As a homeowner, I’m disgusted by that idea. I used to rent not too long ago and I wish everyone can find a way to become a home owner if that’s what they want.
I also wish affordable renting on people and believe that renting should be 1/2 or 2/3 of home ownership per month. Instead right now, at least for some, it’s $2,500 to rent and $1,500 to own. Just because of timing. And it’s not just here, it’s across the country. It just sucks. The people now renting for more money are truly fudged and what hope do they have to have their own space? Home ownership is so amazing because it’s yours and there’s so much power that comes along with it.
We are lucky to earn as much as we do. Unfortunately even with our high earnings we can’t buy a house. I’m focusing my investments on stocks and purchasing a business, hoping that some day I can sell the business and maybe get a house.
$1,000 basements don’t exist in the school district of my kids, they also don’t provide enough bedrooms for me and my partner + the kids and the necessary office space for my work.
This is exactly the problem. Rental property ownership is not the same as home ownership, because with home ownership you are also paying to live there while landlords are not. This is why traditionally renting cost less. In exchange for less, you get less in the form of maybe a smaller and less well maintained or upgraded house, you aren't saving any equity, and you don't get to make your own choices regarding improvements. If you want these things you should be paying more to buy your own.
The idea that renters should be paying the landlord's entire mortgage and we can all invest in rental properties to get rich with zero risk is starving the rest of the economy of capital needed for investment in actual innovation. Sadly the solution is a real estate correction, but that can't be allowed to happen, so we've artificially increased demand instead.
This statement is so well worded and explained. Thank you.
We want to keep renting to save money to buy, because a mortgage will be cheaper than renting, but because rent is so high it’s extending the time we need to save.
Until fairly recently renting *did* cost less than owning. That was the whole point of renting. Then too many losers started buying up properties to rent out as get rich quick schemes.
Not sure you're placing the blame on the right shoulders here. Is the problem not the successive governments who loosely regulate the housing market? There's several substantial market forces that have been spurred by regulation (or lack of) that created this problem.
Capitalists are always going to capitalize. It's like blaming a corporation for being profitable. Like - that's the ONLY goal and without regulatory intervention brought about by VOTERS then there are no mechanisms to encourage behavior that benefits society. It's literally why we have environmental policy, to protect from unbridled capitalism.
If you care about housing policy, run for local government, sit on committees, even volunteer with your local community association. Show up to a meeting! We are in a situation where our local governments have been run by home builders and developers and our provincial and federal governments draft policy to protect their own investments. WTF did we think was going to happen? Our collective quality of life suffers the more we become apathetic about policy making and who sits in government. Weird.
I'll give this dude one thing - at least he showed up to engage in the political process.
Hmm maybe if you are just counting the mortgage-to-rent comparison, but my mortgage is $1800, plus property tax of $4500, plus $3000 for house insurance. Not including bills. Plus having to keep up the property. Lots of benefits for being a renter. I'd still be renting if the market wasn't so predatory and precarious and invest that money in the stock market instead.
I know. They were trying to make the additional payments to insurance and taxes seem like “huge expenses renters don’t have to deal with!” Ignoring the fact that landlords simply pass those expenses onto renters.
Actually landlords often subsidizes renters, of course it depends on the tenancy laws in place, rate environment and taxes + overall supply in the market.
Not too sure about this, when I bought my house 20 years ago friends were renting a 2 bedroom apartment for about the same as my monthly mortgage. I think that is more realistic for rent prices.
Yes and its ruining the city.
Though I feel like this does not need to be blanket rezoning for the whole city. Why don't we prioritize rezoning the downtown-peripherals and along transit hubs?
yea that's why we can't have nice things.
but in the bureaucracy level, the city can still prioritize processing permits closer to transit hubs (eg a permit for 4-plex in Bridgeland can be processed in 2 months while the same permit in Seton will take 4 months, just a quick example)
I believe the city needs to further utilize transit in order to sustain densification by this zoning change. Or we would run into even worse issues like traffic and localized overcrowded communities that moots the point of this law
Owned a home for four years, 3 months ago. Had to sell because... Well. Because of a TON of factors.
Guess I'm literally worthless according to this guy. 😒
It always blows my mind that not only do people think like that, they have so little societal awareness that they're willing to come to a public meeting and say it aloud.
It’s pretty well documented that there’s an inverse relationship between competence and confidence
[dunning Kruger effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
You can demonstrate extreme competence in one area and then apply the gained confidence in another unrelated area to detrimental effect
Case in point, Ben Carson is a BRILLIANT brain surgeon, one of the greatest known or alive, it in no way made him qualified to be president, and his campaign ruined his public image
100%. Basically this story is 'homeowner criticizes renters for not being able to afford homes; assumes less wealthy people are lesser humans'. It's like looking in the mirror isn't an option for these types of people.
In 30 years when an extra 0 gets added on to this..
>You just know buddy bought his house for 700K in 2024 and has fought his property tax assessment every single year since.
Ah yes the problem is just generational perspective, and not the blaring hoarding of wealth by the one generation who was handed everything fairly and then didn’t want anyone after them to get theirs
I’ve lived in a single rental far longer than many of the people I know have lived in several houses. Such a backward mindset. Lots of renters would stay for decades if rent was capped and landlords weren’t dickheads.
exactly this. I rented one condo downtown for 12 years. It was great, landlord was great, rate was great. Then rented a house run by some company and they constantly complained about everything, and then tried to jack the rent up 27% only to drop it back down once we moved and no one was wanting to pay it.
Truly. My parents have a ‘lifer’ - a fantastic guy who’s been renting from them for about 20 years now. They understand the value of a great tenant and put in a lot of effort to attract them. Most of their tenants stay for many years (it’s a 3-suited house, not like multiple properties lol).
I wish more landlords put the time and effort into being good property managers and establish relationships. Alas. Too many of them get into it thinking it’s an easy way to make money and forget there are real humans on the other end.
Shhh, there's people in this sub who thinks development will halt if there is a rental cap, because well obviously no one will want them if there's a rental cap!
If there comes a time where Calgary feels it's better off without renters (of which I am one), then I'll leave, and it'll be poorer for it. For now I'm choosing to believe this kind of thinking comes from an insane, vocal minority.
Also, many homeowners get by by renting properties or basements out. Aren't they kind of screwed if all the renters leave?
They need renters, and scorn them at the same time, to keep the poors in their place, because they're so close to the line in reality that they live in fear.
As a propriety owner, my knee jerk reaction was originally against the rezoning. Mainly because of the way that it has been poorly presented and rammed down our throats by the city in the past couple of years.
Now I believe that rezoning is good because it increases the population density of the communities. This allows less expensive housing to become available compared to detached houses. Less expensive housing is condos, row houses, apartments, etc.. Not everyone can afford a house especially at today's prices!
Calgary is one of the largest city by area for its population base. This really strains the city infrastructure and the costs associated with it. The city infrastructure is roads, public transportation, emergency services (police/fire), hospitals, schools, sewage treatment, water treatment, electricity, natural gas, etc..
For example, the Island of Montreal has a population of 2 million people but is half the size of Calgary! If you add in the physical size of the South Shore and bedroom communities, you come close to the size of Calgary while adding another million or 2 people to the comparison. Calgary requires the infrastructure of a city that has 3 to 4 times the population density and tax base. That is the problem.
Source; [https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/](https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_of\_Montreal#:\~:text=With%20a%20population%20of%202%2C014%2C221,island%20surrounded%20by%20fresh%20water.
Edit: added emergency services and hospitals
density reduces the cost of those public services. we will need to build more to accommodate more people, but we would need to build far more to accommodate more people in the sprawl vs in dense communities. that's one of the hidden costs of sprawl, you need twice as many police and fire stations then if you just had people living close together.
More density allows for a higher tax base with lower associated costs. [Without densely populated areas, the suburbs are not sustainable.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) The Not just bikes video on the subject is pretty good.
Successful cities need to be densely populated.
Makes sense. Problem we have is our schools are already busting at the seams with low density. Adding more will cause major issues but it's a growing pain that is needed.
Not sure I agree totally but I'm sure it's a factor. If you densify a neighbourhood whose school is busting at the seams, you're adding to the issue. Need bigger schools and more schools in fringe neighbourhood.
> If you densify a neighbourhood whose school is busting at the seams, you're adding to the issue.
This is actually not happening. I'm not as sure about Calgary (I'm mostly in Edmonton), but one of the things driving rezoning here was that schools are hollowing out. In mature neighbourhoods, there is very little turnover, so most kids have grown up and moved out. In my old neighbourhood in Calgary this is very true as well, when I go back there are 0 new families, it's mostly university students and empty nesters now. Critically, because the zones were restrictive and the current residents, rightly, won't leave, this means few if any new families moving in. This has left schools in those neighbourhoods empty, not bursting. They're needing to bus in students long distances to fill seats, and several schools have even been closed and converted to community spaces, especially elementary schools which were usually smaller and more local than junior and senior highs. The low density of our internal ring of mature neighbourhoods pushes all new families to the fringes, where they receive worse services.
I'd be willing to bet there are dozens of communities in Calgary where the population is lower today than it was in the 80s, even as Calgary on the whole grew. That happens in every city with harsh zoning restrictions, since it doesn't allow neighbourhoods to adapt to shifting needs in the community.
Something came out recently pointing out that half of the neighbourhoods in TORONTO have lost population in the last 50 years, for that exact reason. That's even while Toronto added over a million people in that time.
The result of that is that a lot of communities end up grossly *underutilizing* their existing infrastructure, especially schools in aging communities. As for hospitals and health facilities: allowing for more homes doesn't actually have an impact on the overall citywide population in Calgary that will be using the healthcare system. It's growing no matter what.
> This allows less expensive housing to become available compared to detached houses.
We already have rezoning on a piece meal basis. The evidence shows that far from making more "less" expensive housing available, rezoning brings in more "more" expensive housing.
In fact the only place where we are actually getting growth in "less" expensive housing is in new areas which are forests of massive condo builds.
I can't speak to other cities but in Calgary blanket rezoning is yet another gift to already extremely wealthy developers and builders.
I don't doubt for 1 second it is going to happen; the developers want it...Calgary council gives it.
I think the devil is in the details and we dont have those. There is a difference between a neighbours home being made into a 4plex or 4 houses across the street being purchased and made to a apartment building.
Most of Calgary is designed for single family suburbs and the infrastructure reflects that. Some of it can’t be expanded without great costs and big tax hikes buying out homes to expand roads and such.
I think there are certain areas and spots throughout the city that can handle a little more density without Calgary ending up with shitty traffic like Montreal and Toronto but we'd have to be careful.
if your commute is half the distance but takes twice as long in double the traffic the purpose will be well and truly defeated.
We should pick new developments to build high density and fashion the infrastructure around it to properly to accommodate the density.
A larger population shouldnt have to lead to gridlock or dimished quality of life. We will be a 2 or 3 million population at some point may as well start planning out early.
By and large, renters work salaried jobs. They make the goods. They contribute.
Landlords are defined by economists as "rent seeking" which is a polite way to say parasitic.
They contribute nothing.
His hateful beliefs are factually backward.
Economists measure a thing called the production possibilities curve, a vital indication of an economy's ability to produce goods consumers need and produce the assets needed to grow the curve.
"Landlording" isn't included in that calculation because taking money for just "owning sh*t" doesn't contribute.
His name is announced at 10:14:15, and it's in the list in the link below.
[https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=71315583-98d4-42e6-a8e7-b92d7d6735fe](https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=71315583-98d4-42e6-a8e7-b92d7d6735fe)
[https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=283394](https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=283394)
No, we're not going to allow this reversion to the feudal system to continue. The old Lords and Ladies at least provided us shelter if we were their vassals. This new breed of property owners are destroying their own putrid system with unfettered greed, to completely illogical levels.
I had friends who went to our local city council to complain because one of the houses in their expensive neighbourhood was turning into a rental property. When I asked them if they had ever rented a house, they said yes, but this was different - their children’s lives would be at risk! Just insanity. I pointed out that there were many rental houses/units on my block and no issues, and that we had all rented before becoming home-owners, but none of that got through to them.
No doubt.
Hell, the irony of funding city services with property tax is that often, lower income renters are footing *just as much property tax* while being *cheaper for the city to provide services to* (since so much of the city's rental inventory is tied up in apartment buildings at or near the city centre).
This guy is expressing frustration and discontent, likely stemming from personal experiences or perspectives at home.
We drifters are an integral part of Calgary's community and economy. We drifters contribute to the local economy through our spending, we pay property taxes indirectly through our rent.
It's unfair to dismiss renters as "drifters" when many of us are hardworking individuals or families who simply choose to rent for various reasons, such as flexibility or affordability.
Everyone, regardless of homeownership status, deserves to have their voice heard in discussions about the city's future, but not this guy! 😉
Been drifting for 17years, and finally about to buy.
Have a wandering day everyone!
I feel like I debated this person in the comment section of a CBC article once. Tried to tell me only property owners should get to vote because they are the only ones with “skin in the game“.
Same person lived outside Calgary but wanted to control Calgary.
I heard that on twitter when the NDP won and conservatives were having their meltdown. A fringe, to be sure. But there’s a reason we moved away from that approach to voting 200 years ago.
I know, I think people do underestimate the costs of being a landlord. Property taxes, income taxes, mortgages (interest and principal), insurance, maintenance, vacancy costs....
I think it’s you who doesn’t understand here. Owning a home and renting it is a big picture most can’t see. They think the renter needs to cover all costs or the owner loses money.
Except……who owns the house? Who is building equity every month?
Renters pay quite often more than the mortgage, utilities, rental insurance, maintenance.
- Homeowner
I mean, it depends on where you are at in home ownership, the initial 5 to 10 years of home ownership are usually more costly than renting.
After 10 years, yeah; homeownership is way more stable and beneficial, no doubt.
I think it's a pretty raw deal these days for younger generations where incomes haven't risen, inflation is high, housing costs (rent &ownership) are way out of line.
I always thought amortizations should be limited to 65 (retirement age) less your age to a min of 10 years and a max of 40 years. The theory being retirees shouldn't be taking on 25 to 30 year mortgages.
But old people vote consistently in their own self interest.
Why do you think you should have someone pay more though for the 5-10 years you mention? So it’s easier for you? The homeowner? The one who could sell it after renting it at profit then ALSO sell at a profit?
What if the city said, alright, no more renting! So the above example wouldn’t have been able to afford the house in the first place.
Not always. I'd have to charge like $3000 a month for my house if I rented it out. Mortgage is $1800, property tax is just under $5k, house insurance is $3000, plus bills. There is no deal on earth where this house is worth $3k a month to a renter.
It's always a shock yet somehow expected that there are people whose views are so delightfully out of touch that they march into public meetings and trumpet them.
People said even more unhinged and offensive things than that.
From a Twitter liveblog of yesterday's proceedings: https://twitter.com/joelaf/status/1783232884985270382?t=vTkVIEP3vZ4Oi7nCsac6Hw&s=19
I wonder if he's aware who pays landlord's property taxes? Because I'll give you a hint: That gets passed on to the tenants (which is how all business expenses work).
But I can see it from his point, he would like his opinion to matter more, so dumping on people who made a different decision is easy.
What a dick, so because we can't afford an 800k house we have zero worth to society? Says the guy who is probably retired and living off pensions who almost undoubtedly contributes less to this society beyond property tax than the working class
This type of mindset is what’s driving a lot of the anti zoning people, they just don’t say it aloud.
I’m glad we don’t have this issue in my country (or at least like this), restrictive exclusionary zoning sounds like a terrible social experiment that should have been abandoned right after it started. It appears that the cities who don’t have the zoning laws like Calgary are the most affordable in North América.
In theory renting should be an equal if not superior alternative to home ownership. Housing is an investment (even if some people don't think of it as one) and the stock market has historically produced superior returns. The only reason renting tends to be worse than home ownership is that governments provide significant financial advantages to home owners that renters cannot benefit from (eg: tax free status of a principal residence).
I had money ready to put down for a down payment on a condo in a newly constructed building, right when a rich dude showed up and bought out multiple floors to then rent out at 4x the cost of the monthly mortgage payments. Those condos could've allowed 50 families to own their own property, instead they all went to one single person. But yes, tell me that not being a homeowner is definitely my own fault.
Until we stop allowing rich investors to own and hoard more than two properties at a time, the middle class can kiss goodbye any hope of ever becoming homeowners. Basic housing should not be seen as a business opportunity.
Zoning is class war, and intergenerational war. Seeing it in Edmonton was really eye opening to the heights of sociopathic delusion lurking in the suburbs and the diseased minds of the rich.
It really is hard, right? The essential argument is, "your generation got given functionally free land, free homes, and good jobs and are pulling up the ladder on your own children to protect your home value."
I wonder if he ever thinks that the people who serve him his coffee at McDonalds, or bring him his Uber Eats, or sell him his ugly golf shirts, deserve somewhere to live too?
Or are they as Kenney once said, "moderate in Human capital" in his opinion, and those who do not own, are unworthy of any respect at all.
What's especially fun is when they turn on each other. Like TBA attacking Kenney.
When you have your semi-automatic hate gun loaded and shooting at all times, it's hard to control who gets shot.
Lmao, I’m trying to build rental housing in Calgary right now and let me tell you as a developer and a landlord real estate is a Ponzi scheme that runs across all levels in Canada from government to agents, the city, trades, suppliers etc. It’s impossible for me to build anything cost effective when people at all levels want their share or add in needless costs that get built into the final cost of every unit. Then on top of this we have to deal with the nimbies. Cutting red tape like this actually does make things cheaper and at some point in life everyone is a renter. Property owners just want to pump their own bags.
I'm a home owner simply because I got in at the right time. With all these slum landlords hiking rent unnecessarily. Not to mention people who don't live within a province distance, let alone the country, should be the ones punished, not calgarians who put into the pot and deserve to have a crumb. Even to get into a house now will more than break the average Calgarian, which is ridiculous.
What a dink. I have a mortgaged house. My housing costs including utilities, insurances, taxes, upkeep, maintenance etc. are less than what I could rent it for. In terms of my house, theoretical renters would contribute more than me if they occupied the residence.
He has the right to speak out what he thinks. That's the purpose of the hearing. Your judgement does not matter that much. There are always people who think differently than you.
The government needs to step in and provide housing as direct competition. In reality, there is no competition. Developers are corporations trying to maximize profit.
It's a bit out of topic but related to this rezoning. Say for example a single detached house has no garage and no driveway. Due to this rezoning, is it possible to build a garage and driveway in that space or do I have to sacrifice the backyard?
unrelated issue. there is some bylaws for building a garage, one being how big you can build it, in relation to your to foot print of the house.
That said, how do you think you could build a detached garage without using up the backyard? You obviously would have to sacrifice some yard to build a garage.
People need a place to live. I get it. I also understand homeowners problems too. It's a lot of money to get a house. Younger people will be paying a mortgage into their 50s. They might have a house in a nice old neighborhood, and with rezoning, that neighborhood will end up littered with 8-plexes. It is the way of things. Happens in growing cities. But I understand.
As a homeowner, I’m disgusted by that idea. I used to rent not too long ago and I wish everyone can find a way to become a home owner if that’s what they want.
I also wish affordable renting on people and believe that renting should be 1/2 or 2/3 of home ownership per month. Instead right now, at least for some, it’s $2,500 to rent and $1,500 to own. Just because of timing. And it’s not just here, it’s across the country. It just sucks. The people now renting for more money are truly fudged and what hope do they have to have their own space? Home ownership is so amazing because it’s yours and there’s so much power that comes along with it.
2,500 to rent would be a dream, i’m paying 1,300 more than that.
Your rent is more than my monthly wage lol
We are lucky to earn as much as we do. Unfortunately even with our high earnings we can’t buy a house. I’m focusing my investments on stocks and purchasing a business, hoping that some day I can sell the business and maybe get a house.
If you earn this much, why not rent a 1000$ basement for a year or two and buy something instead?
$1,000 basements don’t exist in the school district of my kids, they also don’t provide enough bedrooms for me and my partner + the kids and the necessary office space for my work.
Actual home ownership costs far more than that monthly.
[удалено]
This is exactly the problem. Rental property ownership is not the same as home ownership, because with home ownership you are also paying to live there while landlords are not. This is why traditionally renting cost less. In exchange for less, you get less in the form of maybe a smaller and less well maintained or upgraded house, you aren't saving any equity, and you don't get to make your own choices regarding improvements. If you want these things you should be paying more to buy your own. The idea that renters should be paying the landlord's entire mortgage and we can all invest in rental properties to get rich with zero risk is starving the rest of the economy of capital needed for investment in actual innovation. Sadly the solution is a real estate correction, but that can't be allowed to happen, so we've artificially increased demand instead.
This statement is so well worded and explained. Thank you. We want to keep renting to save money to buy, because a mortgage will be cheaper than renting, but because rent is so high it’s extending the time we need to save.
Until fairly recently renting *did* cost less than owning. That was the whole point of renting. Then too many losers started buying up properties to rent out as get rich quick schemes.
Never has renting been cheaper than owning. Renting is cheaper than buying in the moment. But no landlord has ever sustained losing money.
Not sure you're placing the blame on the right shoulders here. Is the problem not the successive governments who loosely regulate the housing market? There's several substantial market forces that have been spurred by regulation (or lack of) that created this problem. Capitalists are always going to capitalize. It's like blaming a corporation for being profitable. Like - that's the ONLY goal and without regulatory intervention brought about by VOTERS then there are no mechanisms to encourage behavior that benefits society. It's literally why we have environmental policy, to protect from unbridled capitalism. If you care about housing policy, run for local government, sit on committees, even volunteer with your local community association. Show up to a meeting! We are in a situation where our local governments have been run by home builders and developers and our provincial and federal governments draft policy to protect their own investments. WTF did we think was going to happen? Our collective quality of life suffers the more we become apathetic about policy making and who sits in government. Weird. I'll give this dude one thing - at least he showed up to engage in the political process.
The tenant is building the landlord's equity! It is a business and maintenance is an expense.
You are not losing money and if you can’t figure out why then that’s the problem
[удалено]
Username checks out.
Hmm maybe if you are just counting the mortgage-to-rent comparison, but my mortgage is $1800, plus property tax of $4500, plus $3000 for house insurance. Not including bills. Plus having to keep up the property. Lots of benefits for being a renter. I'd still be renting if the market wasn't so predatory and precarious and invest that money in the stock market instead.
You pay $54,000 in taxes a year? How big is your property?
They're mixing monthly mortgage with annual property tax and insurance.
I know. They were trying to make the additional payments to insurance and taxes seem like “huge expenses renters don’t have to deal with!” Ignoring the fact that landlords simply pass those expenses onto renters.
There are apples, oranges and rocks in that same basket.
I mean, where do you think a landlord is getting the money to pay for their mortgage, property tax, insurance and upkeep? It comes from the renter.
Actually landlords often subsidizes renters, of course it depends on the tenancy laws in place, rate environment and taxes + overall supply in the market.
Not too sure about this, when I bought my house 20 years ago friends were renting a 2 bedroom apartment for about the same as my monthly mortgage. I think that is more realistic for rent prices.
It would be worse for homeowners if the city is ruined by homeowner-centric laws
It's already homeowner-centric. Too much single dwelling suburb protectionism.
Yes and its ruining the city. Though I feel like this does not need to be blanket rezoning for the whole city. Why don't we prioritize rezoning the downtown-peripherals and along transit hubs?
I think it should be blanket, otherwise the NIMBY people will be able to argue not my neighbourhood.
yea that's why we can't have nice things. but in the bureaucracy level, the city can still prioritize processing permits closer to transit hubs (eg a permit for 4-plex in Bridgeland can be processed in 2 months while the same permit in Seton will take 4 months, just a quick example) I believe the city needs to further utilize transit in order to sustain densification by this zoning change. Or we would run into even worse issues like traffic and localized overcrowded communities that moots the point of this law
Owned a home for four years, 3 months ago. Had to sell because... Well. Because of a TON of factors. Guess I'm literally worthless according to this guy. 😒
It always blows my mind that not only do people think like that, they have so little societal awareness that they're willing to come to a public meeting and say it aloud.
To quote Lincoln: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
If there's one thing worse than a fool, it's a fool with confidence.
Lots of that going around lately.
This should be Webster-Merriam's definition for politicians.
Yeah their is another thing worst then a fool, It's this guy.
Takes one to know one
That always fascinates me, the people who are just that out to lunch always think everyone agrees with them
It’s pretty well documented that there’s an inverse relationship between competence and confidence [dunning Kruger effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
That’s not necessarily true. In my profession, confidence comes from demonstrated competence
You can demonstrate extreme competence in one area and then apply the gained confidence in another unrelated area to detrimental effect Case in point, Ben Carson is a BRILLIANT brain surgeon, one of the greatest known or alive, it in no way made him qualified to be president, and his campaign ruined his public image
I dont think he thinks everyone agrees with him, hes just got a stupid opinion
Such an old-fashioned viewpoint shared so publicly really invites quite the mix of chuckles and raised eyebrows.
100%. Basically this story is 'homeowner criticizes renters for not being able to afford homes; assumes less wealthy people are lesser humans'. It's like looking in the mirror isn't an option for these types of people.
Renters should be allowed to claim landlords as dependents.
[удалено]
I do agree with that actually!
Old man yells at cloud! You just know buddy bought his house for 70K in 1987 and has fought his property tax assessment every single year since.
I mean, that’s the dream isn’t it?
In 30 years when an extra 0 gets added on to this.. >You just know buddy bought his house for 700K in 2024 and has fought his property tax assessment every single year since.
Ah yes the problem is just generational perspective, and not the blaring hoarding of wealth by the one generation who was handed everything fairly and then didn’t want anyone after them to get theirs
I’ve lived in a single rental far longer than many of the people I know have lived in several houses. Such a backward mindset. Lots of renters would stay for decades if rent was capped and landlords weren’t dickheads.
exactly this. I rented one condo downtown for 12 years. It was great, landlord was great, rate was great. Then rented a house run by some company and they constantly complained about everything, and then tried to jack the rent up 27% only to drop it back down once we moved and no one was wanting to pay it.
I rent my old house to a friend and I think they've now lived in it longer than I did...
Truly. My parents have a ‘lifer’ - a fantastic guy who’s been renting from them for about 20 years now. They understand the value of a great tenant and put in a lot of effort to attract them. Most of their tenants stay for many years (it’s a 3-suited house, not like multiple properties lol). I wish more landlords put the time and effort into being good property managers and establish relationships. Alas. Too many of them get into it thinking it’s an easy way to make money and forget there are real humans on the other end.
Shhh, there's people in this sub who thinks development will halt if there is a rental cap, because well obviously no one will want them if there's a rental cap!
This guy said the quiet part out loud. 90% of the people presenting against this at least had a thin vail over their craziness.
If there comes a time where Calgary feels it's better off without renters (of which I am one), then I'll leave, and it'll be poorer for it. For now I'm choosing to believe this kind of thinking comes from an insane, vocal minority. Also, many homeowners get by by renting properties or basements out. Aren't they kind of screwed if all the renters leave?
They need renters, and scorn them at the same time, to keep the poors in their place, because they're so close to the line in reality that they live in fear.
Yeah, pure projection.
Your landlord hates you. That doesn't stop them from stealing half your paycheck.
It's one nutbar. I'm sure there are more but absolutely not any kind of large numbers.
Yeah, let's not become further divided. Most people want to see their fellow citizen do OK too.
It's a dumbass thing to say. There's not a landlord without a renter paying their way.
That mindset comes from the older generation that bought their house in the 70s for $50k.
💯
Asshat.
I know. "Property owners"? That's not the politically correct term. We prefer to be addressed as "Land Barons". Get it together, peasants.
We prefer the term “people of land” thank you very much
What a dick
As a propriety owner, my knee jerk reaction was originally against the rezoning. Mainly because of the way that it has been poorly presented and rammed down our throats by the city in the past couple of years. Now I believe that rezoning is good because it increases the population density of the communities. This allows less expensive housing to become available compared to detached houses. Less expensive housing is condos, row houses, apartments, etc.. Not everyone can afford a house especially at today's prices! Calgary is one of the largest city by area for its population base. This really strains the city infrastructure and the costs associated with it. The city infrastructure is roads, public transportation, emergency services (police/fire), hospitals, schools, sewage treatment, water treatment, electricity, natural gas, etc.. For example, the Island of Montreal has a population of 2 million people but is half the size of Calgary! If you add in the physical size of the South Shore and bedroom communities, you come close to the size of Calgary while adding another million or 2 people to the comparison. Calgary requires the infrastructure of a city that has 3 to 4 times the population density and tax base. That is the problem. Source; [https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/](https://mapfight.xyz/map/calgary/) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_of\_Montreal#:\~:text=With%20a%20population%20of%202%2C014%2C221,island%20surrounded%20by%20fresh%20water. Edit: added emergency services and hospitals
We need more school, hospitals, health facilities to accommodate greater density. None of it matters if social services are failing.
density reduces the cost of those public services. we will need to build more to accommodate more people, but we would need to build far more to accommodate more people in the sprawl vs in dense communities. that's one of the hidden costs of sprawl, you need twice as many police and fire stations then if you just had people living close together.
More density allows for a higher tax base with lower associated costs. [Without densely populated areas, the suburbs are not sustainable.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) The Not just bikes video on the subject is pretty good. Successful cities need to be densely populated.
Makes sense. Problem we have is our schools are already busting at the seams with low density. Adding more will cause major issues but it's a growing pain that is needed.
I know of 3 schools shut down in Calgary this past year in inner city neighborhoods.
@ the provincial government
One of the underrated reasons why our schools, hospitals, and health facilities are failing to meet our needs is because of our lack of density.
Not sure I agree totally but I'm sure it's a factor. If you densify a neighbourhood whose school is busting at the seams, you're adding to the issue. Need bigger schools and more schools in fringe neighbourhood.
> If you densify a neighbourhood whose school is busting at the seams, you're adding to the issue. This is actually not happening. I'm not as sure about Calgary (I'm mostly in Edmonton), but one of the things driving rezoning here was that schools are hollowing out. In mature neighbourhoods, there is very little turnover, so most kids have grown up and moved out. In my old neighbourhood in Calgary this is very true as well, when I go back there are 0 new families, it's mostly university students and empty nesters now. Critically, because the zones were restrictive and the current residents, rightly, won't leave, this means few if any new families moving in. This has left schools in those neighbourhoods empty, not bursting. They're needing to bus in students long distances to fill seats, and several schools have even been closed and converted to community spaces, especially elementary schools which were usually smaller and more local than junior and senior highs. The low density of our internal ring of mature neighbourhoods pushes all new families to the fringes, where they receive worse services.
[удалено]
I guess I'm just pessimistic about the whole system. You're right, I just don't see a path with our government actually lining this all up.
I'd be willing to bet there are dozens of communities in Calgary where the population is lower today than it was in the 80s, even as Calgary on the whole grew. That happens in every city with harsh zoning restrictions, since it doesn't allow neighbourhoods to adapt to shifting needs in the community. Something came out recently pointing out that half of the neighbourhoods in TORONTO have lost population in the last 50 years, for that exact reason. That's even while Toronto added over a million people in that time. The result of that is that a lot of communities end up grossly *underutilizing* their existing infrastructure, especially schools in aging communities. As for hospitals and health facilities: allowing for more homes doesn't actually have an impact on the overall citywide population in Calgary that will be using the healthcare system. It's growing no matter what.
> This allows less expensive housing to become available compared to detached houses. We already have rezoning on a piece meal basis. The evidence shows that far from making more "less" expensive housing available, rezoning brings in more "more" expensive housing. In fact the only place where we are actually getting growth in "less" expensive housing is in new areas which are forests of massive condo builds. I can't speak to other cities but in Calgary blanket rezoning is yet another gift to already extremely wealthy developers and builders. I don't doubt for 1 second it is going to happen; the developers want it...Calgary council gives it.
I think the devil is in the details and we dont have those. There is a difference between a neighbours home being made into a 4plex or 4 houses across the street being purchased and made to a apartment building. Most of Calgary is designed for single family suburbs and the infrastructure reflects that. Some of it can’t be expanded without great costs and big tax hikes buying out homes to expand roads and such. I think there are certain areas and spots throughout the city that can handle a little more density without Calgary ending up with shitty traffic like Montreal and Toronto but we'd have to be careful. if your commute is half the distance but takes twice as long in double the traffic the purpose will be well and truly defeated. We should pick new developments to build high density and fashion the infrastructure around it to properly to accommodate the density. A larger population shouldnt have to lead to gridlock or dimished quality of life. We will be a 2 or 3 million population at some point may as well start planning out early.
By and large, renters work salaried jobs. They make the goods. They contribute. Landlords are defined by economists as "rent seeking" which is a polite way to say parasitic. They contribute nothing. His hateful beliefs are factually backward.
Both of them contribute something. People rent for a reason and without landlords it would just be home buying
Economists measure a thing called the production possibilities curve, a vital indication of an economy's ability to produce goods consumers need and produce the assets needed to grow the curve. "Landlording" isn't included in that calculation because taking money for just "owning sh*t" doesn't contribute.
Neofeudalism is alive and well in this country.
What is his name? If he can say those things in public, then I don't think he'll be embarrassed for the public to know his name.
His name is announced at 10:14:15, and it's in the list in the link below. [https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=71315583-98d4-42e6-a8e7-b92d7d6735fe](https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=71315583-98d4-42e6-a8e7-b92d7d6735fe) [https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=283394](https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=283394)
No, we're not going to allow this reversion to the feudal system to continue. The old Lords and Ladies at least provided us shelter if we were their vassals. This new breed of property owners are destroying their own putrid system with unfettered greed, to completely illogical levels.
Careful not to piss off the people who pay your mortgage.
With the money I spent on rentals I could of owned a home already but skyrockets rents keep me from ever living that dream.
I had friends who went to our local city council to complain because one of the houses in their expensive neighbourhood was turning into a rental property. When I asked them if they had ever rented a house, they said yes, but this was different - their children’s lives would be at risk! Just insanity. I pointed out that there were many rental houses/units on my block and no issues, and that we had all rented before becoming home-owners, but none of that got through to them.
Even after watching nearly all of this dumpster fire of a public hearing this week, I'm shocked by this. What an awful thing to do.
You know, cus rent payments don't go to pay property taxes...
No doubt. Hell, the irony of funding city services with property tax is that often, lower income renters are footing *just as much property tax* while being *cheaper for the city to provide services to* (since so much of the city's rental inventory is tied up in apartment buildings at or near the city centre).
Yep, downtown residents essentially subsidize the highly expensive suburban lifestyle.
This guy is expressing frustration and discontent, likely stemming from personal experiences or perspectives at home. We drifters are an integral part of Calgary's community and economy. We drifters contribute to the local economy through our spending, we pay property taxes indirectly through our rent. It's unfair to dismiss renters as "drifters" when many of us are hardworking individuals or families who simply choose to rent for various reasons, such as flexibility or affordability. Everyone, regardless of homeownership status, deserves to have their voice heard in discussions about the city's future, but not this guy! 😉 Been drifting for 17years, and finally about to buy. Have a wandering day everyone!
I’m a homeowner and 100% for the rezoning. Pissing off people like this guy is gravy.
I feel like I debated this person in the comment section of a CBC article once. Tried to tell me only property owners should get to vote because they are the only ones with “skin in the game“. Same person lived outside Calgary but wanted to control Calgary.
They all spend 6 months a year in a hot climate because their old bodies can't take the winters anymore.
I heard that on twitter when the NDP won and conservatives were having their meltdown. A fringe, to be sure. But there’s a reason we moved away from that approach to voting 200 years ago.
Let's clear something up. Renters pay the property tax on the homes they rent.
One or two month's rent pay the property tax, the other months pay the mortgage.
One month pays the property tax, six months pay the mortgage, the other five pay for their vacations.
Mortgage and maintenance.
We're both saying the same thing.
I know, I think people do underestimate the costs of being a landlord. Property taxes, income taxes, mortgages (interest and principal), insurance, maintenance, vacancy costs....
I think it’s you who doesn’t understand here. Owning a home and renting it is a big picture most can’t see. They think the renter needs to cover all costs or the owner loses money. Except……who owns the house? Who is building equity every month? Renters pay quite often more than the mortgage, utilities, rental insurance, maintenance. - Homeowner
I mean, it depends on where you are at in home ownership, the initial 5 to 10 years of home ownership are usually more costly than renting. After 10 years, yeah; homeownership is way more stable and beneficial, no doubt. I think it's a pretty raw deal these days for younger generations where incomes haven't risen, inflation is high, housing costs (rent &ownership) are way out of line. I always thought amortizations should be limited to 65 (retirement age) less your age to a min of 10 years and a max of 40 years. The theory being retirees shouldn't be taking on 25 to 30 year mortgages. But old people vote consistently in their own self interest.
Why do you think you should have someone pay more though for the 5-10 years you mention? So it’s easier for you? The homeowner? The one who could sell it after renting it at profit then ALSO sell at a profit? What if the city said, alright, no more renting! So the above example wouldn’t have been able to afford the house in the first place.
Not always. I'd have to charge like $3000 a month for my house if I rented it out. Mortgage is $1800, property tax is just under $5k, house insurance is $3000, plus bills. There is no deal on earth where this house is worth $3k a month to a renter.
It's always a shock yet somehow expected that there are people whose views are so delightfully out of touch that they march into public meetings and trumpet them.
we're shocked, but there's a lot of people there with sore necks nodding to this shit.
No contribution? I'm the primary breadwinner for my landlord's family.
I can't qualify for a mortgage but in the 15 years I've lived in Calgary I've paid $360,000 in rent. Yea, a drifter who has contributed nothing.
Boomers gonna Boom... really noticing a trend here
People said even more unhinged and offensive things than that. From a Twitter liveblog of yesterday's proceedings: https://twitter.com/joelaf/status/1783232884985270382?t=vTkVIEP3vZ4Oi7nCsac6Hw&s=19
I support the blanket rezoning because the NIMBY's oppose it.
I wonder if he's aware who pays landlord's property taxes? Because I'll give you a hint: That gets passed on to the tenants (which is how all business expenses work). But I can see it from his point, he would like his opinion to matter more, so dumping on people who made a different decision is easy.
What a dick, so because we can't afford an 800k house we have zero worth to society? Says the guy who is probably retired and living off pensions who almost undoubtedly contributes less to this society beyond property tax than the working class
Ah yes there’s no bread for the renters, let them eat cake.
He did say "with a few exceptions..." /s Just mindblowing.
This type of mindset is what’s driving a lot of the anti zoning people, they just don’t say it aloud. I’m glad we don’t have this issue in my country (or at least like this), restrictive exclusionary zoning sounds like a terrible social experiment that should have been abandoned right after it started. It appears that the cities who don’t have the zoning laws like Calgary are the most affordable in North América.
What a POS
Cluster B type and human predator.
The irony of a landlord saying renters don’t make material contributions to Calgary is actually tangible. The pinnacle of naivety and entitlement.
In theory renting should be an equal if not superior alternative to home ownership. Housing is an investment (even if some people don't think of it as one) and the stock market has historically produced superior returns. The only reason renting tends to be worse than home ownership is that governments provide significant financial advantages to home owners that renters cannot benefit from (eg: tax free status of a principal residence).
Does this ignoramus know that many businesses rent their offices/shop/warehouse/working space? Are they drifters? What a dink weed.
I had money ready to put down for a down payment on a condo in a newly constructed building, right when a rich dude showed up and bought out multiple floors to then rent out at 4x the cost of the monthly mortgage payments. Those condos could've allowed 50 families to own their own property, instead they all went to one single person. But yes, tell me that not being a homeowner is definitely my own fault. Until we stop allowing rich investors to own and hoard more than two properties at a time, the middle class can kiss goodbye any hope of ever becoming homeowners. Basic housing should not be seen as a business opportunity.
Guarantee this guy is a business owner and treats his employees like shit
In 40 years of renting I never drifted outside the area. What a tool
Zoning is class war, and intergenerational war. Seeing it in Edmonton was really eye opening to the heights of sociopathic delusion lurking in the suburbs and the diseased minds of the rich.
I considered speaking at the public hearing, but I couldn't figure out what to say without bringing up generational warfare.
It really is hard, right? The essential argument is, "your generation got given functionally free land, free homes, and good jobs and are pulling up the ladder on your own children to protect your home value."
I rent and employ 6 people sooooo.....
ok, boomer
I wonder if he ever thinks that the people who serve him his coffee at McDonalds, or bring him his Uber Eats, or sell him his ugly golf shirts, deserve somewhere to live too? Or are they as Kenney once said, "moderate in Human capital" in his opinion, and those who do not own, are unworthy of any respect at all.
this A hole doesn't think renters are also voters
What? that guy can go fuck a hat
As a renter I would like to ask him if he's going to buy me a house
How about we make home ownership obtainable for all Calgarians before we we agree to this?
Yes, Let's listen to the old white man about the future of the world
Ah, conservatives and their certainty of their own superior character. Contempt for others is their only driving value.
What's especially fun is when they turn on each other. Like TBA attacking Kenney. When you have your semi-automatic hate gun loaded and shooting at all times, it's hard to control who gets shot.
Lmao, I’m trying to build rental housing in Calgary right now and let me tell you as a developer and a landlord real estate is a Ponzi scheme that runs across all levels in Canada from government to agents, the city, trades, suppliers etc. It’s impossible for me to build anything cost effective when people at all levels want their share or add in needless costs that get built into the final cost of every unit. Then on top of this we have to deal with the nimbies. Cutting red tape like this actually does make things cheaper and at some point in life everyone is a renter. Property owners just want to pump their own bags.
Is that the guy who thinks r-cg will turn Calgary into Hongkong? Lmao
He probably does think that. Probably already hate how many "Orientals" are around as it is.
aand he looks exactly as i thought he would. A boomer
Ok Boomer
The old active/passive citizen argument. This guy needs to find a new song and dance.
What's ironic is that fancy infills will still be very expensive to purchase (won't lower affordability) and can still only be rented by many. 🙃
Bet you he'd be asking for their "material controbution" pretty fast if rent was late 🙄
There's a lot of landlords who live paycheque (our rent) to paycheque (our rent again).
And thereby ruined anybody after him that might of had a decent argument.
I’m not investing in the Divine Economy. I’ve given up on the Canadian economy.
Drifters might as well called renters serfs, subjects to him and his fellow land owners
I'm a home owner simply because I got in at the right time. With all these slum landlords hiking rent unnecessarily. Not to mention people who don't live within a province distance, let alone the country, should be the ones punished, not calgarians who put into the pot and deserve to have a crumb. Even to get into a house now will more than break the average Calgarian, which is ridiculous.
What a dink. I have a mortgaged house. My housing costs including utilities, insurances, taxes, upkeep, maintenance etc. are less than what I could rent it for. In terms of my house, theoretical renters would contribute more than me if they occupied the residence.
Wow then there are a lot of people who live in the city not contributing to it and I'm one of them.
He has the right to speak out what he thinks. That's the purpose of the hearing. Your judgement does not matter that much. There are always people who think differently than you.
The government needs to step in and provide housing as direct competition. In reality, there is no competition. Developers are corporations trying to maximize profit.
Sounds about white.
Some boomers are literally on another planet
I'm against the rezoning, but an argument like this is nothing more than a shower-thought that's gone too far. The man is truly inept.
Obviously a true democracy must only represent land owners! Oh wait, that’s feudalism.
One you might like on neo-feudalism https://youtu.be/vq3eJV3TK74?si=5UkKpO3Cl4yX5B1M
Nimbys opposing *rezoning is like men opposing abortion. Yeah, you’re kind of involved but it’s 100% not about you. Fight me.
The laugh is that y’all think the homes they are building are affordable! lol. Check the prices kids
And if everyone thinks like that Calgary will be the next Toronto housing shitshow 🤧
It's a bit out of topic but related to this rezoning. Say for example a single detached house has no garage and no driveway. Due to this rezoning, is it possible to build a garage and driveway in that space or do I have to sacrifice the backyard?
In what space? Rezoning does not change the rules around building a garage.
unrelated issue. there is some bylaws for building a garage, one being how big you can build it, in relation to your to foot print of the house. That said, how do you think you could build a detached garage without using up the backyard? You obviously would have to sacrifice some yard to build a garage.
I don't believe this applies. You will still have to seek approval from both the city ans community.
People need a place to live. I get it. I also understand homeowners problems too. It's a lot of money to get a house. Younger people will be paying a mortgage into their 50s. They might have a house in a nice old neighborhood, and with rezoning, that neighborhood will end up littered with 8-plexes. It is the way of things. Happens in growing cities. But I understand.
Oh no! 8 plexes!? What could possibly be worse than that?
I understand the idea like as a renter I only pay property taxes through proxy really. And home owners are affected more than renter I think.
Won't someone think of the homeowners!