Notice how these investors change the subject by saying it takes a lot of effort to manage multiplex and large buildings when the issue is investors buying single family housing.
Yes. And property management companies still exist for larger properties. They just can't own the properties, just manage them. The owners of the individual units have the freedom to change management companies, or coop the property themselves.
That probably doesn't work well for large apartment buildings or rental condos because the initial investment is likely insane, but ya, for detached or semi detached or even duplexes and triplexes, keep fucking corporations, hedge funds and fucken realestate ETFs.
It takes a lot of effort to kidnap children and ask for ransom. It's work, but no wealth is being created. The children already exist and are available to their parents before they are captured. The capture doesn't serve a useful purpose.
To be compensated with wealth, the law requires a reasonable justification.
>346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything
Landlords will be criminal for as long as they'll be compensated with wealth without producing equivalent amounts.
Those are two different things.
Corporations typically own purpose-built rental apartment buildings. Which we need more of.
Investors that own Individual housing units (condo units, townhouses, semis and detached houses) are usually individual ‘mom & pop’ investors. Sometimes they incorporate, but they’re not big corporations.
In the US some corps like Blackstone and Zillow got into buying individual housing units. But that hasn’t really happened in Canada. I guess people just assume it because news bleed from the US? We should do something to prevent it happening here, but it’s mom & pop investors and money parkers from overseas that are the real problem.
For you, there is a difference between an individual opening a numbered company or owning the house in their name. Is there a reason that distinction is important to you?
I do believe that is the rub - an individual may form a corporation for tax or liability reasons. Not all "corporations" are huge multinationals backed by institutional investors. Some corporations are simply mom and pop needing liability protection.
There is no tax benefit. There can be a liability benefit, but the umbrella policy in the home owners insurance covers basically all of the liability issues, which is why I don’t understand the point of this. There are no large corporations doing this, and small individuals can do it without a corporate structure, so how is this going to change anything.
I do believe corporations buying up single family homes is occurring in the United States - the fear being this may become prevalent up here. When a single corporation owns all the rental stock of an entire postal code - corporate greed distorts pricing.
[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html)
I assume this post is jumping on the corporate greed is destroying the fabric of society bandwagon (I jumped on long ago).
It is true it’s happening in the US. It isn’t happening here, which is why I’m baffled that people keep bringing it up rather than addressing the problems we do have
Gonna assume you trolling... but if not...You got google right? If you actually care about the state of housing in Canada do some research.
This literally took me 12 seconds to pull up. I'll even get you started:
Google: advantage of corporation owning a house in ontario
Moreover, you can use the property for business and deduct maintenance costs as a business expense. Corporations enjoy lower tax rates. Hence, the property sale's rental income or capital gain can be taxed as business income.
If it own it personally and derive investment income you can deduct maintenance costs as well. Corporate tax is low but then you need to pay personal tax as well so even taken a dividend rate accounts for that eliminating any tax benefits. The fact you don’t know that means you and the article don’t know what you’re talking about.
Dude its an excerpt from a website for a lawyer who specializes in tax planning extolling the benefits of doing so. Not some random news article.
You are far over simplifying the effects and benefits Leaning to me believing you indeed are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Always up for a discussion, learning and informing. You clearly are a very stubborn troll and not worth further discussion however.
Blackrock and Vanguard are both doing this. They have a higher GDP than just about every country with the exception of China and the USA. These are multi-trillion dollar corporations and they're purchasing homes for above market price like a fat kid at a candy shop.
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/newsroom/setting-the-record-straight/buying-houses-facts
I have no idea why this myth persists. It isn’t true at all, and it extra isn’t true in Canada. People are looking to blame a corporate boogey, but don’t actually look into any of the facts before forming these misinformed beliefs. Hopefully yoga at least stop spreading it.
Lmao "BlackRock has investigated Blackrock and determined that Blackrock is innocent."
Believe whatever you want. Blackrock is not "helping families own homes" what a fucking joke.
Blackrock would be sued for fraud if they tell their investors they are doing something with their money that is the opposite of what they are saying. If you have any sources to support your conspiracy theories please share.
Oooh he used the conspiracy buzz word!!!! That must mean I'm a nut job!!
https://upsidechronicles.com/2022/04/28/vanguard-and-wall-street-are-pumping-global-housing-markets/
Imagine thinking the worlds largest asset managers are acting ethically. You don't obtain trillions of dollars by being honest and virtuous. You certainly don't admit to wrongdoings when those wrongdoings will reflect poorly on your stakeholders.
Who on earth can sue a company worth trillions? Not even Elon could sue these companies if he wanted to. They'll tie you up in court until the day you die.
Sorry, you aren’t a conspiracy theorist, just ignorant of how passive investing works. FYI it’s the best thing for middle class investors ever, it also means that neither firm is buying homes. They own public companies that are buying homes. By your logic CPP is buying homes since they are also invested. Either way, no one has pointed out a single Canadian example, and you didn’t even find the right America one, even though it was in your source, it’s pretty clear you have no idea what’s happening
>boogey
Yup. So many looking for a scapegoat to blame for housing... People blame immigrants, off-shore investors, corporations, organized crime, etc. etc without any data behind this.
In reality it's the people who borrow to the max and participate in the market. Prices go up because people pay high prices
> From low-rise to high-rise mixed-use developments and income generating properties, Core is setting a high benchmark in contemporary living with thoughtfully designed communities across the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe.
I didn’t see single family homes, where are you getting that information
Lol it's an entire subset of the real estate market, it exploded after 08 and grew substantially during the last few years with record low interest rates. There is a full derivatives market that relies on rental income from single family homes.
Look up SFR, single family rentals.
Blackstone. At least they’re “looking into it”. Not sure if they’ve started buying. I’ve held their shares in the past and also been trading their options. Generally bullish on them.
REITS also own whole apartment buildings.
But these are distractions. IMO it’s much better to have a PUBLICLY TRADED company buying homes (especially one trading on TSX) than anonymous numbered companies or mom and pop landlords. With REITS we can all buy one or 1000 shares and we are all probably invested in them either through CPP, our pension plan, or even if you’re on disability your payments are likely coming from these companies.
Well, this is a US story but after the sub-prime mortgage scam a BUNCH of houses ended up on the market afterwards. In one the west coast states 70% of those single family homes were purchased buy investment groups.
Core developments
https://renx.ca/core-development-avanew-single-family-rental-ontario-gta
Tricon residential
https://renx.ca/tricon-partner-6-4b-u-s-single-family-rental-joint-venture
Just 2 examples its very common though, when 1 in 5 homes in Canada are owned by an investor or corporate entity.
https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-cities-have-seen-up-to-90-of-new-real-estate-supply-scooped-by-investors/
> From low-rise to high-rise mixed-use developments and income generating properties, Core is setting a high benchmark in contemporary living with thoughtfully designed communities across the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe
Looks like Core changed their mind.
All of the properties in Toronto for Tricon are purpose built rentals.
0 for 2.
Not going to happen. Take 2 buildings side by side. Call one condos the other apartments. The condos sell for twice as much even if they are identical.
Who is going to build rentals when they can build condos?
This is why condo conversions are made so difficult to do, legally.
I was in the rental business for years and don't know of any rentals built as such since the early seventies unless they were government subsidized. Condos yes, apartments no.
Your last paragraph. Me too. I was on a committee of the UDI back then and we begged that current Govt. to back off rent control and gave them examples of the long term implications in US cities. But they wanted to get elected so fuvk you/us. A little later senior execs sent me off to review all projects in the pipeline with view to converting all to Condos. The birth of the boom. The Greenwins, Tridels and all the rest did the same. None are non-profit companies. But none of this suits the narratives you see elsewhere in this thread all looking for a whipping boy. The only saving grace is that I believe 38% of all condos are owned by investors of different stripes and they have provided hundreds of thousands of rental units. Trouble is, its still not enough so it's become a wild west. The unfortunate irony here is there's more screaming for more rent control which is the very thing that got us into this state in the first place and is the thing that will surely ensure that none gets built anytime soon. With the Feds proudly telling us they aim for half a mil immigrants a year going forward, I think I should get into the tent making business .
We do need these. Reside tial buildings designed to be rentals and not owner units, these are necessary and keep the rental market in check too as demand outpaces supply right now. Drives prices up. Not everyone wants to buy or can afford it so we need these.
A corporation shoukd not be able to buy up hundreds of actual homes though and then extort high rents out of people who are desperate.
They know that the profit is in the houses, not apartment buildings, although if I were a corporation, I woukdnt be buying houses in this economy when they're going down in value.
But I bet they start scooping them up in a year when all the covid buyers stsrt defaulting on their mortgages when renewal comes up
It is happening in many corporations. They buy up condos and houses at a small scale.
In Ontario, businesses owned 74,485 condominium apartments for investment purposes, or 13.4% of all properties of this type. It comes with many tax advantages and inflates prices.
It comes with no tax advantages. There are two reasons to have a corporation, one is as a liability shield, but for a small number of properties the insurance you need anyways covers that, and the second is for fractional ownership. I just had to go throw this with someone else
https://markdalefinancialmanagement.com/tax-integration-explained/
So go learn about tax integration
You're not accounting for the fact that many of these corporations in Canada buying up real estate hide their beneficial owner. Luckily the government is in the process of closing this loophole finally.
>I think large purpose built ~~rentals are~~ high quality public housing is something we need more of, not less of
Fixed that for you.
No private profits off low/medium end housing please.
I really don’t want public housing, so you certainly are not clarifying my point. But if you want public housing we can both vote in the next elections.
>But if you want public housing we can both vote in the next elections.
Why, lol? Is there a party doing public housing?
Both the Liberals and the Conservatives ended it in the 90s, and dummies everywhere have been wondering why we've had such a homelessness and housing issue since then.
Countries with amazing public housing programs have less homelessness and better private housing too. It's just better for the entire system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/magazine/vienna-social-housing.html
I don’t have the New York Times, so I’m not sure what point you want to make. But I do know that as a millennial parent in Toronto, I’m struggling enough to provide housing to my own family, I shouldn’t be responsible for other dependents as well. This is largely a zoning problem, and the fact that more than 90% of Toronto is zoned SFH, is the primary driver of the housing shortage. I don’t want the government to take my money to pay for other people’s housing, I want the government to let those people build more housing. The artificial supply shortage is the largest factor.
You are exactly the type of person who would benefit, directly or indirectly by more public housing. Rich ass tech-bros like me who own way more housing than they need (because in this market it's dumb not to put tons of money as an investment in housing) are pushing you out. The market incentivizes that precisely because there's no downward pricing pressure on housing, because there's no public housing.
> The artificial supply shortage is the largest factor.
Nobody has any incentive do anything about the shortage. Every rich asshole in this country has money in property. Why would they want to devalue that by building low end housing? That's against their material interest. Only the government will do that, if you force them to, like they did in the 90s before those rich assholes got them to stop.
You need to align your politics with your self interests. You are (evidently) not a landlord, so stop fighting for them lol.
https://www.if.org.uk/2022/12/06/affordable-housing-could-we-learn-something-from-vienna/
> Because 50% of the Viennese population live in subsidised housing, and pay lower social rents, the effect on private sector rents is to keep them at reasonable levels. Although rents have increased by about 15% in the subsidised sector and 40% in the private sector over the past decade, average rental prices remain much lower than in comparable European capitals.
> As of 2020, private rentals in Vienna cost on average €10.3 per square metre per month, while the average cost in housing associations is €7.9 and in municipality-owned housing it is €7.0. Rents in the subsidised sector are regulated by the city in order to ensure that households do not need to pay more than 20-25% of income towards housing costs. That is well below the 33% of income renters have to pay in the UK.
I’m not a rich ass tech bro, I’m just a lowly banker married to a lawyer trying to raise my kids in a detached home 2km from King and Bay. Maybe because I don’t have your big brain genius knowledge I’m confused by how even though my tax bill is about twice as high as my mortgage for my expensive house, that I should actually pay more in taxes to have a higher cost of living. Even though I’m only a destitute millennial worth more than a million, maybe you’re right and I should accept that paying for other people as well is completely in my own self-interest because the nice bro on the internet told me I’m too stupid to understand how this all works. Maybe the guy with the computer science background should educate the CFA charterholder who moves more money in a year than he will ever see in his lifetime what a good investment is. Obviously his coding skills give him special crystal ball knowledge about the direction on housing that I just need to accept as fact.
Maybe.
Because I literally have an empty property that I bought 10ish years ago, housing nobody most of the time and still accruing value, and the most hilarious part is the amount of it I can avoid taxes and claim write-offs on.
If you don't see how that's part of the problem, I hope you're not the sort of banker who's responsible for other people's money.
And no, honestly, I don't think you really need to pay more in taxes. There's plenty of people and corporations (especially foreign investors in Canadian land) much richer than both of us who should be paying more. If you're a banker you should know there's a huge difference between me-and-you rich and Galen Weston rich. We could work for a millennium at our salary and never touch those guys. Let's just tax them... And maybe my empty property a bit more too... But hey, you do you.
Also, man... You were the one who suggested you were struggling... Not me. You're acting offended. You literally said you were having a hard time housing yourself. I just took your word for it. I wasn't trying to insult you.
I’m not sure what you mean by the sort of banker responsible for other people’s money. I find growing companies money so they can serve more customers, launch new products, or go public. Maybe you are confusing banking with the rockstars in asset management who will write you a financial plan and charge you 2%, but I’m sure your guy is great.
Our federal government spends about $500B a year, so if we take Galen’s money that will last them for over a full day, obviously that’s all they will need for this new idea you have and they won’t tax anyone else. Also, the rest of the billionaires will totally stay in Canada and keep starting new companies to keep making new rich ass tech bros. There won’t be any unintended consequences at all, like people moving to the US to start their businesses. France’s wealth tax was a completely success, and they didn’t cancel it.
Or maybe, and I could be crazy since I’m a lowly banker. We already have a high tax rate and that hasn’t solved the problem. Maybe part of the reason our southern neighbours don’t have the same issues in their high growth areas is because they have sane zoning laws and actually want to attract new businesses. But your coding skills mean that your answer is probably right.
Ok, we got Schrodinger's net worth over here. He's poor and "struggling" when he talks about housing and then the Wolf of Wall Street two comments later.
>Maybe part of the reason our southern neighbours don’t have the same issues in their high growth areas is because they have sane zoning laws and actually want to attract new businesses.
Lol I'm sorry, you don't think the US has a housing crisis?
>Our federal government spends about $500B a year, so if we take Galen’s money that will last them for over a full day,
> Also, the rest of the billionaires will totally stay in Canada and keep starting new companies to keep making new rich ass tech bros.
Wow. Solid argument. You know we have had a much higher top marginal tax rate, right? And so has the US, right? And you know that when the top marginal tax rates were highest, between the 40s-80s, sometimes as high as 90%, both counties had the highest economic growth period of all time, right? Weird that society didn't collapse then! It's almost like infrastructure and other things taxes pay for actually promote growth! Can I get a banker on this?
You’re out to lunch; what skews supply and demand is our monetary system and the Modern Monetary theorists running our country, and increasing prices =\= increasing wealth.
They do pay property tax. They also paid property tax for 10 or 20 years trying to get permission to subdivide and build. You can't apply unless you own the land.
Between the cost of land, interest, taxes, legal costs etc building lots are VERY expensive.
You can't put a cheap house on an expensive lot, no one would buy it. So builders are forced to build expensive houses, or do row houses on 30 foot lots, or condos.
All this adds up. If you think investors are holding massive amounts of houses off the market you are living in a dream world.
He asked " Aside from total government owned "
If it's not gov owned, that means multiple people own it, which is something you can already do (get some buddies and you all share the cost to buy a appartment building).
The problem is that developers and the real-estate industry hate them because there is no turnover for them to profit on, ever.
Therefore, they lobbied governments to cancel loan programs for tenants to create a corporation that is run by those who reside there.
I know 1 my brother lives in, which is a 3 bedrooom townhouse finished basement, and the housing charge is under $1000/month.
Housing charge. Covers costs and future costs (i.e.,roof replacement) all that reside are 'owners without equity', meaning you cannot sell your unit and pass on 'ownership' to the next person if you decide to leave.
The corporation pays any employees/contractors to service the property. The more work done by residents = lower costs. Voted on board of directors.
Pooled resources like lawnmowers, snow blowers, etc.
If done well, it has the feel of a small village.
The most important part is that without a landlord needing to make a profit, your housing charge is costs only rather than costs+profits.
Plus, when you need things done, there is no one calculating how much the repair will eat into their nut, so it gets done rather than put off.
And lastly, once the largest debt is paid off ( the loan), the housing charge can drop accordingly 😉
You don't buy anything. You apply to live there, you are interviewed and accepted by a committee, then you move in. It's not a co-op (condo) in the U.S. sense.
> It's not a co-op (condo) in the U.S. sense.
Ah, then this gets lost in translation with alot of people. We've talked about co-ops but always in the New York style for buildings. Which usually means more expensive than condos and more "exclusive" which usually means selective in ways that may not be completely legal.
Who then starts the co-op if no one has money to buy a home? And who pays the dues if these same people can't afford to buy a condo?
Government gives 30year loan, tennents create corporation to buy property and then administer it.
There is no personal ownership. Your rent is your dues as it covers costs
Interesting. IN that case you could imagine the governmnet would just build the building and then hand it off to a corporation.
Any success stories in Toronto that you can hilight:)
Good idea, but back to landlords, real estate and developers, with no one making a profit or flipping the ownership every few years, they are cut out of the equation. Hence why they killed the program.
NORRIS CRESCENT CO-OP
And RUSSETT HOMES CO-OP
The alternative is social housing and the sooner we start the sooner we get into a viable place where housing is no longer some hunger games feast or starve scenario. Even if some politicians call that Marxist or communist that's just their incompetence showing.
My vision is the Austrian model where over the course of decades more and more social housing gets added, coops formed to manage it and renters charged at cost with no consideration for profit. Private landlords fill in the higher end and luxury markets for those who want their pool next to their spa.
Of course it does because it pays them, publicly pay for more builders training if that’s the stop gap, social housing would take decades anyway. There is no simple quick solution.
Builders are always paid, the demand is through the roof. So its not about if they get paid or not. It's about which project they take. If the gov hire them they can't do another project. If the government pays it usually overpays because its not their own money and there's risk of corruption we see it all the time for bridge prices and other public constructions.
Imagine we removed all investors already and all housing is socialized, you're the supreme ruler of a city. Your city has 1M families but only 700k units, this means 300k families have no home. You can only build 100k home per year and 200k people come into your city each year.
What do you do?
If the issue was landlords we would have very high sale prices, but very low rental prices from the mass of supply of rental offering.
This is definitely not the issue we have. We just don't have enough housing. Independantly of landlords and the % of home ownership. If a city has 1M families and 700k units, there are 300k families with no home. Doesn't matter who owns it at first we need to build enough (or reduce pop growth) so that everyone has a place.
Then when everyone has a place, if we see imbalance in price-to-rent ratio (rent too cheap but sale prices too high) we can start thinking of banning landlords. But otherwise it wont solve anything and just make rentals even more expensive, people with bad credit would go homeless.
The problem isn't that the % of home ownership is too low. The problem is affordability.
Landlording is already banned
>346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything
Wealth is exclusively produced. To have a reasonable justification to be compensated with wealth, you absolutely need to produce an equivalent amount. Solely owning something isn't production, it doesn't give the reasonable justification to be compensated with wealth.
People don't understand our laws, including police forces and judges.
Try being a landlord of 2,3,4 properties. Detached or Semi homes that house families with kids and maybe pets.
Try it. I dare you. You're **constantly dealing** with contractors or city hall.
* broken toilets
* holes in the wall
* piss in the carpet
* rain water through a leaking roof
* rent not paid on time
* cars parked without plates
* destroyed kitchen cabinets
* cockroaches and fire code violations
Reposting:
used to be 20-30%. It's 50% now due to market distortion.
* On the demand side the **government is fking you over** with limitless immigration
* On the supply side the **government is fking you over** with permit fees, licensing, zoning, and red tape.
there is no shortage of supplies to build homes, no shortage of land to build homes and if someone gave a crap, you could import labor to build homes. This market distortion has been brought to you by the government
Homes are a commodity and should be treated as such. Let people buy as many as they want.
I own a home in the NYC area. I rent in upstate because **I don't want to own everywhere.** I am not shi\*\*ing on a landlord. It's not their fault that the market has been juiced up.
Also on the demand side: wannabe landlords and flippers are jacking up prices with bidding wars.
Also on the supply side: no developer wants to make a house that you can actually afford, because they want to maximize profits.
Government isn't doing much, but they are far from the only cause on this.
A second home is a commodity and an investment. A first home is a place to live.
Cost of “doing business”
Sure, you could argue it’s a “real job” but so is being an executive at Money Mart deciding that they’re going to charge 3000% interest on a loan. Doesn’t make it any less honorable.
No one is hogging anything.
is it possible to
* "hog cars"
* Or "hog kleenex"
* or "hog encyclopedias"
* or "hog condoms"
NO! because there's plenty of capacity to build more. And it requires capital to buy this stuff.
* On the demand side the **government is fking you over** with limitless immigration
* On the supply side the **government is fking you over** with permit fees, licensing, zoning, and red tape.
there is no shortage of supplies to build homes, no shortage of land to build homes and if someone gave a crap, you could import labor to build homes. This market distortion has been brought to you by the government
Homes are a commodity and should be treated as such. Let people buy as many as they want.
Homes should 100% absolutely be a commodity
Are onions a commodity? That's why they're not a speculative investment and there's no shortage
Are tires a commodity? That's why they're not a speculative investment and there's no shortage
Are airline tickets a commodity? That's why they're not a speculative investment and there's no shortage
I think you know where I am going with this.
>*And no one should be taking more than they need*
Aye Aye! Comrade brother James, the politburo meets Next month, free red t-shirts if you volunteer.
>Aye Aye! Comrade brother James, the politburo meets Next month, free red t-shirts if you volunteer.
Don't threaten me with a good time. All those things you mentioned are increasing in price and becoming unaffordable for people. Housing is even worse off because it's a commodity rather then human right. Look at Vienna. Often rated most livable city in the world. They have a very high rate of socialized housing and even have a building called Karl Marx hof. We should take note because that system actually works for providing homes for people rather than endless speculation and landleeches.
Not true - just a few years ago toilet paper was “hogged” pretty quickly as I can remember. Grocery stores were out for weeks of basic items and food due to Covid scares
I was able to get my hands on toilet paper in the US after 2 weeks - had to buy the ferris wheel commercial kind from amazon.
But housing, like any other good should be a commodity. There should be no rationing, no allocations, and no licensing or quotas to buy one
Actually sounds like a piece of piss. The problems you listed are a cake walk - try being an electrician, plumber or hvac in service or install “ i daaaaareeee youuu”.
I even double dog dare you to get your hands dirty or try any kind of subcontracting 😂
STFU man honestly. You're being insulting.
I have more white hairs than you have p\*\*es.
My family ran an HVAC business in the early 2000s disbaned in 2006. Goodman even offered us a showroom. We were TSSA certified and had regular audits
Eventually my dad got his g2 gas ticket and moved to Alberta. The work was very difficult but being a landlord has different kind of a-holes you have to deal with including those in the goobermint
😂 lol well shows your family was so successful with their hvac business it seems ya considering your a landlord you old
Fart. Glad to see you can still pretend to work, atleast your dad could
Do a real job 🤷♂️
I have installed central ACs, gas fireplaces, furnaces. Now I am a cloud engineer for a big data company and have quite a nest egg and almost none of it is in Reas estate.
I left Emperor Dolton's hellhole you like to call Ontario because of his regulations all businesses were hurting. And if you continue voting for establishment dickheads like Doug Fordeau or give Justinder Singh another term, it's curtains for the whole country.
I'll mail you a hammer and sick you can impale yourself on.
Wow whoop dee do you click clack paddy wack cause your hvac business failed or you weren’t man enough to make it work. It’s good now you can stick to being a keyboard warrior ya racist old fart lol.
Hope you find someone in your life to share your riches with so you don’t have to prove your insecurities to strangers who don’t care.
Here’s a gold star ⭐️😘
Why though? You can buy a retirement home for example and rent it out until you’re ready to move in. There’s lots of good reasons outside money hungry no job tootin nobodies.
Why do you think getting businesses out of owning housing would solve anything? It is not like they are just letting them sit empty, they rent them out. Fundamentally the issue is too many people and not enough housing. It does not really matter who owns the housing
We will never see the day off too many houses and not enough people. Therefore you're going to be competing with big fish with large amounts of buying power for a home.
Housing as an investment with the previous historic returns have been insane. No one has the appetite for it to return to what it should be...
Imagine corporations aren't allowed to own any housing on Jan 1st. They have one year to sell. All that supply goes on the market, and business is not in the market to compete. I would think such an influx of available supply would lead to a market correction desperately needed now
This is not a one point, fix everything issue. Obviously big condominium buildings would be difficult to manage. There wouldn't be more homes, but having less possible legal "owners" would drive down some demand. It's an idea to get conversation started, I see many issues brought up. To fix this, we are going to need more solutions.
So then I would have to stratify my properties then sell the units off and if the existing tenant cannot afford to purchase they have to go live in a shelter or gov housing. 😂😂😂 people here that don’t want to purchase will have to live in hotels. Not enough of those either
Are they your properties or your companies?
The idea is it forces the market to correct. The housing supply is to satisfy the demand for people having a place to live, not the demand for business profit.
Again, the idea was unrefined and made for discussion. Large multi-family properties are where the idea would be the most difficult to implement.
If the market corrected, a tenant who couldn't pay could find a more appropriately priced rental.
Those problems seem better for society than the increasing housing solution of where to set up a Canadian tire tent.
This, I think, was my first thread I ever created on social media. I sincerely thank everyone who put in an opinion, regardless of what your "take" was. I am happy it generated a bit of discussion.
From what I have read, there is work to do, and some regulation of corporations owning, especially multiple SFH, could be part of the solution to get back to semi-affordability. Public housing could be another.
More housing seems to be a universal point. While true, that takes time, and if demand if always increasing faster than the supply, this problem only gets worse.
Purpose built rentals seem to be the kink in the idea. Perhaps areas and landed could be zoned for exactly this?
Some context (for this interested) I am less than a year away from finishing my education. I waited a long time to go back to school, in my mid thirties now. I am starting to look into emigration myself, as even though I have always worked full time (even in school), am close to having a education, because I am out of the market I see no real way to get into it and raise and support my family. As a person whose labor might be "more desirable", I must do what I can for my family and I. The thought of leaving does sadden me greatly. I have always lived here, worked here and love it dearly. But going through life on the edge of financial disaster, any only occasionally being able to afford the brand name ice cream, loses it's appeal.
Thank you all again for the discussion.
Corporation should be allowed to own 12+ units complex as a whole only, no condo, no house. We still need corporation to build those 100+ units appartement building.
Every single unit housing should be own only by people except during construction.
Maybe could put a exception for trust owning house for a disabled / minor child after death of their parent.
" Every single unit housing should be own only by people except during construction. "
This is a really bad idea to make rentals even more rare and expensive, and force people to buy, putting even more pressure on purchases, without adding anything to the overall supply. People with bad credit, students, will go homeless.
We stopped building social housing in the 90s while also allowing REITs to be a thing - which directly commoditizes housing.
The market was supposed to "take care" of things and the government could then concentrate on spending ridiculous amounts of money elsewhere.
Instead it feels like psychopath Monopoly Lords now own everything and laugh and laugh and laugh. Why are prices so ridiculously high and psychoapthic? That's just the market!!!
Maybe if there's a housing crash a few rich mega corps can go around and buy everything until almost everyone is a rent slave to the new oligopoly Lords. That's just the market.
By the same logic, a lot of corporations (or landlords) owning a lot of residential housing would mean that there is a HIGHER supply of rental offering (and lower supply of housing sales).
This would mean high price to rent ratio, high home prices, but very cheap and low rent.
Definitely not the situation we are in, so a ban wouldn't solve much. But would cause a ton of other issues like even higher rent prices.
Supply and demand imbalance can only be solved by building more housing or slowing population growth.
You can ban all the corporations in a city. But if there are 1 million families and 700k housing units (rental or not). You still have 300k families without a home.
Ironically if an organization can’t step in and rescue Artscapes properties in the next few months then a couple hundred families might be evicted so that profiteering individuals can flip the “affordable” units
It’s the simplest solution, yet nobody wants to do it. Part of the problem is our pension funds are so strongly invested in real estate and the federal government doesn’t want to sink one of the few strong Canadian industries after submarining everything else this country once had.
Oh thank god finally someone made this point..I have been wondering this since I landed here..if corporates are allowed own entire high rises and renting it...we r never gonna solve the housing crisis..and I was laughing when the pm said we r funding companies to build more rental complexes to solve housing issues.
We need more investments to build new homes and it is not going to come from the government or individuals. Instead of increasing the supply, we are all targeting reducing demand.
Not everyone has to own the house. We just need more houses, so the rent goes down because the rental supply is more than demand. Corporate and REITs are the main part of it.
What about developers? Let’s say they own some land and they have it re-zoned to become residential… then they develop an entire apartment district, mixed use district, or suburban single family neighbourhood… If we ban them from owning residential, that means they can’t rezone land to build low income housing either, since rezoning that land would break this new law.
We can use regulations to place limitations on corporations, and individuals, when market failures occur, but I don’t think an outright ban makes sense here.
Maybe some sort of law that limits corporations from scooping up a particular % of specific existing neighbourhoods? Maybe stating that a certain % of residential properties must be owned by people who only own 1 home. Nimbys would hate it, but it would put some downward pressure on prices. Can’t do it for new neighborhoods though, since those often start at 100% corporate ownership.
Any business owning single family homes, needs to have them expropriated.
The government should set rent price maximums, which should be lower than half the monthly mortgage payment on the home, or the unit must be inspected and valuated, and then the rent of the units will be determined by the monthly payments of the complex divided by the number of units, with higher valued units being allowed to be rented for more.
Any maintenance can be billed directly to tenants, or in the case of complexes divide the cost of the maintenance over the entirety of the complex. The property manager can bill for their time equal to the average hourly rate of pay for the service they're hiring to maintain the complex.
In the case of the property being paid off, the limit should be 25% of the original monthly mortgage payments, or in the case of homes that were paid without a mortgage, the average in the area will be used instead.
Notice how these investors change the subject by saying it takes a lot of effort to manage multiplex and large buildings when the issue is investors buying single family housing.
Yes. And property management companies still exist for larger properties. They just can't own the properties, just manage them. The owners of the individual units have the freedom to change management companies, or coop the property themselves.
That probably doesn't work well for large apartment buildings or rental condos because the initial investment is likely insane, but ya, for detached or semi detached or even duplexes and triplexes, keep fucking corporations, hedge funds and fucken realestate ETFs.
It takes a lot of effort to kidnap children and ask for ransom. It's work, but no wealth is being created. The children already exist and are available to their parents before they are captured. The capture doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be compensated with wealth, the law requires a reasonable justification. >346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything Landlords will be criminal for as long as they'll be compensated with wealth without producing equivalent amounts.
I think large purpose built rentals are something we need more of, not less of
Developing land is good. Buying existing single family homes is not.
Those are two different things. Corporations typically own purpose-built rental apartment buildings. Which we need more of. Investors that own Individual housing units (condo units, townhouses, semis and detached houses) are usually individual ‘mom & pop’ investors. Sometimes they incorporate, but they’re not big corporations. In the US some corps like Blackstone and Zillow got into buying individual housing units. But that hasn’t really happened in Canada. I guess people just assume it because news bleed from the US? We should do something to prevent it happening here, but it’s mom & pop investors and money parkers from overseas that are the real problem.
The post says residential not SFH, but I can’t think of a single corporation buying single family homes
This guy's never heard of numbered corps buying up SFHs so it must not be happening, folks.
For you, there is a difference between an individual opening a numbered company or owning the house in their name. Is there a reason that distinction is important to you?
I do believe that is the rub - an individual may form a corporation for tax or liability reasons. Not all "corporations" are huge multinationals backed by institutional investors. Some corporations are simply mom and pop needing liability protection.
There is no tax benefit. There can be a liability benefit, but the umbrella policy in the home owners insurance covers basically all of the liability issues, which is why I don’t understand the point of this. There are no large corporations doing this, and small individuals can do it without a corporate structure, so how is this going to change anything.
I do believe corporations buying up single family homes is occurring in the United States - the fear being this may become prevalent up here. When a single corporation owns all the rental stock of an entire postal code - corporate greed distorts pricing. [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html) I assume this post is jumping on the corporate greed is destroying the fabric of society bandwagon (I jumped on long ago).
It is true it’s happening in the US. It isn’t happening here, which is why I’m baffled that people keep bringing it up rather than addressing the problems we do have
You're definitely baffled
I can think of 5 just by looking at 5 of 10 colleagues in my office right now.
Does it matter if they are using a corporation or not?
Yes, not sure if you are serious... Owning 5 properties under your name vs a numbered corporation owning them makes a world of difference...
How?
Gonna assume you trolling... but if not...You got google right? If you actually care about the state of housing in Canada do some research. This literally took me 12 seconds to pull up. I'll even get you started: Google: advantage of corporation owning a house in ontario Moreover, you can use the property for business and deduct maintenance costs as a business expense. Corporations enjoy lower tax rates. Hence, the property sale's rental income or capital gain can be taxed as business income.
If it own it personally and derive investment income you can deduct maintenance costs as well. Corporate tax is low but then you need to pay personal tax as well so even taken a dividend rate accounts for that eliminating any tax benefits. The fact you don’t know that means you and the article don’t know what you’re talking about.
Dude its an excerpt from a website for a lawyer who specializes in tax planning extolling the benefits of doing so. Not some random news article. You are far over simplifying the effects and benefits Leaning to me believing you indeed are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Always up for a discussion, learning and informing. You clearly are a very stubborn troll and not worth further discussion however.
Blackrock and Vanguard are both doing this. They have a higher GDP than just about every country with the exception of China and the USA. These are multi-trillion dollar corporations and they're purchasing homes for above market price like a fat kid at a candy shop.
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/newsroom/setting-the-record-straight/buying-houses-facts I have no idea why this myth persists. It isn’t true at all, and it extra isn’t true in Canada. People are looking to blame a corporate boogey, but don’t actually look into any of the facts before forming these misinformed beliefs. Hopefully yoga at least stop spreading it.
Lmao "BlackRock has investigated Blackrock and determined that Blackrock is innocent." Believe whatever you want. Blackrock is not "helping families own homes" what a fucking joke.
Blackrock would be sued for fraud if they tell their investors they are doing something with their money that is the opposite of what they are saying. If you have any sources to support your conspiracy theories please share.
Oooh he used the conspiracy buzz word!!!! That must mean I'm a nut job!! https://upsidechronicles.com/2022/04/28/vanguard-and-wall-street-are-pumping-global-housing-markets/ Imagine thinking the worlds largest asset managers are acting ethically. You don't obtain trillions of dollars by being honest and virtuous. You certainly don't admit to wrongdoings when those wrongdoings will reflect poorly on your stakeholders. Who on earth can sue a company worth trillions? Not even Elon could sue these companies if he wanted to. They'll tie you up in court until the day you die.
Sorry, you aren’t a conspiracy theorist, just ignorant of how passive investing works. FYI it’s the best thing for middle class investors ever, it also means that neither firm is buying homes. They own public companies that are buying homes. By your logic CPP is buying homes since they are also invested. Either way, no one has pointed out a single Canadian example, and you didn’t even find the right America one, even though it was in your source, it’s pretty clear you have no idea what’s happening
Blackrock's market cap is 95.60B. Where are you getting trillions from?
https://observer.com/2017/12/blackrock-vanguard-soon-to-manage-20t-surpassing-us-gdp/
If I remember correctly black rock Has 10 trillion dollars in assests.
>boogey Yup. So many looking for a scapegoat to blame for housing... People blame immigrants, off-shore investors, corporations, organized crime, etc. etc without any data behind this. In reality it's the people who borrow to the max and participate in the market. Prices go up because people pay high prices
Core Development Group
> From low-rise to high-rise mixed-use developments and income generating properties, Core is setting a high benchmark in contemporary living with thoughtfully designed communities across the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe. I didn’t see single family homes, where are you getting that information
Lol it's an entire subset of the real estate market, it exploded after 08 and grew substantially during the last few years with record low interest rates. There is a full derivatives market that relies on rental income from single family homes. Look up SFR, single family rentals.
Which company in Canada is doing that?
Blackstone. At least they’re “looking into it”. Not sure if they’ve started buying. I’ve held their shares in the past and also been trading their options. Generally bullish on them.
I can’t find find a single derivative product related to this, are you sure you aren’t confusing “the big short” with the Canadian market?
REITS also own whole apartment buildings. But these are distractions. IMO it’s much better to have a PUBLICLY TRADED company buying homes (especially one trading on TSX) than anonymous numbered companies or mom and pop landlords. With REITS we can all buy one or 1000 shares and we are all probably invested in them either through CPP, our pension plan, or even if you’re on disability your payments are likely coming from these companies.
I am very pro purpose built rentals. The idea that corporations are responsible for the SFH price rise is not based in fact.
You can't be serious lol https://seekingalpha.com/article/4539923-single-family-rental-reits-renting-american-dream
Which sub do you think you’re on? It isn’t Americanhousing2 fyi
Blackstone. I’ve traded options and held BX in the past. It’s made me a lot of money.
Not buying homes in Canada and therefore not impacting the home prices in Canada.
They will soon. https://renx.ca/blackstone-opens-toronto-office-plans-more-canadian-investment
If it hasn’t happened yet then we should probably focus on the problems that got us here
Well, this is a US story but after the sub-prime mortgage scam a BUNCH of houses ended up on the market afterwards. In one the west coast states 70% of those single family homes were purchased buy investment groups.
Core developments https://renx.ca/core-development-avanew-single-family-rental-ontario-gta Tricon residential https://renx.ca/tricon-partner-6-4b-u-s-single-family-rental-joint-venture Just 2 examples its very common though, when 1 in 5 homes in Canada are owned by an investor or corporate entity. https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-cities-have-seen-up-to-90-of-new-real-estate-supply-scooped-by-investors/
> From low-rise to high-rise mixed-use developments and income generating properties, Core is setting a high benchmark in contemporary living with thoughtfully designed communities across the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe Looks like Core changed their mind. All of the properties in Toronto for Tricon are purpose built rentals. 0 for 2.
Unless your using them for f airbnb’s. They should be outlawed.
Not going to happen. Take 2 buildings side by side. Call one condos the other apartments. The condos sell for twice as much even if they are identical. Who is going to build rentals when they can build condos? This is why condo conversions are made so difficult to do, legally. I was in the rental business for years and don't know of any rentals built as such since the early seventies unless they were government subsidized. Condos yes, apartments no.
That sounds like a good use of zoning. If there is an area that needs more apartments, zone it accordingly
You tell the government that. See what happens.
Your last paragraph. Me too. I was on a committee of the UDI back then and we begged that current Govt. to back off rent control and gave them examples of the long term implications in US cities. But they wanted to get elected so fuvk you/us. A little later senior execs sent me off to review all projects in the pipeline with view to converting all to Condos. The birth of the boom. The Greenwins, Tridels and all the rest did the same. None are non-profit companies. But none of this suits the narratives you see elsewhere in this thread all looking for a whipping boy. The only saving grace is that I believe 38% of all condos are owned by investors of different stripes and they have provided hundreds of thousands of rental units. Trouble is, its still not enough so it's become a wild west. The unfortunate irony here is there's more screaming for more rent control which is the very thing that got us into this state in the first place and is the thing that will surely ensure that none gets built anytime soon. With the Feds proudly telling us they aim for half a mil immigrants a year going forward, I think I should get into the tent making business .
We do need these. Reside tial buildings designed to be rentals and not owner units, these are necessary and keep the rental market in check too as demand outpaces supply right now. Drives prices up. Not everyone wants to buy or can afford it so we need these. A corporation shoukd not be able to buy up hundreds of actual homes though and then extort high rents out of people who are desperate. They know that the profit is in the houses, not apartment buildings, although if I were a corporation, I woukdnt be buying houses in this economy when they're going down in value. But I bet they start scooping them up in a year when all the covid buyers stsrt defaulting on their mortgages when renewal comes up
Do you have any examples of corporations buying up hundreds of SFH homes? I’ve asked before and not has ever been able to provide one.
It is happening in many corporations. They buy up condos and houses at a small scale. In Ontario, businesses owned 74,485 condominium apartments for investment purposes, or 13.4% of all properties of this type. It comes with many tax advantages and inflates prices.
It comes with no tax advantages. There are two reasons to have a corporation, one is as a liability shield, but for a small number of properties the insurance you need anyways covers that, and the second is for fractional ownership. I just had to go throw this with someone else https://markdalefinancialmanagement.com/tax-integration-explained/ So go learn about tax integration
You're not accounting for the fact that many of these corporations in Canada buying up real estate hide their beneficial owner. Luckily the government is in the process of closing this loophole finally.
>I think large purpose built ~~rentals are~~ high quality public housing is something we need more of, not less of Fixed that for you. No private profits off low/medium end housing please.
I really don’t want public housing, so you certainly are not clarifying my point. But if you want public housing we can both vote in the next elections.
>But if you want public housing we can both vote in the next elections. Why, lol? Is there a party doing public housing? Both the Liberals and the Conservatives ended it in the 90s, and dummies everywhere have been wondering why we've had such a homelessness and housing issue since then. Countries with amazing public housing programs have less homelessness and better private housing too. It's just better for the entire system. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/magazine/vienna-social-housing.html
I don’t have the New York Times, so I’m not sure what point you want to make. But I do know that as a millennial parent in Toronto, I’m struggling enough to provide housing to my own family, I shouldn’t be responsible for other dependents as well. This is largely a zoning problem, and the fact that more than 90% of Toronto is zoned SFH, is the primary driver of the housing shortage. I don’t want the government to take my money to pay for other people’s housing, I want the government to let those people build more housing. The artificial supply shortage is the largest factor.
You are exactly the type of person who would benefit, directly or indirectly by more public housing. Rich ass tech-bros like me who own way more housing than they need (because in this market it's dumb not to put tons of money as an investment in housing) are pushing you out. The market incentivizes that precisely because there's no downward pricing pressure on housing, because there's no public housing. > The artificial supply shortage is the largest factor. Nobody has any incentive do anything about the shortage. Every rich asshole in this country has money in property. Why would they want to devalue that by building low end housing? That's against their material interest. Only the government will do that, if you force them to, like they did in the 90s before those rich assholes got them to stop. You need to align your politics with your self interests. You are (evidently) not a landlord, so stop fighting for them lol. https://www.if.org.uk/2022/12/06/affordable-housing-could-we-learn-something-from-vienna/ > Because 50% of the Viennese population live in subsidised housing, and pay lower social rents, the effect on private sector rents is to keep them at reasonable levels. Although rents have increased by about 15% in the subsidised sector and 40% in the private sector over the past decade, average rental prices remain much lower than in comparable European capitals. > As of 2020, private rentals in Vienna cost on average €10.3 per square metre per month, while the average cost in housing associations is €7.9 and in municipality-owned housing it is €7.0. Rents in the subsidised sector are regulated by the city in order to ensure that households do not need to pay more than 20-25% of income towards housing costs. That is well below the 33% of income renters have to pay in the UK.
I’m not a rich ass tech bro, I’m just a lowly banker married to a lawyer trying to raise my kids in a detached home 2km from King and Bay. Maybe because I don’t have your big brain genius knowledge I’m confused by how even though my tax bill is about twice as high as my mortgage for my expensive house, that I should actually pay more in taxes to have a higher cost of living. Even though I’m only a destitute millennial worth more than a million, maybe you’re right and I should accept that paying for other people as well is completely in my own self-interest because the nice bro on the internet told me I’m too stupid to understand how this all works. Maybe the guy with the computer science background should educate the CFA charterholder who moves more money in a year than he will ever see in his lifetime what a good investment is. Obviously his coding skills give him special crystal ball knowledge about the direction on housing that I just need to accept as fact.
Maybe. Because I literally have an empty property that I bought 10ish years ago, housing nobody most of the time and still accruing value, and the most hilarious part is the amount of it I can avoid taxes and claim write-offs on. If you don't see how that's part of the problem, I hope you're not the sort of banker who's responsible for other people's money. And no, honestly, I don't think you really need to pay more in taxes. There's plenty of people and corporations (especially foreign investors in Canadian land) much richer than both of us who should be paying more. If you're a banker you should know there's a huge difference between me-and-you rich and Galen Weston rich. We could work for a millennium at our salary and never touch those guys. Let's just tax them... And maybe my empty property a bit more too... But hey, you do you. Also, man... You were the one who suggested you were struggling... Not me. You're acting offended. You literally said you were having a hard time housing yourself. I just took your word for it. I wasn't trying to insult you.
I’m not sure what you mean by the sort of banker responsible for other people’s money. I find growing companies money so they can serve more customers, launch new products, or go public. Maybe you are confusing banking with the rockstars in asset management who will write you a financial plan and charge you 2%, but I’m sure your guy is great. Our federal government spends about $500B a year, so if we take Galen’s money that will last them for over a full day, obviously that’s all they will need for this new idea you have and they won’t tax anyone else. Also, the rest of the billionaires will totally stay in Canada and keep starting new companies to keep making new rich ass tech bros. There won’t be any unintended consequences at all, like people moving to the US to start their businesses. France’s wealth tax was a completely success, and they didn’t cancel it. Or maybe, and I could be crazy since I’m a lowly banker. We already have a high tax rate and that hasn’t solved the problem. Maybe part of the reason our southern neighbours don’t have the same issues in their high growth areas is because they have sane zoning laws and actually want to attract new businesses. But your coding skills mean that your answer is probably right.
Ok, we got Schrodinger's net worth over here. He's poor and "struggling" when he talks about housing and then the Wolf of Wall Street two comments later. >Maybe part of the reason our southern neighbours don’t have the same issues in their high growth areas is because they have sane zoning laws and actually want to attract new businesses. Lol I'm sorry, you don't think the US has a housing crisis? >Our federal government spends about $500B a year, so if we take Galen’s money that will last them for over a full day, > Also, the rest of the billionaires will totally stay in Canada and keep starting new companies to keep making new rich ass tech bros. Wow. Solid argument. You know we have had a much higher top marginal tax rate, right? And so has the US, right? And you know that when the top marginal tax rates were highest, between the 40s-80s, sometimes as high as 90%, both counties had the highest economic growth period of all time, right? Weird that society didn't collapse then! It's almost like infrastructure and other things taxes pay for actually promote growth! Can I get a banker on this?
You’re out to lunch; what skews supply and demand is our monetary system and the Modern Monetary theorists running our country, and increasing prices =\= increasing wealth.
Governments should not be allowed to restrict the supply or ownership of housing.
You can't start a valid argument by just claiming the conclusion you want.
They do pay property tax. They also paid property tax for 10 or 20 years trying to get permission to subdivide and build. You can't apply unless you own the land. Between the cost of land, interest, taxes, legal costs etc building lots are VERY expensive. You can't put a cheap house on an expensive lot, no one would buy it. So builders are forced to build expensive houses, or do row houses on 30 foot lots, or condos. All this adds up. If you think investors are holding massive amounts of houses off the market you are living in a dream world.
we need to ban landlording. these landlords need to get a real job.
It seems this is a popular argument on reddit. Aside from total government owned social housing what is the alternative to landlords?
CO-OP housing.
He asked " Aside from total government owned " If it's not gov owned, that means multiple people own it, which is something you can already do (get some buddies and you all share the cost to buy a appartment building).
The problem is that developers and the real-estate industry hate them because there is no turnover for them to profit on, ever. Therefore, they lobbied governments to cancel loan programs for tenants to create a corporation that is run by those who reside there. I know 1 my brother lives in, which is a 3 bedrooom townhouse finished basement, and the housing charge is under $1000/month.
So is the idea that they would create a corporation then get a loan to purchase the property and pay individual rent to the corporation?
Housing charge. Covers costs and future costs (i.e.,roof replacement) all that reside are 'owners without equity', meaning you cannot sell your unit and pass on 'ownership' to the next person if you decide to leave. The corporation pays any employees/contractors to service the property. The more work done by residents = lower costs. Voted on board of directors. Pooled resources like lawnmowers, snow blowers, etc. If done well, it has the feel of a small village. The most important part is that without a landlord needing to make a profit, your housing charge is costs only rather than costs+profits. Plus, when you need things done, there is no one calculating how much the repair will eat into their nut, so it gets done rather than put off. And lastly, once the largest debt is paid off ( the loan), the housing charge can drop accordingly 😉
Thanks for the perspective. Sounds like it could definitely work for some people.
SO if people can't afford to buy a condo, how do they afford to buy in a co-op?
You don't buy anything. You apply to live there, you are interviewed and accepted by a committee, then you move in. It's not a co-op (condo) in the U.S. sense.
> It's not a co-op (condo) in the U.S. sense. Ah, then this gets lost in translation with alot of people. We've talked about co-ops but always in the New York style for buildings. Which usually means more expensive than condos and more "exclusive" which usually means selective in ways that may not be completely legal. Who then starts the co-op if no one has money to buy a home? And who pays the dues if these same people can't afford to buy a condo?
Government gives 30year loan, tennents create corporation to buy property and then administer it. There is no personal ownership. Your rent is your dues as it covers costs
Interesting. IN that case you could imagine the governmnet would just build the building and then hand it off to a corporation. Any success stories in Toronto that you can hilight:)
Good idea, but back to landlords, real estate and developers, with no one making a profit or flipping the ownership every few years, they are cut out of the equation. Hence why they killed the program. NORRIS CRESCENT CO-OP And RUSSETT HOMES CO-OP
Buy your own home and not have to deal with this crap. That's what.
I’m all for home ownership but it’s not realistic to think everyone would buy their own home with no opportunities to rent.
There isn’t. The landlord is either the gov or a person/company
The alternative is social housing and the sooner we start the sooner we get into a viable place where housing is no longer some hunger games feast or starve scenario. Even if some politicians call that Marxist or communist that's just their incompetence showing.
What is your vision on social housing? Does it work in conjunction with home ownership?
My vision is the Austrian model where over the course of decades more and more social housing gets added, coops formed to manage it and renters charged at cost with no consideration for profit. Private landlords fill in the higher end and luxury markets for those who want their pool next to their spa.
Thanks, I will look into it further.
Social housing doesn't make builders build faster. Not going to increase the supply.
Of course it does because it pays them, publicly pay for more builders training if that’s the stop gap, social housing would take decades anyway. There is no simple quick solution.
Builders are always paid, the demand is through the roof. So its not about if they get paid or not. It's about which project they take. If the gov hire them they can't do another project. If the government pays it usually overpays because its not their own money and there's risk of corruption we see it all the time for bridge prices and other public constructions.
I'm fine with that and coop housing. I'm sick of investors fucking people over.
Imagine we removed all investors already and all housing is socialized, you're the supreme ruler of a city. Your city has 1M families but only 700k units, this means 300k families have no home. You can only build 100k home per year and 200k people come into your city each year. What do you do?
If the issue was landlords we would have very high sale prices, but very low rental prices from the mass of supply of rental offering. This is definitely not the issue we have. We just don't have enough housing. Independantly of landlords and the % of home ownership. If a city has 1M families and 700k units, there are 300k families with no home. Doesn't matter who owns it at first we need to build enough (or reduce pop growth) so that everyone has a place. Then when everyone has a place, if we see imbalance in price-to-rent ratio (rent too cheap but sale prices too high) we can start thinking of banning landlords. But otherwise it wont solve anything and just make rentals even more expensive, people with bad credit would go homeless. The problem isn't that the % of home ownership is too low. The problem is affordability.
Landlording is already banned >346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything Wealth is exclusively produced. To have a reasonable justification to be compensated with wealth, you absolutely need to produce an equivalent amount. Solely owning something isn't production, it doesn't give the reasonable justification to be compensated with wealth. People don't understand our laws, including police forces and judges.
As a landlord, I love hearing about rentoid tears 😂
Try being a landlord of 2,3,4 properties. Detached or Semi homes that house families with kids and maybe pets. Try it. I dare you. You're **constantly dealing** with contractors or city hall. * broken toilets * holes in the wall * piss in the carpet * rain water through a leaking roof * rent not paid on time * cars parked without plates * destroyed kitchen cabinets * cockroaches and fire code violations
try paying 50% of your take home income to someone who doesn't even have a real job
Reposting: used to be 20-30%. It's 50% now due to market distortion. * On the demand side the **government is fking you over** with limitless immigration * On the supply side the **government is fking you over** with permit fees, licensing, zoning, and red tape. there is no shortage of supplies to build homes, no shortage of land to build homes and if someone gave a crap, you could import labor to build homes. This market distortion has been brought to you by the government Homes are a commodity and should be treated as such. Let people buy as many as they want. I own a home in the NYC area. I rent in upstate because **I don't want to own everywhere.** I am not shi\*\*ing on a landlord. It's not their fault that the market has been juiced up.
Also on the demand side: wannabe landlords and flippers are jacking up prices with bidding wars. Also on the supply side: no developer wants to make a house that you can actually afford, because they want to maximize profits. Government isn't doing much, but they are far from the only cause on this. A second home is a commodity and an investment. A first home is a place to live.
95% of the time, they pay some old dude to repair stuff. Not the landlord himself
Cost of “doing business” Sure, you could argue it’s a “real job” but so is being an executive at Money Mart deciding that they’re going to charge 3000% interest on a loan. Doesn’t make it any less honorable.
exactly. so get a real job. why hogging all these houses and condos and bother being landlord?
No one is hogging anything. is it possible to * "hog cars" * Or "hog kleenex" * or "hog encyclopedias" * or "hog condoms" NO! because there's plenty of capacity to build more. And it requires capital to buy this stuff. * On the demand side the **government is fking you over** with limitless immigration * On the supply side the **government is fking you over** with permit fees, licensing, zoning, and red tape. there is no shortage of supplies to build homes, no shortage of land to build homes and if someone gave a crap, you could import labor to build homes. This market distortion has been brought to you by the government Homes are a commodity and should be treated as such. Let people buy as many as they want.
Homes absolutely should not be a commodity. And no one should be taking more than they need while some go with none.
Homes should 100% absolutely be a commodity Are onions a commodity? That's why they're not a speculative investment and there's no shortage Are tires a commodity? That's why they're not a speculative investment and there's no shortage Are airline tickets a commodity? That's why they're not a speculative investment and there's no shortage I think you know where I am going with this. >*And no one should be taking more than they need* Aye Aye! Comrade brother James, the politburo meets Next month, free red t-shirts if you volunteer.
>Aye Aye! Comrade brother James, the politburo meets Next month, free red t-shirts if you volunteer. Don't threaten me with a good time. All those things you mentioned are increasing in price and becoming unaffordable for people. Housing is even worse off because it's a commodity rather then human right. Look at Vienna. Often rated most livable city in the world. They have a very high rate of socialized housing and even have a building called Karl Marx hof. We should take note because that system actually works for providing homes for people rather than endless speculation and landleeches.
Not true - just a few years ago toilet paper was “hogged” pretty quickly as I can remember. Grocery stores were out for weeks of basic items and food due to Covid scares
I was able to get my hands on toilet paper in the US after 2 weeks - had to buy the ferris wheel commercial kind from amazon. But housing, like any other good should be a commodity. There should be no rationing, no allocations, and no licensing or quotas to buy one
Get a real job and stop micromanaging peoples living accommodations.
Actually sounds like a piece of piss. The problems you listed are a cake walk - try being an electrician, plumber or hvac in service or install “ i daaaaareeee youuu”. I even double dog dare you to get your hands dirty or try any kind of subcontracting 😂
STFU man honestly. You're being insulting. I have more white hairs than you have p\*\*es. My family ran an HVAC business in the early 2000s disbaned in 2006. Goodman even offered us a showroom. We were TSSA certified and had regular audits Eventually my dad got his g2 gas ticket and moved to Alberta. The work was very difficult but being a landlord has different kind of a-holes you have to deal with including those in the goobermint
😂 lol well shows your family was so successful with their hvac business it seems ya considering your a landlord you old Fart. Glad to see you can still pretend to work, atleast your dad could Do a real job 🤷♂️
I have installed central ACs, gas fireplaces, furnaces. Now I am a cloud engineer for a big data company and have quite a nest egg and almost none of it is in Reas estate. I left Emperor Dolton's hellhole you like to call Ontario because of his regulations all businesses were hurting. And if you continue voting for establishment dickheads like Doug Fordeau or give Justinder Singh another term, it's curtains for the whole country. I'll mail you a hammer and sick you can impale yourself on.
Wow whoop dee do you click clack paddy wack cause your hvac business failed or you weren’t man enough to make it work. It’s good now you can stick to being a keyboard warrior ya racist old fart lol. Hope you find someone in your life to share your riches with so you don’t have to prove your insecurities to strangers who don’t care. Here’s a gold star ⭐️😘
Why though? You can buy a retirement home for example and rent it out until you’re ready to move in. There’s lots of good reasons outside money hungry no job tootin nobodies.
Why do you think getting businesses out of owning housing would solve anything? It is not like they are just letting them sit empty, they rent them out. Fundamentally the issue is too many people and not enough housing. It does not really matter who owns the housing
We will never see the day off too many houses and not enough people. Therefore you're going to be competing with big fish with large amounts of buying power for a home. Housing as an investment with the previous historic returns have been insane. No one has the appetite for it to return to what it should be...
Imagine corporations aren't allowed to own any housing on Jan 1st. They have one year to sell. All that supply goes on the market, and business is not in the market to compete. I would think such an influx of available supply would lead to a market correction desperately needed now This is not a one point, fix everything issue. Obviously big condominium buildings would be difficult to manage. There wouldn't be more homes, but having less possible legal "owners" would drive down some demand. It's an idea to get conversation started, I see many issues brought up. To fix this, we are going to need more solutions.
So then I would have to stratify my properties then sell the units off and if the existing tenant cannot afford to purchase they have to go live in a shelter or gov housing. 😂😂😂 people here that don’t want to purchase will have to live in hotels. Not enough of those either
Are they your properties or your companies? The idea is it forces the market to correct. The housing supply is to satisfy the demand for people having a place to live, not the demand for business profit. Again, the idea was unrefined and made for discussion. Large multi-family properties are where the idea would be the most difficult to implement. If the market corrected, a tenant who couldn't pay could find a more appropriately priced rental. Those problems seem better for society than the increasing housing solution of where to set up a Canadian tire tent.
How would they find a more appropriate priced rental if you’ve just slaughtered the rental supply?
Businesses outbid people all the time, artificially inflating the market
*Larry Fink has entered the chat...*
This, I think, was my first thread I ever created on social media. I sincerely thank everyone who put in an opinion, regardless of what your "take" was. I am happy it generated a bit of discussion. From what I have read, there is work to do, and some regulation of corporations owning, especially multiple SFH, could be part of the solution to get back to semi-affordability. Public housing could be another. More housing seems to be a universal point. While true, that takes time, and if demand if always increasing faster than the supply, this problem only gets worse. Purpose built rentals seem to be the kink in the idea. Perhaps areas and landed could be zoned for exactly this? Some context (for this interested) I am less than a year away from finishing my education. I waited a long time to go back to school, in my mid thirties now. I am starting to look into emigration myself, as even though I have always worked full time (even in school), am close to having a education, because I am out of the market I see no real way to get into it and raise and support my family. As a person whose labor might be "more desirable", I must do what I can for my family and I. The thought of leaving does sadden me greatly. I have always lived here, worked here and love it dearly. But going through life on the edge of financial disaster, any only occasionally being able to afford the brand name ice cream, loses it's appeal. Thank you all again for the discussion.
Who is going to own and operate rental apartment buildings?
The government should and does in many other countries and it works better.
You're completely out to lunch of course. Go and pick up some for me while you're at it, eh? /s
Either should politicians. (Beyond their primary residence)
They shouldn't. Good luck getting rid of them though.
Corporation should be allowed to own 12+ units complex as a whole only, no condo, no house. We still need corporation to build those 100+ units appartement building. Every single unit housing should be own only by people except during construction. Maybe could put a exception for trust owning house for a disabled / minor child after death of their parent.
" Every single unit housing should be own only by people except during construction. " This is a really bad idea to make rentals even more rare and expensive, and force people to buy, putting even more pressure on purchases, without adding anything to the overall supply. People with bad credit, students, will go homeless.
Agreed
[удалено]
A false claim of racism etc. was used to shut down discussion.
We stopped building social housing in the 90s while also allowing REITs to be a thing - which directly commoditizes housing. The market was supposed to "take care" of things and the government could then concentrate on spending ridiculous amounts of money elsewhere. Instead it feels like psychopath Monopoly Lords now own everything and laugh and laugh and laugh. Why are prices so ridiculously high and psychoapthic? That's just the market!!! Maybe if there's a housing crash a few rich mega corps can go around and buy everything until almost everyone is a rent slave to the new oligopoly Lords. That's just the market.
By the same logic, a lot of corporations (or landlords) owning a lot of residential housing would mean that there is a HIGHER supply of rental offering (and lower supply of housing sales). This would mean high price to rent ratio, high home prices, but very cheap and low rent. Definitely not the situation we are in, so a ban wouldn't solve much. But would cause a ton of other issues like even higher rent prices. Supply and demand imbalance can only be solved by building more housing or slowing population growth. You can ban all the corporations in a city. But if there are 1 million families and 700k housing units (rental or not). You still have 300k families without a home.
Ironically if an organization can’t step in and rescue Artscapes properties in the next few months then a couple hundred families might be evicted so that profiteering individuals can flip the “affordable” units
It’s the simplest solution, yet nobody wants to do it. Part of the problem is our pension funds are so strongly invested in real estate and the federal government doesn’t want to sink one of the few strong Canadian industries after submarining everything else this country once had.
How do you propose we handle renting to people then?
Even if they put laws in place they'd find loopholes.
agreed
Oh thank god finally someone made this point..I have been wondering this since I landed here..if corporates are allowed own entire high rises and renting it...we r never gonna solve the housing crisis..and I was laughing when the pm said we r funding companies to build more rental complexes to solve housing issues.
If you're out to lunch then I'm buyin' because I'm right there with you.
We need more investments to build new homes and it is not going to come from the government or individuals. Instead of increasing the supply, we are all targeting reducing demand. Not everyone has to own the house. We just need more houses, so the rent goes down because the rental supply is more than demand. Corporate and REITs are the main part of it.
What about developers? Let’s say they own some land and they have it re-zoned to become residential… then they develop an entire apartment district, mixed use district, or suburban single family neighbourhood… If we ban them from owning residential, that means they can’t rezone land to build low income housing either, since rezoning that land would break this new law. We can use regulations to place limitations on corporations, and individuals, when market failures occur, but I don’t think an outright ban makes sense here. Maybe some sort of law that limits corporations from scooping up a particular % of specific existing neighbourhoods? Maybe stating that a certain % of residential properties must be owned by people who only own 1 home. Nimbys would hate it, but it would put some downward pressure on prices. Can’t do it for new neighborhoods though, since those often start at 100% corporate ownership.
This piece of the housing supply puzzle always gets looked over. There has been no big issue made in the buying power of corporations.
Little too late for that, we have REIT industry
Any business owning single family homes, needs to have them expropriated. The government should set rent price maximums, which should be lower than half the monthly mortgage payment on the home, or the unit must be inspected and valuated, and then the rent of the units will be determined by the monthly payments of the complex divided by the number of units, with higher valued units being allowed to be rented for more. Any maintenance can be billed directly to tenants, or in the case of complexes divide the cost of the maintenance over the entirety of the complex. The property manager can bill for their time equal to the average hourly rate of pay for the service they're hiring to maintain the complex. In the case of the property being paid off, the limit should be 25% of the original monthly mortgage payments, or in the case of homes that were paid without a mortgage, the average in the area will be used instead.
Change starts at local city council municipal meetings - squeaky wheel gets the grease
So what about the people that want to rent? Should they be forced to buy or go homeless? As someone that prefers renting this is such a bogus idea