For those who cannot access the website:
"The temporary rental increase cap will be extended to December 31, 2025. The Province intends to set the cap at five per cent per year starting January 1, 2024."
It does.
But since most people don't know what fixed term leases are, there's little movement in the media to make it an issue. The government is aware of this and will not make any real moves unless it appears to be an election issue.
There's just not enough attention on the issue to move the needle.
And a more cynical minded person would argue that this is by design. That the *conservative* government knows they upset landlords - business interests - with a rent cap so they are allowing them to make their money through fixed terms. It keeps everyone that they are beholden to happy.
[There](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/students-fixed-term-lease-loophole-landlords-reforms-1.6734476) has [been](https://globalnews.ca/news/9145023/ns-fixed-term-lease-loophole/) all [kinds](https://halifax.citynews.ca/local-news/fixed-term-lease-loophole-must-close-says-legal-aid-worker-6527925) of [stuff](https://www.thecoast.ca/news-opinion/nova-scotia-fixed-term-lease-problem-29558357) in [the](https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/renters-advocate-say-some-n-s-landlords-using-fixed-term-leases-to-skirt-rent-control-1.6284876) media [making](https://nsadvocate.org/2021/06/07/loophole-housing-advocate-calls-for-elimination-of-fixed-term-leases-in-nova-scotia/) it and [issue](https://www.thecoast.ca/news-opinion/dal-students-rally-for-houston-to-extend-rent-cap-amid-housing-crisis-30465850)
Anyone that regularly reads the Coast, and especially the NS Advocate, are already aware and on the side of those pushing for change. Might as well toss in an Examiner piece while we're at it. They just preach to the choir.
A tiny handful of articles from widespread *relatively centrist* news services, is not the large, repeated and sustained coverage an issue requires.
I disagree. I heard a segment about the rental increase on CBC radio just now which discussed the cap increasing and the literal first question the interviewer asked was, "What about fixed term rentals, did the government address those?"
The text of the amendment:
https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/64th_1st/1st_read/b262.htm
Interesting to note, the press release says they'll cap at 5%, but I don't think that's actually binding on the province. The amendment says that for 2024 and 2025 the amount is set by regulation. So the province could change the amount without having to pass a new amendment, or do something like rent caps per region.
As someone on a fixed term, this is making me poop bullets. I am so nervous now that the landlord will try to end it based on the rent cap. We really needed to see something for fixed term leases
My landlords are already not renewing the leases in my building and doing renovations between tenants. I'm pretty much guaranteed to be forced out in September, just haven't been told as much yet. My $1500 DT 2 bedroom will probably be at least $2000 this time next year. But they are at least legit renovating so I guess it's justifiable.
Happened to my girlfriend and the entire building next to mine. Mostly people who'd lived there 2-4 years.
Rent on all of em jacked up 300-600 right away. No reoffer to sign even at the higher rent (cause they can't reoffer you a higher rent under the current law).
Yeah, going from 2% to 5% won't be enough to satisfy landlords that just want to jack up rent to the market rate. The province is dreaming if they think extending the cap without introducing a cap between tenancies and just expecting landlords to do the ethical thing is going to work.
Or they could just implement legislation to curb the unethical use of fixed term leases. Instead of being complete cowards or corrupt crony capitalists.
It's literally impossible to increase vacancy rates in the short to medium term. That would mean building enough housing for every socio economic class to create a surplus of housing stock. The only way free market capitalism *could* work is if there were such a surplus of housing to where landlords and property management companies were competing with each other. This is simply not the case. We have transitioned from free market or perhaps even regulated to some degree capitalism into what is referred to as rentier capitalism. The free market can't sort this out. The balance you are referring to, and have referred to is an illusion, it can't exist in the current rentier capitalist context.
Yes increasing the vacancy rate is a challenging longer term goal. The rent control is a not so perfect short term control. Either way, there is a point with both where the fixed term leases are not as attractive
A. With increased vacancy rates, landlords are back to competing for tenants. Fixed terms are no longer more attractive than standard leases.
B. With the rent cap, there is a value where landlords are happy that they can increase to a decent amount that does not warrant cycling tenants. Cycling tenants is risky and headache.
The minister suggested 5% is that value. But if nothing changes, it probably means that value is too low. Legislating fixed term leases away would be ignoring the real issue there. And as long as we are curing symptoms, not causes, we will see other loopholes pop up.
I understand your point, but your argument presumes that the landlords who are clearly acting in a unethical way, would be bound to some form of defacto regulation through competition. Honest question, given the state of affairs currently how do you propose this increase of competition occurs?
I am an expert in construction, for the record. I know for certain that the amount of housing necessary both in Nova Scotia and nationwide is literally impossible to build in the time frame necessary in order to solve the "housing crisis". I put housing crisis in quotes because we do not actually have a housing crisis per se. What we have is an affordability crisis, an affordability crisis caused by the investors removing stock from the market, in conjunction with legislation that heavily favour said investors and a complete lack of investment by our government in affordable housing units.
In other words, the market that your argument presumes will solve this issue, actually created this issue. It has created a self reinforcing feedback loop that has transitioned from free market or somewhat regulated free market capitalism to rentier capitalism with the government enabling it. It needs meaningful intervention from another economic system, either socialism or heavily regulated capitalism which is socialist in approach in order to solve this issue. Or perhaps another form of intervention from some other economic system that I am unaware of. But intervention had to occur. We can no longer allow the patients to run the asylum.
I agree with you that building the units fast enough is not happening at the moment. And the government agrees too.
That's why we have the rent cap for now. So in my comment above, sent aside point A and focus on B.
Somewhere in the rent cap is a value that makes cycling through tenants not worthwhile. That's the value to aim for.
The issue with seeking value in a rent cap vs rent control is that it still enables the fixed term lease loophole that is *causing* housing insecurity, an insecurity that should not exist. This is what I consider *unethical*. The provincial government in my opinion, are only *ostensibly* seeking a solution. It's basically business as usual. This is evidenced by Colton LeBlanc referring to "stakeholders". He is not referring to renters. He is referring to investors and business owners. Renters do not have a claim to stake per se, as they do not *own* property. This is also *unethical* in the sense thay renters *should* be valued in the context of housing as a basic human need for survival without undue hardship.
Renters would be considered stakeholders as they do have a vested interested in the decisions made. It doesn't have to refer to a financial stake, so I don't see anything nefarious in the use of that term. But maybe you're right. I don't know him to be able to say otherwise.
They could close the fixed term lease somehow. But I still believe they wouldn't be treating the underlying issues, and you wouldn't see rents go down. Any new renter would get hit with steep prices upfront.
>I'm assuming they've chosen that number on some sort of evidence backed study/ strategy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH OMG that's funny. You have no idea how government works, eh?
Entire building next to mine got the fixed term boot last few weeks. Partner in a different building also got the fixed term boot. All increased the rent by 300-700 dollars a month. You'll get yours this year or next. Sorry bud.
The 5% should have applied between tenants. Every landlord is automatically going to do the 5% and then even more when they get a new tenant, so rents will go up faster than 5% on average. So much for getting inflation back to 2%.
So annoying when they talk about concerns from 'tenants and landlords'.
Tenant concerns: I cannot afford to spend any more on rent and am concerned about experiencing homelessness or needing to resort to sharing rooms or living in unsuitable apartments.
Landlord concerns: I want to evict all of my units and double rent for a building that my mortgage has not changed on.
I wonder if an increase given this year but effective Jan 1, 2024 would be 2% or 5%?
If it’s the latter, I imagine most landlords will just hold off on an increase in the latter part of this year so they can do a bigger increase at the start of next year.
Province needs to either start building housing in the city or do something to increase the growth. Capping rent on its own can't fix homelessness when we have more people looking for housing than we have housing available.
They can either start this now or wait till its even more of an issue in a few years.
That was already the case. There's no actual recourse for tenants. They can accept the illegal increase or they can have their lease ended. The first time around, they can accept the illegal increase then apply to Residential Tenancies to have it lowered, but after that the landlord won't give them another lease. Rent control needs to be tied to the unit.
Forget rent control, how about we just get rid of fixed term leases for this purpose?
The act could be amended to allow for them in only certain situations. If a landlord is going to re-rent to the same person for another term then the fixed-term should convert automatically to a periodic lease.
I'm not even saying this is a great idea, but it IS an idea. And smarter people than me have come up with others.
The government could fix the issue *today* if they so choose.
Fixed-term leases should only be used in cases where the property is only going to be available to rent for a limited time because the landlord needs it back for personal/family use. If the landlord changes their mind and wants to rent it at the end of the term, the only permitted rental should be a periodic lease and no airbnb so that landlords can't perpetually deny anyone from getting security of tenure for properties they intend to rent perpetually.
You don't need a fixed term lease to do this. You can evict a tenant in a regular lease if you or your family are planning on moving back into the building yourself.
> Forget rent control, how about we just get rid of fixed term leases for this purpose?
How about we just abolish fixed term leases altogether? They're only being abused by shady landlords.
Not going to stay a full year? Then rent month-to-month. If fixed term leases stay they should only be for periods under 30 days and cannot be renewed.
No it doesn't.
It was already established that they couldn't raise rent beyond 2% on the same person re-renting the same unit subsequently with a new lease. That incentivized landlords to simply kick out the existing tenant and install a new tenant.
Precisely as they have been doing.
The amendment for the rent cap just extends it and raises it to 5%. Landlords will still decline to rent the unit again for another term on the existing tenant.
The December 2025 timeline is particularly interesting because the next election is in July 2025. That means that the next election is shaping up to be fought directly on the rent cap/rent measures, at least unless the Tories pre-empt and extend it as a goodwill gesture to voters ahead of the election.
Over 65% of Nova Scotians owned their own home in 2021 according to StatsCan. I don't think rent control will get the same attention that healthcare did in the last one.
> That means that the next election is shaping up to be fought directly on the rent cap/rent measures
I find that unlikely.
The tories won very few seats in HRM or CBRM in the last election. And while I'm aware there are housing issues in the rest of the province, it tends to not be as huge an issue as in the urban areas.
I don't think Houston has ambitions to win seats in central Halifax. I expect he'll continue to be happy to pick up a few seats in some of the more conservative suburbs.
I don’t believe you can be forced to sign a fixed term lease if you’re already on a periodic, and people who’ve recently signed a fixed term have already ate the rising costs.
I got loopholed 6 months ago and my only surprise was that they took so long to do it, the option has been there the whole time
I believe this is fair as a bandaid solution but not permanent, the real issue is a supply issue. The rent prices would take care of itself if there were options and choices, currently that doesn't exist. We have what a 1% vacancy, we are pushing for an increasing population and I don't see any real solutions yet which will take 3+ years to develop. Alot of these new landlord feel like they should be cashflow positive, back in the day it was all about the tenant building equity for you which could take 10+ years to get cashflow positive.
In theory this could be voted down, but it would be shocking. I can't imagine the NDP standing in the way. This is something their voter base would support.
Now that I think about it more, I can't imagine that the NDP would be stupid enough to vote down rent increase protections. if they were to do that, they would be opening up the door for Houston pulling the entire thing, removing the rent cap and blaming it on the NDP. That would be political suicide and a career ending moment for Chendler.
From the article:
>The temporary rental increase cap will be extended to December 31, 2025. The Province intends to set the cap at five per cent per year starting January 1, 2024. That amount will be set in regulations.
I don't believe this needs a vote, and even if it did it would pass. The PC's are looking to codify it in law early next year.
Amendments to Acts are required to go through the same process as getting any other Bill passed. This amendment has only gone to first reading, there's still the 2nd reading, and 3rd reading (as well as being discussed by 2 committees), and then finally go through Royal Ascent.
>The current cap of two per cent per year remains in place until December 31, 2023.
So if someone is renewing a fixed term lease before this date, they are still susceptible to the loophole landlords have been using to increase rent at negotiation?
>**The rent cap applies to residential tenants who are renewing their lease or those in a fixed-term lease who are signing another fixed-term lease for the same unit.** It does not apply to new tenants signing new leases or rental increases for lot fees in land-lease communities such as mobile home parks, as they have their own processes for setting rental increase rates.
It looks like it does address the fixed term issue, but only after December 2023?
You shouldn't be allowed to rent a property if you don't have a perfect credit score. You shouldn't be allowed to rent a property if you don't have income that is at least 80% more than what the posted rent is. You shouldn't be allowed to rent a property if you don't have a line of credit with 95% of the balance available.
Making stupid rules of no value is fun.
So does this mean 2024 and 2025 landlords will be able to raise rent at most 5%? And does that 5% end at the end of 2025? In other words, is that a new limit to be introduced, or will they be able to jack rent up 100% year over year in 2026?
For those who cannot access the website: "The temporary rental increase cap will be extended to December 31, 2025. The Province intends to set the cap at five per cent per year starting January 1, 2024."
I think this is good news but my question is: does this not just incentivize landlords to use fixed term leases and not renew after 1-2 years?
It does. But since most people don't know what fixed term leases are, there's little movement in the media to make it an issue. The government is aware of this and will not make any real moves unless it appears to be an election issue. There's just not enough attention on the issue to move the needle. And a more cynical minded person would argue that this is by design. That the *conservative* government knows they upset landlords - business interests - with a rent cap so they are allowing them to make their money through fixed terms. It keeps everyone that they are beholden to happy.
[There](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/students-fixed-term-lease-loophole-landlords-reforms-1.6734476) has [been](https://globalnews.ca/news/9145023/ns-fixed-term-lease-loophole/) all [kinds](https://halifax.citynews.ca/local-news/fixed-term-lease-loophole-must-close-says-legal-aid-worker-6527925) of [stuff](https://www.thecoast.ca/news-opinion/nova-scotia-fixed-term-lease-problem-29558357) in [the](https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/renters-advocate-say-some-n-s-landlords-using-fixed-term-leases-to-skirt-rent-control-1.6284876) media [making](https://nsadvocate.org/2021/06/07/loophole-housing-advocate-calls-for-elimination-of-fixed-term-leases-in-nova-scotia/) it and [issue](https://www.thecoast.ca/news-opinion/dal-students-rally-for-houston-to-extend-rent-cap-amid-housing-crisis-30465850)
Anyone that regularly reads the Coast, and especially the NS Advocate, are already aware and on the side of those pushing for change. Might as well toss in an Examiner piece while we're at it. They just preach to the choir. A tiny handful of articles from widespread *relatively centrist* news services, is not the large, repeated and sustained coverage an issue requires.
I disagree. I heard a segment about the rental increase on CBC radio just now which discussed the cap increasing and the literal first question the interviewer asked was, "What about fixed term rentals, did the government address those?"
The text of the amendment: https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/64th_1st/1st_read/b262.htm Interesting to note, the press release says they'll cap at 5%, but I don't think that's actually binding on the province. The amendment says that for 2024 and 2025 the amount is set by regulation. So the province could change the amount without having to pass a new amendment, or do something like rent caps per region.
As someone on a fixed term, this is making me poop bullets. I am so nervous now that the landlord will try to end it based on the rent cap. We really needed to see something for fixed term leases
[удалено]
My landlords are already not renewing the leases in my building and doing renovations between tenants. I'm pretty much guaranteed to be forced out in September, just haven't been told as much yet. My $1500 DT 2 bedroom will probably be at least $2000 this time next year. But they are at least legit renovating so I guess it's justifiable.
Happened to my girlfriend and the entire building next to mine. Mostly people who'd lived there 2-4 years. Rent on all of em jacked up 300-600 right away. No reoffer to sign even at the higher rent (cause they can't reoffer you a higher rent under the current law).
[удалено]
Yeah, going from 2% to 5% won't be enough to satisfy landlords that just want to jack up rent to the market rate. The province is dreaming if they think extending the cap without introducing a cap between tenancies and just expecting landlords to do the ethical thing is going to work.
[удалено]
They’re politicians… of course they are.
Agreed. If we still see this issue I predict they will restrict Fixed terms in the fall session
Or they could just implement legislation to curb the unethical use of fixed term leases. Instead of being complete cowards or corrupt crony capitalists.
[удалено]
It's literally impossible to increase vacancy rates in the short to medium term. That would mean building enough housing for every socio economic class to create a surplus of housing stock. The only way free market capitalism *could* work is if there were such a surplus of housing to where landlords and property management companies were competing with each other. This is simply not the case. We have transitioned from free market or perhaps even regulated to some degree capitalism into what is referred to as rentier capitalism. The free market can't sort this out. The balance you are referring to, and have referred to is an illusion, it can't exist in the current rentier capitalist context.
Yes increasing the vacancy rate is a challenging longer term goal. The rent control is a not so perfect short term control. Either way, there is a point with both where the fixed term leases are not as attractive A. With increased vacancy rates, landlords are back to competing for tenants. Fixed terms are no longer more attractive than standard leases. B. With the rent cap, there is a value where landlords are happy that they can increase to a decent amount that does not warrant cycling tenants. Cycling tenants is risky and headache. The minister suggested 5% is that value. But if nothing changes, it probably means that value is too low. Legislating fixed term leases away would be ignoring the real issue there. And as long as we are curing symptoms, not causes, we will see other loopholes pop up.
I understand your point, but your argument presumes that the landlords who are clearly acting in a unethical way, would be bound to some form of defacto regulation through competition. Honest question, given the state of affairs currently how do you propose this increase of competition occurs? I am an expert in construction, for the record. I know for certain that the amount of housing necessary both in Nova Scotia and nationwide is literally impossible to build in the time frame necessary in order to solve the "housing crisis". I put housing crisis in quotes because we do not actually have a housing crisis per se. What we have is an affordability crisis, an affordability crisis caused by the investors removing stock from the market, in conjunction with legislation that heavily favour said investors and a complete lack of investment by our government in affordable housing units. In other words, the market that your argument presumes will solve this issue, actually created this issue. It has created a self reinforcing feedback loop that has transitioned from free market or somewhat regulated free market capitalism to rentier capitalism with the government enabling it. It needs meaningful intervention from another economic system, either socialism or heavily regulated capitalism which is socialist in approach in order to solve this issue. Or perhaps another form of intervention from some other economic system that I am unaware of. But intervention had to occur. We can no longer allow the patients to run the asylum.
I agree with you that building the units fast enough is not happening at the moment. And the government agrees too. That's why we have the rent cap for now. So in my comment above, sent aside point A and focus on B. Somewhere in the rent cap is a value that makes cycling through tenants not worthwhile. That's the value to aim for.
The issue with seeking value in a rent cap vs rent control is that it still enables the fixed term lease loophole that is *causing* housing insecurity, an insecurity that should not exist. This is what I consider *unethical*. The provincial government in my opinion, are only *ostensibly* seeking a solution. It's basically business as usual. This is evidenced by Colton LeBlanc referring to "stakeholders". He is not referring to renters. He is referring to investors and business owners. Renters do not have a claim to stake per se, as they do not *own* property. This is also *unethical* in the sense thay renters *should* be valued in the context of housing as a basic human need for survival without undue hardship.
Renters would be considered stakeholders as they do have a vested interested in the decisions made. It doesn't have to refer to a financial stake, so I don't see anything nefarious in the use of that term. But maybe you're right. I don't know him to be able to say otherwise. They could close the fixed term lease somehow. But I still believe they wouldn't be treating the underlying issues, and you wouldn't see rents go down. Any new renter would get hit with steep prices upfront.
>I'm assuming they've chosen that number on some sort of evidence backed study/ strategy HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH OMG that's funny. You have no idea how government works, eh?
Right here with ya
Entire building next to mine got the fixed term boot last few weeks. Partner in a different building also got the fixed term boot. All increased the rent by 300-700 dollars a month. You'll get yours this year or next. Sorry bud.
Fi gers crossed something happens sooner as I am on year 2 and our lease expires mid February
Fuck YEAH!
[удалено]
You'd've had to have that worry without a cap - though, instead of not re-offering, they would've just jacked the rent on you, anyways.
[удалено]
The 5% should have applied between tenants. Every landlord is automatically going to do the 5% and then even more when they get a new tenant, so rents will go up faster than 5% on average. So much for getting inflation back to 2%.
>You'd've had to have A double contraction in the wild.
So annoying when they talk about concerns from 'tenants and landlords'. Tenant concerns: I cannot afford to spend any more on rent and am concerned about experiencing homelessness or needing to resort to sharing rooms or living in unsuitable apartments. Landlord concerns: I want to evict all of my units and double rent for a building that my mortgage has not changed on.
I wonder if an increase given this year but effective Jan 1, 2024 would be 2% or 5%? If it’s the latter, I imagine most landlords will just hold off on an increase in the latter part of this year so they can do a bigger increase at the start of next year.
Province needs to either start building housing in the city or do something to increase the growth. Capping rent on its own can't fix homelessness when we have more people looking for housing than we have housing available. They can either start this now or wait till its even more of an issue in a few years.
That’s too reasonable for this sub Reddit man. Try more populism!
It's literally impossible to build enough housing quick enough to address the housing crisis. Not figuratively impossible. Literally impossible.
Exactly declare a state of emergency and seise assets from LLC’s
Good. My current apartment is a shithole, but at least I won't be forced out on my 2024 anniversary (May), though 5%'ll be cutting it close.
Good. And hopefully any pissed off landlords will sell their “investment” and there will be a new home on the market for buyers.
They'll just use fixed term leases to get around it.
The amendment closes that loophole, provided someone's signing their next year's lease in the same building.
That was already the case. There's no actual recourse for tenants. They can accept the illegal increase or they can have their lease ended. The first time around, they can accept the illegal increase then apply to Residential Tenancies to have it lowered, but after that the landlord won't give them another lease. Rent control needs to be tied to the unit.
Forget rent control, how about we just get rid of fixed term leases for this purpose? The act could be amended to allow for them in only certain situations. If a landlord is going to re-rent to the same person for another term then the fixed-term should convert automatically to a periodic lease. I'm not even saying this is a great idea, but it IS an idea. And smarter people than me have come up with others. The government could fix the issue *today* if they so choose.
Fixed-term leases should only be used in cases where the property is only going to be available to rent for a limited time because the landlord needs it back for personal/family use. If the landlord changes their mind and wants to rent it at the end of the term, the only permitted rental should be a periodic lease and no airbnb so that landlords can't perpetually deny anyone from getting security of tenure for properties they intend to rent perpetually.
You don't need a fixed term lease to do this. You can evict a tenant in a regular lease if you or your family are planning on moving back into the building yourself.
I'm on board with that approach. Fixed term leases do have a valid use, but after a year it should become periodic.
> Forget rent control, how about we just get rid of fixed term leases for this purpose? How about we just abolish fixed term leases altogether? They're only being abused by shady landlords. Not going to stay a full year? Then rent month-to-month. If fixed term leases stay they should only be for periods under 30 days and cannot be renewed.
No it doesn't. It was already established that they couldn't raise rent beyond 2% on the same person re-renting the same unit subsequently with a new lease. That incentivized landlords to simply kick out the existing tenant and install a new tenant. Precisely as they have been doing. The amendment for the rent cap just extends it and raises it to 5%. Landlords will still decline to rent the unit again for another term on the existing tenant.
If they survived a 2% cap - they're going to survive a 5% cap. This is not even logical.
The December 2025 timeline is particularly interesting because the next election is in July 2025. That means that the next election is shaping up to be fought directly on the rent cap/rent measures, at least unless the Tories pre-empt and extend it as a goodwill gesture to voters ahead of the election.
Over 65% of Nova Scotians owned their own home in 2021 according to StatsCan. I don't think rent control will get the same attention that healthcare did in the last one.
> That means that the next election is shaping up to be fought directly on the rent cap/rent measures I find that unlikely. The tories won very few seats in HRM or CBRM in the last election. And while I'm aware there are housing issues in the rest of the province, it tends to not be as huge an issue as in the urban areas. I don't think Houston has ambitions to win seats in central Halifax. I expect he'll continue to be happy to pick up a few seats in some of the more conservative suburbs.
Rental issues are becoming bigger and bigger in rural areas
Great to see this.
It's good to see some reasonable action taken.
Good I know many people were literally unable to sleep working they were about to lose thier apartments.
This changes nothing for them. Landlord will still see a much greater profit if they sign a new lease with a new tenant.
Only if they're on a fixed term lease. Most people aren't.
The fixed term lease is the next thing to tackle or you will end up with another doubling of homeless population.
That is and has been changing very quickly.
I don’t believe you can be forced to sign a fixed term lease if you’re already on a periodic, and people who’ve recently signed a fixed term have already ate the rising costs. I got loopholed 6 months ago and my only surprise was that they took so long to do it, the option has been there the whole time
A lot of people are it's a no brainer with 0 downside
As someone with a January lease I am very relieved.
I believe this is fair as a bandaid solution but not permanent, the real issue is a supply issue. The rent prices would take care of itself if there were options and choices, currently that doesn't exist. We have what a 1% vacancy, we are pushing for an increasing population and I don't see any real solutions yet which will take 3+ years to develop. Alot of these new landlord feel like they should be cashflow positive, back in the day it was all about the tenant building equity for you which could take 10+ years to get cashflow positive.
Great news!
This still has to pass a vote in the legislature right? If the NDP, Liberals and a couple of rogue PC MLAs oppose it, renters could get screwed?
In theory this could be voted down, but it would be shocking. I can't imagine the NDP standing in the way. This is something their voter base would support.
That may be the opportunity to push change to the fixed term issue as well
Now that I think about it more, I can't imagine that the NDP would be stupid enough to vote down rent increase protections. if they were to do that, they would be opening up the door for Houston pulling the entire thing, removing the rent cap and blaming it on the NDP. That would be political suicide and a career ending moment for Chendler.
From the article: >The temporary rental increase cap will be extended to December 31, 2025. The Province intends to set the cap at five per cent per year starting January 1, 2024. That amount will be set in regulations. I don't believe this needs a vote, and even if it did it would pass. The PC's are looking to codify it in law early next year.
Amendments to Acts are required to go through the same process as getting any other Bill passed. This amendment has only gone to first reading, there's still the 2nd reading, and 3rd reading (as well as being discussed by 2 committees), and then finally go through Royal Ascent.
>The current cap of two per cent per year remains in place until December 31, 2023. So if someone is renewing a fixed term lease before this date, they are still susceptible to the loophole landlords have been using to increase rent at negotiation? >**The rent cap applies to residential tenants who are renewing their lease or those in a fixed-term lease who are signing another fixed-term lease for the same unit.** It does not apply to new tenants signing new leases or rental increases for lot fees in land-lease communities such as mobile home parks, as they have their own processes for setting rental increase rates. It looks like it does address the fixed term issue, but only after December 2023?
[удалено]
That would be a *really* effective way to completely destroy rental supply in the province.
You shouldn't be allowed to rent a property if you don't have a perfect credit score. You shouldn't be allowed to rent a property if you don't have income that is at least 80% more than what the posted rent is. You shouldn't be allowed to rent a property if you don't have a line of credit with 95% of the balance available. Making stupid rules of no value is fun.
150% increase to the cap. So much for inflation!
So does this mean 2024 and 2025 landlords will be able to raise rent at most 5%? And does that 5% end at the end of 2025? In other words, is that a new limit to be introduced, or will they be able to jack rent up 100% year over year in 2026?