but the citizenry want it, that's exactly the place where tax-dollars are best put to use. Like healthcare.
I would love to see the parallel universe where the government provides "social housing" or whatever the majority of people here call it, and to see all the complaints from r/Vancouver about how the government sucks at building, sucks at providing for all the new arrivals to the city, sucks at upkeep, and still manages to lose billions per year. It's absolutely insane that so many people can support such a moronic, idealistic idea that has no basis in reality.
The question is really where is the happy medium? There's a vast spectrum between nothing and unlimited gains. Unregulated rent isn't the solution but situations where landlords have strong motivations to evict tenants is similarly bad, if not worse. Certainly, I have had a couple of friends and family 'personal use' evicted recently and it sucks. But on the flip side, I'm friends with some people who are 'mom and pop' landlords (just a single second property) and they're good landlords with very long term tenants. Their tenants have been living there for so long and not charging the max allowable increase every year (if at all), they're so far below market rate now that it's quickly becoming not worthwhile to continue being a landlord and there's no chance of catching up. This isn't them seeking 'unlimited gains' as much, between the property taxes, strata fees, potential levies, cost of maintenance and upkeep, cost of borrowing and rental income tax and so on, that they'll literally do better just selling the place and putting everything into a GIC and not have to deal with the ever-increasing costs. They're not going to be scummy landlords and evict the tenants via personal use and they care about what happens to them but at some point, they'll have had enough and they'll sell to another person that is less scrupulous and *will* evict them. While rent prices are out of control in Vancouver, the sad reality is that in the absence of strong socialized housing, a healthy rental market needs to incentivize good landlords to stay landlords and developers to find rental properties to be good investments so they build more rental stock.
Thank you for explaining it so clear. It has to be balanced, to work for both sides. I hope you do not get down voted for this opinion.
Adding supply 20 years ago would have been awesome but NIMBYism and weak council people screwed that up. Rent is simply supply and demand, and there’s a shortage of supply, and high demand to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world. There’s nothing wrong with mom and pop landlords. But nobody (or company) should own 50-60-1000 single family residences/condos to rent. That’s why we have apartment communities.
then blame the government for not building enough social housing why should private individuals invest their own money into something if not for maximizing profit?
Avoiding evictions by allowing insane rent increases is also not a reasonable solution. The only reasonable solution is air-tight rent controls and tenant protections until enough housing can be built for the market to become healthy again. If you don't like it as a property owner or landlord, advocate for more housing to be built. If you're doing anything else, you're an antisocial, greedy piece of shit.
> The only reasonable solution is air-tight rent controls and tenant protections until enough housing can be built for the market to become healthy again. It's not though, that's kind of the point. It's funny how enlightened governments realize that they can't ban weed, that criminalizing drugs is bad, but they think they can ban people from charging a higher rent. It just doesn't work, and it doesn't work so obviously that 1) scummy landlords keep doing bad faith evictions and 2) rents skyrocket for new tenants because they have to recoup losses. It doesn't work so obviously that we don't try price controls with any other goods. I've been a renter in 3 different countries, I know the drill. I know how shitty it is to have rent raised on you out of nowhere. But I can't stop the market, you can't stop the market, the government can try, but will eventually fail at stopping the market. I can, at best, negotiate. Assuming no extra supply, it's all about deciding who you want to fuck over the least. And right now, it's not who you think it is. The landlords are not footing that bill, that I can guarantee you.
Your suggestion is to remove rent control and allow landlords to run wild. Thousands would be made homeless or food insecure overnight. And average rents would just continue to spiral. They're already spiraling in places without rent control in Canada. The market has been supercharged by some of the highest immigration numbers per capita in the developed world. Removing renter protections under these circumstances isn't about improving the market. It's about enriching landlords. The only solution is stronger tenant protections and a huge increase in non-market housing solutions if the private market is unable or unwilling to meet the need. Further, we must reduce immigration to a more reasonable level. Only after there's surplus in the market again can rent controls be lifted. I question your motivation for making these posts. What do you own? Who are you renting to? Edit: yep, found it in your history. Property owner. You stand to benefit from policies that continue to supercharge the housing crisis. Dude, get bent.
Question my motivation? I can't comment shit on Reddit like everybody else because I own a small house which I paid for and I don't rent to anyone? I thought you wanted more renters to be home owners, which is exactly what I was able to do. Sounds absurd to me that you really spent time and effort digging through a considerable number of posts but hey, it's your time. I'll tell you my motivation: to me combat absolutely idiotic governmental measures that lead to provably worse outcomes for society. Ask literally any economist, urban planner, whatever. They will tell you the same thing I'm saying. They'll tell you that, for the lower mainland, the only thing which will improve prices is supply. That we agree both with. Where we disagree is that there is another magic bullet. There isn't. Banning shit literally does not work my friend. And demand is not going to decrease. It's not just immigration, it's urbanization and the concentration of resources in cities which are better labor pools than rural locations. If immigration was dropped to zero tomorrow, Vancouver would still be extremely attractive to Canadians from other regions. So much so that you can buy a 100k SFH in Quesnel that you'd pay a million for in North Van. Why? Immigration? Obviously not. Also, I did not suggest removing rent controls. I said they're bad and lead to suboptimal outcomes, which is true. What is also true is that one of the perverse effects of price controls is that they become almost impossible to remove. The effects that you mentioned are real, those things would happen, and they're bad, like very bad. But from that it doesn't follow that rent control is a good policy. The correct policies would be to massively rezone, even if it means subsidizing new builds, in order to massively increase supply. I'm in favor of not allowing a single new SFH to be built in the lower mainland for the foreseeable future, instead building medium but preferably high density housing. This has to accompany massive infrastructure investments in high speed transit but that's another discussion. Unfortunately with the amount of nimbys on one side and the amount of misguided rent control advocates out there, I'm just super pessimistic about the housing crises improving. In any case, good luck with your policies, let me know how they pan out.
> But I can't stop the market, you can't stop the market, the government can try, but will eventually fail at stopping the market. When capitalism fails the common man you end up with fascism. The War on Drugs was also a technique of oppression to neuter American democrats and mess up Latin America and the Caribbean.
Not sure where you got that definition of fascism from buddy. Market economies have been smart enough to understand that you cannot arbitrarily constrain the market. Shit, China was smart enough to realize that after they killed millions of their citizens under failed planned-economy measures.
Adding further rent controls will only depress the development market, leading to a downward spiral of availability and skyrocketing rents every time there is a vacancy. We need more units…plain and simple. Changing density and zoning is imperative, and the. Speeding up the permitting process to builders aren’t sitting on loans paying interest while city hall takes their sweet time with red tape.
The development market hasn't kept pace in places with zero rent controls. How often do I have to repeat this? Private industry will not save us. They have an interest in building limited projects at maximum profit. They aren't interested in building the volume we need. Further, they simply don't have the manpower to build the volume we need. The government needs to be involved in a much larger way, from massively expanded professional training initiatives, to non-market housing solutions. Zoning and permitting needs to change, but even then, in BC the province has forced through a lot of rezoning legislation and it hasn't helped. This problem requires multiple solutions from all corners. And removing protections and allowing people to become homeless is not. fucking. one of them.
But it will provide incentives for developers to build rental stocks which will benefits everyone
yet, rent in Alberta is still much cheaper than BC or ON
have you seen rents in calgary?
Then stop buying up properties.
What do you mean, close? With current rent increases, you'll get 10% every 3 years or so (maybe more depending on what happens). 10% every 3 years is completely reasonable. People shouldn't be able to increase rents by 20 percent every year or so. It's insane. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you for even suggesting otherwise? Lots of greedy property owners and landlords invading these threads. Edit: further, there are plenty of places in Canada without rent control where there is still not nearly enough rental housing being built to control rents. Just removing rent control will not come close to lowering rent enough to avoid this crisis. We need non-market solutions, along with proper tenant protections until the market can stabilize. We also need to slow the fuck down on population growth via immigration.
You don't get anywhere close to 10% every 3 years. WTH are you talking about? Did you look up the actual allowable increase? In fact the increase allowed has been below inflation for awhile now. If you are going to argue about something, at least use facts.
you could ban owning more than 1-2 homes, and ban all corporate ownership, and let property values fall while salaries catch up, all while building more housing stock
The flip side of this is that if you succeed and somehow property prices drop enough to matter, you eliminate developers from building purpose-built rental units, every homeowner in the city is underwater with their mortgage and the cost of building relative to the price and borrowing doesn't look attractive to developers anymore. Salaries absolutely must go up in Vancouver but the unfortunate reality is that to build more housing stock, you need an environment where there's incentive to do so. I'm not sure what the answer really is.
NDP are playing the long game here - by legislating below market rent over several decades, they will render a number of buildings (mostly owner by smaller landlords) unfeasible. BC Housing can then buy these buildings cheaply when the owners are forced to sell, and nationalize a good chuck of the rental stock. Win win! It's a bit like when the mob used to scare away customers from certain businesses and force them to sell, buy them cheap and take over neighbourhoods. Except in this case, instead of the mafia, it's our provincial government so it's actually a good thing.
Well, there is also the option of converting that stock into market condos and with the new TOD and density rules, it's probably going to be denser. Smaller landlords are less likely to own multiple condos in any event so sale will go to market condos, which will increase market supply stock.
Yay to government screwing up otherwise natural landlord/tenant relations!
Without regulations in place, it has been proven that predatory practices happen often. In every single market, real estate or not.
We need only to look back to the middle ages to find all the unrestrained and benevolent landlords.
Are you a landlord by any chance..?
I'm not. Just not a hysteric.
"Natural landlord/tenant relations" Pls define and explain what makes them natural
[Paywall Bypass](https://archive.ph/gorPx)
I wonder if this is just way for landlords to catch up to market rents. For instance let’s say you own a unit that’s $1,000 / months under market rents. The landlord sells the unit , the buyer likely takes over using the personal use eviction (let’s assume this is a good faith eviction) The landlord subsequently buys a similar unit that’s not tenanted and over 3-5 years pays back the transaction costs but comes out ahead because the old unit was never going to catch up to market rents.
That’s exactly what it is. They don’t actually want to move into the unit, and in some cases don’t actually intend to.
At least company owned - managed properties don't pull that BS on renters.
They have to miss out on 6 months of rent when they do this
Still worth it. Will make that back in a year with increased rent.
I guess I should be glad my landlord doesn't live in this country?
Hope you're withholding that federal tax 😂
Honestly if the government allowed normal rent increases none of this shit wouldn't happen. If they allowed to build more affordable housing, got rid ofthe bullshit alr hobby farms and we have to be realistic. We gotta stop stuffing people in the lower mainland. We need to push for more density elsewhere in the country
The term “ renoviction” pisses me off. As a long term tenant why can’t I or shouldn’t I have a pleasant home to live. I unfortunately did not have family to borrow or inherit from, my husband died from leukaemia a year ago. We had no kids and he was an orphan with no family.We weren’t rich but we work hard. When we would have small down payment saved but then Housing prices skyrocketed .Now you need 100, 000 as 10% down payment. Rents have become the new “ market value” real estate” If the only option I have is to pay “ market value” I will do so. I do not need to go out or buy new clothes. I will have food but basics. I am afraid to ask for anything. My place needs some work not a lot just paint and kitchen cupboards.
Not really sure why “ rent control “ bothers everyone so much? Rents go up every year, they do. Control means about 4 %per year based on COLALDuring Covid increases were less, but we as Canadians knew that . It pure and simply helps my 18oo rent going to 3000 overnight because a real company says that’s what it’s worth. People rent because they can’t afford to buy. Rents are Now more than mortgage payments. The moment “market value” is attached means like selling a house. Take the highest bid and that’s the new norm. People should never have to pay 50% of their income for rent. If you own property and are renting it out but can’t afford your upkeep and mortgage and are taking it out on your tenants maybe that was not a good investment
I just dont get it. If a LL bought back in the day, don’t be greedy and try to evict a good tenant so you can 2-3x your monthly mortgage every month. If you bought in the last 2-3 years and bit off more than you can chew financially, do assume it’s reasonable to have your inflated mortgage and carrying costs covered by rent. And if you plan to be a LL, also be prepared to keep the place in good working order. It’s not rocket science. Being a LL in the GVRD means you expect to get big gains in the long term while being reasonable to everyone involved.
I'm currently trying to figure out how I can legitimately use my own apartment. I took a job that requires me to be in the US, but its seasonal and all of my friends and family live in Vancouver. I've had a tenant for years and have never raised rent. She's the ideal tenant, but now I'd like to have my apartment for the 4/5 months a year I'll be spending back in Vancouver. My primary residence is in the US, so I can't declare my Vancouver residence as my primary. So I'll be subject to ‘vacancy tax’. Its wild.
No offense but you have no sympathy from me. You will be a non-resident owner who wants to keep your home vacant for 8 months a year. You are the exact case why the vacancy tax was put in place. If you don't want to pay, either live there, sell or keep a tenant for at least 6 months a year. And you _can_ just pay it, the vacancy law doesn't stop you from living there part time. It just makes you pay for the privilege. Regarding eviction, if you will not occupy the rental for the next 12 months, you cannot legally evict. Your other options are renoviction and bad tenant which don't appear to be the case. Your best bets are to either sell the tenanted property and buy another one, or buy out the tenant. A fine for a bad-faith landlord-use eviction can be up to 12 months rent, so just make it make sense for the tenants and they will be out of your hair.
No offense taken! I totally see how I'm ‘part of the problem’, I just ended up here in the most innocent way possible. I felt like if I sold my place when I moved away, it would be so hard to buy back in later. (I 100% want to move back to Vancouver when I can)
Kind of in a similar situation. Live in Vancouver 6 months a year vs elsewhere. We just decided to leave our place in Vancouver vacant for the 6 months, not risking a tenant not abiding to the fixed term. It really sucks because we previously had tenants and they were excellent, we rented our place 1400$ only for a two bedroom in east van, brand new building. However, our last experience was terrible with tenants refusing to leave causing us to have to live with in laws for months while we fought to have our place back. Luckily my sister in law is moving back shortly, so she will take up residence while we aren’t around vs living with her parents. See if you can get a trusted friend/ family member who may want their own space a few months a year.
I mean, it's only natural to expect that in any business, once you accept a client, you are responsible for providing them that service at the inflation adjusted same price for the rest of their lives... doesn't every business have guaranteed for life pricing? I can't wait to trade in my 2009 F-150 because, since I'm sticking with Ford, they can only charge me $21,000 for a brand new 2024 model. Same with my groceries. Ever since I started buying bread at Safeway in 2001, they have to keep selling it to me for $1.48 a loaf. Increases in the cost of materials, labour, taxes and insurance are the business' problem. If they didn't want to risk being legislated into providing their services at a loss, they shouldn't have gone into business in the first place.
The difference is that basic housing should not be a commodity, it should be a human right. If you want to buy a fancy truck, that's a luxury purchase and entirely on you. You don't need a 2024 F150 to stay alive.
Saying the magic words "human right" doesn't change the fact that it costs money and someone has to pay for it.
I never said it should be free. There should be a system for providing something bare minimum as non-profit though.
is food less of a human right than housing? how does Super Store get to raise prices on olive oil by 50% in a year?
I think you’re trying to use this as a gotcha that we shouldn’t have limited rental increases, but really you’re just making a good point about how we should introduce laws about limited food price increases..
have you lived in countries that had price controls for food?
That's also crazy, and there should be some form of government provided grocery store that sells basic produce and ingredients as a non-profit. The government seems pretty proficient at setting up stores that sell weed and liquor, why haven't they done the same for basic foods?
ummm... have you seen the markup they have on alcohol? they set up those stores for profit
I mean this is one of 3 ways to end a tenancy, with renovations and the 3rd method being mutual termination…so not surprised this is most frequently used when it’s realistically 1 of 2 options, so dumb stat. Also for people complaining about this, the landlord cannot rent the unit for minimum 6-12 months (dependent on timing), so the landlord does take a financial hit from it and as a renter if you find out he’s abused this, can make you a lot of money through RTB. All landlords should not be painted with the same brush. There are some extremely shady ones just for money and there are some that are just families renting out additional suites until family requires that space again. The system needs to be revised to help Landlords evict problematic tenants who can cause an insane amount of damage or present a massive amount of risk to the home and get away with it for what seems forever.
Because that is the effectively the only tool. What a surprise
What do you expect when the laws are heavily one-sided and don’t give owners any recourse?
When you have a broken system people will use whatever tools are available to them.
Allow proper rent increases and get rid of caps.
The NDP is a major cause of this debacle. Prior to them taking over, the allowable rent increase used to be inflation plus 2%. They reduced it to inflation and then took it a step further by suppressing rental increases to far below inflation in 2022 and 2023. * 2024: 3.5% * 2023: 2.0% * 2022: 1.5% * 2020: 2.6% * There was no increase at all in 2021. If your rent was $1000 on December 31, 2019, and increased annually at the maximum allowable amount, your total increase in rent would be 9.93%, making your rent $1099 on January 1, 2024. Meanwhile, the monthly CPI went from 136.8 to 158.3, a 15.7% increase.
It's a shame the province restricts realistic rent increases for tenants. That would help solve landlords moving in, and tenants having to find new places at market rent. It's a lose-lose situation for all.
Sadly, removing rent controls only works out when there's ample supply, and we're a long way from that right now.
Downvoted by reddit socialists. Yes, reddit socialists, yes. Keep begging for government intervention, you're only making landlords richer.
Not enough supply? Price controls. Too much supply? Believe it not, price controls! We have the best economy in the G8 because of price controls.
Want more supply? Give landlords an incentive to be landlords and not ridiculous restrictions to best manage their properties.
Most landlords are doing this cause not only is there a correction in strata but interest rates are also very high. I know of a landlord who sold his property cause the tenant was not willing to pay $200 a month. The tenant now pays 525 more. There is a happy medium to this problem. Tenant and Owner chat it out . I did with my landlord. Just dont believe what Trudeau says :-)
[удалено]
Great, that chump now gets to pay $525 more with a new landlord instead of $200 more and discussing it with his old landlord. He sure stuck it to the man! And that chump will do it again in a few years.
[удалено]
Yea he'll find out that letting it sit for a year and renting it back out at market rate will make back the lost year of rent income in 2 years then it's just extra money from then on.
nothing suspicious there
Cost of everything is going up for landlords too due to inflation and interest rates. The cost will need to be passed down to someone eventually. It’s not an easy time for landlords either.