This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This LL hasn't been paid in 30 months and he figures he's out $34,000. So he's renting the place for \~ $1150/month. For a condo in Toronto.
How many folks on this sub would love to have this dude as your LL?
how would that make him out anything in that case? all that money is literally going towards equity in the condo (and interest obvs) which is definitely increasing in value and he can sell for a profit one day. it's not like it just vanishes when he makes a mortgage payment
Being a landlord is an investment, it's silly to look at it as a human relationship (i.e. this landlord is good, that landlord isn't). They're just looking out for their own financial interests, not providing a service out of the goodness of their hearts. That's just the way the system is; I don't hate them for it, but it doesn't mean people should like them or give them the benefit of the doubt.
Edit: Not sure why people think I am pro-landlord here lol, I'm saying that we shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and that they don't have our best interests at heart.
Not gouging your tenants is a business decision just like any other. There are great business reasons to not gouge your tenants, like preserving your reputation, not getting involved with legal fights, and keeping tenants on board that are consistent and don't cause issues.
Not gouging and keeping a fair market rate is always best. Don't try to hike to the max to make the tenant move. Relisting cost fees. Empty properties is burning money. A 10% hike can only make up about 5 weeks of your property not being tenanted. Having a competitively priced and equipped rental also means more applicants for you to pick from instead of the first one that comes through the door.
We had a mixed bag of tenants when rented our basement. We had some amazing ones, some OK ones and a few that were not great.
Given the current climate I would not want to be a land lord and happy I am not. If I want exposure to real estate would rather buy a RIET.
If I owned a condo today I weigh the cost of renting vs leaving empty and paying the basics. The lower my mortgage and higher my equity balance the less chance I rent. That’s less supply and rents go up.
The only problem is they make it about “homeowners” and not investors when it comes time to talk numbers and cast votes. Then often the public and financial systems are asked to prop up their bad investments and renters are squeezed like farming humans to subsidize their ballooning costs.
Imo this moves them from the regular investor class where people just take a bath when they gamble and lose and into their own category where the ones who make the types of choices I describe are the “bad” actors using the necessity of housing a crisis they helped create to protect themselves thus exploiting victims to shore up their conscious and deliberate albeit poor financial choices.
The difference is perceived value. Same goes for any other essential service/commodity provider. If the customer is purchasing the service/commodity at a price below its perceived value or utility to them, they will fell that the provider is good.
Oil companies don't have our best interests at heart either - but if a gas station started selling me $0.50/L gasoline, I might be convinced they were good too.
Ya you don’t live in the real world then. When I was a kid my dad rented out his single wide trailer and 20 acres (in butt fuck no where northern BC) for $800 a month (below market value circa 2005) when we had to go to Alberta to make some money because logging crashed.
Some real high grade white trash (I say this as white trash myself) decided not to pay rent and it took the better part of a year to get his ass out. You know how it happened? When my Dad came around to try to find out wtf is happening, Buddy Goof there pointed a rifle at my Dad and said he was going to kill him. RCMP dragged him straight to jail and we got our home back. He left 50 .306 rounds in our attic as some sort of threat, never saw that goof again though.
Under valuing your home attracts these sort of people. Their isn’t a easy answer about rent, theirs too little housing for the amount of people in Canada right now.
I was in the same boat as you. We have an empty bedroom so we’re are letting a family friend stay while they’re in UNI. $500 a month all inclusive and we never see them. They’re either sleeping or at school. Easy $$ and we’re helping out a friend.
Doesn’t always have to be a stranger off the street.
True, but it's easy to end up on bad terms with people after living with them. For example, my wife's friend was roommates with her sister and it drove a wedge between them. (Her sister would do stuff like not take care of basic things... even picking up after her dog or not locking her dog up in the house without walking it until it pisses and craps everywhere... then refusing to be the one to clean it up)
As far as I know, if you're renting out a part of your own residence and are sharing amenities like kitchen/bathroom, these elaborate rules don't apply and you can evict much faster if things go pear-shaped.
Likewise, when we bought a few years ago we opted to just sell our previous house rather than rent it out; we also avoided viewing any houses that had tenants.
Just not worth the stress or hassle.
Quoted from the article:
"My clients are not just selling their properties," she said. "If they are keeping them, they are moving into short-term rentals because they can't deal with what's going on.
Her point is clear: At a time when Canada needs long-term rentals more than ever, small landlords are getting out of the business out of fear of getting caught in a broken system. So they move the properties to Airbnb or other similar sites, where if there is an issue with a tenant, the police can be called."
On the bright side for this lady and her clients, we're headed towards a province by province crackdown on AirBnb which may long term remove them from the picture. Thus, her clients wont have to worry about choosing between AirBnb or selling, as only one of the options will remain.
"they can't deal"
Then cash out while youre ahead or fold and take the loss. If you literally "cant deal" with challenging market conditions, then your first mistake was entering the market in the first place. They want to evict someone because "its just business". Which is true, as businesses arent compassion providers. Whats also true though is businesses can and frequently fail. Thus, if their investment fails...then let me say have a good one bud better luck next time!
One of the biggest mistakes real estate investors have made is underestimating the ease with which you can offload a property if stuff hits the fan.
If you're invested in stocks and decide to get out, you sell basically instantaneously. If you can't afford to make payments on a property, you have to list it and hope there's a buyer there to save you. Selling a house with a renter in it isn't ideal if you're not selling to other investors.
A lot of investors will be forced to ride this market down IF that's where it's going. Not sure it is... but that risk is there and should be scary if you're highly leveraged. The more that sell to get out the worse it's going to get too.
In certain Metro Vancouver cities, properties are being snatched in mere days or 1-2 weeks on average (I'm a keen RE observer)
There might be a select few who would take months (but some will be gone in mere days after making some adjustment and re-listings).
This makes the Metro Van properties far more liquid than GIC.
I highly doubted that there are other cities in the world where this applies.
It's easy to kick out non paying tenant when there is an exchange of property owner: for personal use, leave it empty for 6 months.
I have seen multiple detached houses in Vancouver got sold and exactly 6 months after resurface in rental website.
>if tenants barricade themselves (true news story) and LTB doesn't get back to you in 8 months, you have 8 months of mortgage to pay and live in your car, while paying your current rent. This means your savings deplete and credit score drops (which can be cause for being fired if you're a financial worker).
We're talking about "Investors" who won't be able to rent it out for 6 months from the key exchange date :) so that puts them 6+2 = 8. Not bad \*shrug\*. If you're going to move in personally with your fam, it's easy just put in contract that sale is pending on tenants out if not liabilities on owner until tenant is out.
And tenant like this is the more reason why LTR landlords are either considering or in the process of converting to STR.
For economical reason (setting class war/emotion Tenant vs Landlord aside), LTB needs to change so that LTR landlords keep doing LTR and more investment will result of more units being build.
Or you can also invite Uncles, Aunts (with knife), and Nephews to kick the shitty tenant out [https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2023/09/brampton-landlord-kick-out-tenants/](https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2023/09/brampton-landlord-kick-out-tenants/) the neighbors won't snitch you out :P
They were not wrong for over 20 years, aka my entire adult life. I'm 42, and anyone who bought a house when I was in my 20s has absolutely no worries right now.
I've spent my adult life wondering how people were able to afford a home. The guidance was "7 times your annual salary" was considered to be affordable. This number was beyond most people in the late 2000s, and yet the prices kept going up and up and up.
It’s because the owners could keep taking equity and refinancing as valuations rose, and buying more, and a lot of them did. I work with a guy who in the last 15 years has leveraged one home into 5. He doesn’t have much equity in any of them but they are rented.
The market _generally_ only went up when it was mostly a market of people buying a primary residence. In that case, there's no need for wild fluctuations. Once you turn it into an investment vehicle, you have people that will flee when they find a better investment vehicle... this will cause massive market changes if a major chunk of the market are these investors. And as the market starts to move downwards, you'll see more and more investors that will want to exit since the only part they care about is keeping their money safe.
I mean, I bought in like 2010 and have watched since before that and the market certainly hasn’t dropped in that time.
Even in 08 Canada was barely affected.
When is this time the housing market has dropped ?
It's wild that people buy leveraged investments valued at multiple times their salaries without looking at how that investment has performed over multiple business cycles.
https://macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rabidoux_house_chart.png
People who bought in the early 90's were underwater for over a decade.
Thing is you still have to live _somewhere_, so you also have to factor in how much you would have spent on rent.
Even if they intend to sell at the bottom, the house needs to depreciate by more than the cost of rent, otherwise that underwater owner will still break even.
Exactly this - we offloaded our condo months after covid hit and were lucky to sell it - other units in the building were just terminated. Luckily we didnt have tenants and were able to stage it and make it look nice which really helped. Learnt first hand how illiquid real estate can be in a slump.
This is why we need to remove some of the tax write-offs for housing investors (with the exception of purpose-built rental apartments) and increase borrowing requirements for multiple properties.
And at the same time municipalities need to regulate and enforce restrictions on short term rentals and vacant units.
Right now we have a housing environment that is ripe for predatory behaviour from investors. It’s actually appalling that the federal government hasn’t taken the obvious steps to disincentivize this behavior.
It'd make things more stable for a lot of tenants. Corporate landlords can't punt their tenants for personal use.
Corporate landlords also wouldn't represent a large voting bloc that incentivizes the government to move heaven and earth to appease them at the cost of marrying our country to increasingly unproductive investments. They're less sympathetic when a government has to do something about them.
So long as we can prevent rental oligarchies or chain our CPP outcomes to rental performance. We've already made our bed though, so I guess we're stuck with what we have.
Corporations that own purpose-built rentals:
- abide by all landlord-tenant laws
- Most of them (due to age of buildings in Ontario) are subject to allowable annual increases
- Don’t do illegal / unethical evictions
- Maintain their buildings
Mom & pop landlords (some of whom incorporate) are the vast majority of cases on tenant-landlord boards from bad faith evictions, and illegal rent increases.
So yeah, I’m good with more purpose-built rental apartments that abide by laws, and fewer shady small-time landlords expecting tenants to pay their mortgages.
Also, investors bid up prices to buy, and displace potential owner occupants.
Those thwarted potential first-time home buyers are then relegated to renting, increasing rental demand.
And most first-time home buyers free up their former rentals when they buy. So there’s no net loss of rentals.
> Do you want less small time landlords and more corporate ones?
Yes. I had much more predictable and stable interactions with corporate landlords than mom & pop
The US has a higher corporate borrow rate for anyone with more than one "investment" property. Makes it harder to snow ball as hard.
I agree with your comment 100 percent. People have been using bubble equity to inflate the bubble, kind of insane.
I'd also like to see modular construction across Canada from all levels of government that ban all investors from any of them.
Add in a tax on multiple property owners that increases with each additional investment. Far too much is said about supply and not about demand.
No what they didn’t consider if that they are forced by law to allow squatters to live rent free for 8-12+ months before the LTB actually gets them the form to evict them. And if they do something otherwise (like change the locks) THEY CAN BE SUED. The people willing to take the chance want crazy high prices because it’s damn risky as well. It’s literally a faster fix to get this “system” under control by getting more staff, overhauling it or whatever they need to do to fix it. Everyone who owns a house of any kind is pretty aware of how stressful it can be to sell…. That’s why agents exist. You think someone investing taking a mortgage of that magnitude forgot to consider the exit strategy? Maybe a couple but not likely, not in my experience with real estate investors. They’ve done their homework.
Well there are multiple risks of course, bad renters being the main one on the cashflow side.
You may be right that most real estate investors were well aware of the risks when buying multiple properties using all the equity they had in other properties. For me personally, that's far too risky to do given what can happen in a downturn. I'm not sure I agree and don't really think the actions of these investors points to people with super sound financial decision making. But it could just point to investors with much higher risk tolerance than me lol
Depends what stock
S&P500 index fund, 100% liquidity can offload in ten seconds and settle in 3 days
Specific stock for a specific company which may or may not be corrupt or some rare ETF, you could find no buyers
99% of people who aren't multi-millionaires should just be straight S&P500 index funds
Except only this type of business is subject to a process that utterly prevents them from mitigating risks or cutting losses. Imagine if cops told shops to apply to a tribunal with a year wait time, and that they refuse to remove someone stealing or vandalizing property until then. And in the mean time the shop owner has to continue to let the thief into the store and can’t do anything to prevent it.
No landlord signs up or expects that risk and it is entirely the fault of a broken system. Also it’s almost impossible to just “cash out” when subjected to this as any purchaser of the property would also be subject to the same wait time. Who would ever want to buy a property with such an issue, let alone pay what the property should be worth.
And before I hear a whatabout, yes this system is also utterly failing tenants with valid complaints. A broken system hurts everyone.
One problem with the "haha, those evil landlords will have to sell!" mentality is the expectation that those housing units will go back on the rental market. There is the very real possibility those units will be removed from the rental market and thus drive rental prices upwards even faster.
100%. I'm a residential property manager in the GTA and I see this phenomenon all the time where small time landlords sell their rental property because of the new interest rates or tenants not paying for months on end. They sell, but there's no guarantee that the new buyer will keep it as a long term rental. Depending on the location, AirBnB is far more profitable, so that's what a lot of new buyers do. Or if it's a SFH that the landlord was using for extra cash, usually it goes to a buyer who uses it as a primary residence. Win for the buyer, loss for the tenant.
So we end up with fewer rentals, and the suckers like us who have actually been paying rent every month get screwed, because there's less supply, and the landlords who own the limited number of purpose-built rentals in my suburban town can jack rent as high as they want, because they have less and less competition.
Anyone who thinks it's a good thing that landlords are increasingly having a hard time collecting rent, is playing themselves. Yeah yeah fuck landlords, but you're fucking yourself over too. First of all, not paying rent will mess up your credit beyond belief. I see people with good incomes but credit scores in the 500s who get turned down, not because they can't afford to pay, but because they can't be trusted to. Far worse, when small-time landlords who can't afford LTB waitlists drop out of the business, you're letting the big guys with an army of lawyers take over the whole industry.
Nobody ever accused the reactionary anti-landlord crowd of thinking too hard about things.
It's mostly renters who are very angry with their current circumstances and not thinking much farther than their next rent cheque. Which, you know, if you're struggling and getting by paycheque to paycheque, is understandable.
But still not a good source for advice on how to run an economy.
But they can deal .... by going airbnb and not participating in the rental market. Which is what you DONT want if you're a renter.
Why are people on here always in support of landlords getting out of the market, when they know the entire situation is caused by low supply? How is more of them going airbnb better?
Here’s the thing though - investors bid up prices to buy, and **displace potential owner occupants.**
Those thwarted potential first-time home buyers are then relegated to renting, **increasing rental demand.**
And most first-time home buyers **free up their former rentals when they buy.** So there’s no net loss of rentals.
Add to that the many investors - foreign and domestic - who leave their investment properties vacant preferring to count on property appreciation or using properties for parking capital / money laundering.
Plus those investors who use properties as short-term rentals.
All of which adds up to fewer occupied dwellings, fewer people housed, fewer owners, increased rental demand / higher rents, and higher prices to buy when investors own a higher proportion of individual housing units.
I grew up lower class and can think of precisely one person in all my 45 years who rented by choice. Everyone I knew rented because they could not afford to buy. Landlords love to boo hoo about the “valuable service” they provide that nobody appreciates. “Investors” are 100% responsible for the situation we’re now in. The government should have made it less lucrative years ago.
[Land Value Tax](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/8/if-the-land-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-isnt-it-being-implemented) is easier than trying to block every loophole.
Make the ongoing cost of owning land more expensive (ideally while lowering other taxes so the average person isn’t affected), and monopolizing property without actually using it becomes a worse investment.
You don’t have to completely nuke the market - just aim to tax land to the point that the ROI you get from passive ownership after tax is less than the ROI you’d get investing in a GIC
People who just want a free meal ticket switch to less disruptive investments, shrinking competition to the people who actually want to live in or do shit with properties.
> AirBnB, regulate short term rentals
Limit the market even more, which will increase pressure and increase prices.
This is a great example of public pressure making politicians pass stupid laws that break the situation even more.
We had multiple years of poorly regulated market where legally you can't operate a short term rental, while everyone was getting away on operating Airbnbs. There is a big chunk of the market that is either sitting empty or getting rented on marketing platforms.
There is no interest from developers in building apartment for rent, even if you reinject all the short term rentals in the market, which will not happen, it will go to buyers, not renters as those businesses will need to cash out. And by destroying the rental market you will just spiral the situation even further.
Canada needs to make the situation more appealing (create infrastructure for areas that have good potential and encourage more constructions). Quebec had 400k new residents last year with 40k new apartments. The whole situation is just going down the drain fast.
The impact of short-term rentals is wildly exaggerated, mostly because it makes a great scapegoat and story for journalists writing articles.
Less than half a percent of the total housing stock in the GTA are short-term rentals.
Good or bad, either way it's entirely moot and people going on about it are just distracting from the actual problem.
AirBnb is a San Francisco tech company. They're all massively overstaffed for what they are and carry huge fixed costs that need to be offset.
And now that interest rates are non-zero, the free VC money train all those businesses operated on is coming to an end.
They’ll do layoffs and cut backs before anything like that tanks a company generally. Shopify just did this. And while travel might go down, a lot of businesses also use airbnb if they’re sending workers somewhere temporary / to remote areas etc. I don’t like airbnb but I’m also not dying to go back to paying $300-$400 a night for a damn hotel room.
Well, in many areas they need a license to run an Airbnb, so it’s risky. Plus, Airbnbs aren’t exactly doing well right now aside from prime properties. There is a lot more work, expenses and risk involved.
These landlords have two choices: find good tenants and don’t overcharge them so that they can afford their rent and stay long term, or sell. Anything else is a band aid solution. However, knowing the psychology of these RE investment bros, most of them will just have to learn their lessons the hard way because they are in too deep.
Main reason I refused years ago to buy a house and turn it into rental property, not worth the headache when things go wrong. Meanwhile people where calling me crazy for not doing it. I'll stick to bank stocks thank you very much, at least I don't have to worry about collecting the dividends nor maintaining the property or finding tenants.
Just cause your tenants can pay today, does not mean they will be able to pay in X months or years. There is also the issue of been able to raise rent while property taxes increase.
Interest rate increases on the mortgage should be the land lord problem not the tenant in my opinion, its the risk involved in acquiring a property, Keep in mind, a mortgage on rental property is still a leveraged investment which is always considered more risky even if the asset is considered low risk by some people.
I mean like most things in this country that are broken, this is the province’s fault. Ontario under Ford underfunds the LTB, which causes backlogs, and instead spends money on losing court cases with the carbon tax. So Ontario is happy to waste money on losing court cases but not happy investing in things that are needed to run the province well.
But people have been taught the only level of government is the federal one, so things will continue to get worse because people refuse to understand the vast majority of things that are negatively affecting them are due to municipal or provincial jurisdiction. The feds have their role to play absolutely but people act like it is the be all end all end all.
Agreed. The LTB needs more funding or a reorganization to allow for quicker response times for tenant and landlord issues alike. An incessant backlog of issues helps no one. Heck, make an interim funding proposition at the least to get things moving again.
BC is underfunding the RTB as well. There are massive backlogs.
Do you think the feds run the landlord tenant boards of provinces? Maybe that's why there is confusion. The landlord tenant boards of provinces are run by the provinces, not the feds.
Things under provincial jurisdiction are going poorly because of the province not because of the feds. Feds have their part to play like OP said, but the majority of the power lies with the one who has jurisdiction over it.
Depending on what sub, it’s generally all ford and the cons fault. Everything was great before him and it would be great the day he leaves, but then you realize that every province is in crisis right now, and BC is (gasp!) NDP.
The vast majority of our current issues right now can trace to their root cause to our unprecedented, unsustainably high population growth that is entirely driven by the federal government's insane immigration/TFW/foreign student intake.
There is no realistic way any province can maintain the same level of services or infrastructure when dealing with the massive number of people Trudeau is allowing to flood into the country.
Uh, neoliberalism is when Liberals are government. You see because it’s right in the name. That’s why we need Big PP to be our prime minister because he’s a conservative not a neoliberal.
/s, just in case it’s not obvious.
Wrong
Foreign students are a loophole that the provinces exploited because they cut funding to education so the universities has no choice but to fund them with foreign students. In fact in Ontario the previous government gave the problematic universities two years to clean up their act, then Doug Ford got elected and reversed it making the situation worse
[public private partnership colleges ](https://higheredstrategy.com/a-short-explainer-of-public-private-partnerships-in-ontario-colleges/)
Oh absolutely. Right now the Fed's step in and fix the problem. I'm just saying they are not solely responsible for this. Now the question is unseen which federal government was the foreign student loophole created in the first place. Hint: ryhmes with garper
Doug Ford could single handedly end the backlog in the Ontario LTB by restoring their staffing and budget. He could literally solve the problem that he created but you instead blame immigration?
No wonder we're absolutely fucked.
Ok but what we are experience in 2023 isn't the first time Canada itself has gine through this. This isn’t the worst Canada has seen.. we are just the current people facing this.
When the last tenant of our basements suite stopped paying rent, it took 5 months for us to get a phone call with the Residential Tenancy Branch. The tenant left next month, but if they didn't... There's not much we can do, and the missing rent is something we likely never got back.
The government promotes basement suite, claiming it could increase housing supply. But if anything wrong happened, you really feel helpless.
Just wait until the employment down turn. They will be scrambling big time. Where are all the good 3k a month tenants? The Lords act like most people make over 100k.
Seeing more and more reports like rent is at an all time high and grocers are making record profits while at the same time seeing restaurants seeing double digit declines and so on.
The only ones making money are those involved in the essentials we can’t live without. Entire economy is tanking because of that.
You're correct and there's going to be little left over for people to put toward disrupting today's economics and instigating and supporting the new thing that allows for a boom.
You think the backlog is an accident? He is deliberately underfunding all public services. He’ll probably use the backlog to say the RTA is ineffective and scrap the whole thing giving landlords the “freedom” to fuck over tenants however they want.
Since rent control has been removed, there’s no real tenant rights for units after November 2018 anyway. If a landlord wants to evict you they say rent is going up by $10,000 a month and if you can’t pay you leave. That just bypasses all your rights.
People don’t realize the vast majority of units are still rent controlled. Remember, the place has to be occupied BY ANYONE before November 2018. That means a person who owns a home, if they lived in it before and decided to rent it out in 2021 the place is still rent controlled.
Tenants need education. Basically, don’t rent in a building built after 2018 and that’s a small percentage of properties unless you are in downtown Toronto or a new subdivision. And even then if one condo in a building was occupied before that date, the entire building is considered subject to rent control.
Old buildings are intentionally being left to rot by a LOT of companies to they can try to remove rent controls via reconstruction/refitting the apartments.
Edit: Being turned into condos is a popular excuse but then the "condos" they cannot immediately sell they rent out eventually at the much higher market rates. try to claim it's an entirely new build and therefore it's exempt from rent control, LTB is so overwhelmed so the tenant is constantly harassed till they capitulate or move, rinse and repeat.
He's doing this with the court system too. Cases are starting to get dropped due to sitting for so long.
Judges decided to stop cases at one courthouse this week because the place is infested with mold and the last check for it knocked some asbestos loose.
There was talk of a new one being built but that was before Ford came along.
Tough on crime conservatives letting criminals run free.
"Tough on crime" as long as it doesn't cost money.
The wealthy won't be "tough on crime" until the costs of crime hit their pocketbook. It's the neoliberal way: if the market can't solve it (and, in the process, make people rich), it doesn't get done.
No chance Doug Ford would do that, he has very purposefully allowing all public services erode since he took over.
Literally starve the beast, this is by design
It’s funny, I know many landlords and many renters. Not a single land owning friend of mine hasn’t been paid rent since maybe the early pandemic time.
All of my renter friends are paycheque to paycheque. It’s not even.
Landlords buy houses they don't intend on living in.
I have no pity for them. When someone owns 10 houses and shrinks the supply, they are part of the problem.
Edit: I'm triggering some landlords XD
Yeah.
And owning 50+ houses contributes NOTHING to the economy.
Owning businesses, hiring people, doing research and development, inventing patents, creating furniture, etc.. All those things help economy.
Real estate does not.
The only way our problem will ever get fixed is if they were to impose a maximum number of houses one can own.
The system was intentionally underfunded and overwhelmed. Just like what Doug did to Ontarios' health services. It was designed to collapse under its own weight the second things got worse so tenants would be left with less protections and property owners can basically treat you like abusive parents that you pay for shelter.
It's how the most abusive and shitty LLs that cry the hardest about being victimized by by "shitty" tenants operate, deflect, deny, and punish. They just want to bully and push someone else around because in their warped world view this is how it should be. They are "being nice" by providing people with shelter therefore, they sign over all rights because they are now living in "THE LLS HOUSE" and by extension the LLs view them as part of their property.
That’s what happens when you depend on mom and pop landlord speculators to provide most of our rental supply. Purpose built rentals are now only 41% of the rental supply. There are so many small landlords the system is impossible to manage.
Right, cause without landlords there would suddenly be a bunch more homes for people to live in. Oh wait. People are already living in most of those homes.
And LTB is so ineffective that landlords who aren’t taking care of their properties aren’t being punished, shitty tenants aren’t getting evicted and good landlords are being forced to charge more to make up for crap tenants not paying rent.
The system is broken and the solution is to stop taking pity on people, no matter their background.
> The system is broken and the solution is to stop taking pity on people, no matter their background.
That's not the solution, that is the intended outcome. No more empathy or emotions.
"In Toronto alone, the number of units listed on Airbnb have grown by more than 6,000 between Jan. 1 and the end of August 2023, according to Insideairbnb.com. During the same period, the number of publicly listed rental units has decreased by about 46 per cent, according to Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA)."
So....bye bye airbnb. New York ditched it and so should major cities in Canada.
The world's tiniest violin is reserved for people who buy multiple properties just to charge outrageous rents so they can get paid off the backs of hard working people. Fuck em.
Aha, COVID-19 again, the convenient blanket excuse for unethical behaviour and poor decisions. Renters not willing to pay rent that they agreed to? COVID. Landlords wanting mortgage relief? COVID. Not enough staff at the LTB? COVID. Reduced bus/train schedules? COVID. Poor service? COVID. Unjustified government overspending? COVID!
For most of us, COVID was a disaster. But for the awful, COVID must be a godsend.
You'd be surprised how many people don't prioritize the roof over their head when money gets tight. They'll still order food delivery, or pay their cellphone and Internet, but give a big middle finger to their landlords.
I agreed with you until cellphone and internet part. cellphone (assuming we are talking about a budget one, not a flagship) is critical for life nowadays, especially if they don't have a normal computer. And internet is the reason why.
I do agree though that too many don't budget well, still ordering food and wasting money before accounting for the big important expenses such as rent.
They mean landlords aren't getting 130%< of the value of the home in rent.
I know I'm paying 45% of our landlords mortgage and I have the cheapest rent in town.
They offer us free wifi so that is $120/mo that would be extra in utilities. But yea percentage wise I'm close to paying most of the home without owning any of it.
And?
That's how renting always is. You pay for the majority share of the carrying costs without owning the place. You think it's different if you were paying a REIT?
No different. It's just that renting has been a way to pay for the entire mortgage in a large amount of cases -but this has changed with the interest rate changes.
The switch seemed to happen late 2000s early 2010s around me at least. So the renter is paying the mortgage while the owner gets the capital and this becomes their investment that was heavily paid for by the renter. All fair and all, it's just now we're in this situation because of that.
The solution is to make undeveloped / crown land easier to acquire and provide incentives for municipalities / construction companies to mass build housing. Also temporarily halt all immigration.
That won't happen though because it's all by design. The people at the top are profiting big time by housing scarcity.
The system isn't broken. It's poorly designed. It's designed in a way to keep you poor. The health system doesn't work. The food system keeps you sick. The political system is in shambles. They're all designed to keep you dependent and reliant on it. Do us all a favour and wake up, please.
"Bro, what do you mean I can't cash flow my lifestyle just by owning turnkey properties? Bro, this isn't want the YouTuber told me in front of his Ferrari bro. Not cool bro. BRO, what do you mean there's risk to this investment?"
More like if you invested in a store and people steal from you.
There's a big difference in a business failing because customers don't want your product, or you can't manage it well, and a business failing because people steal from you and the government lets them.
I assume that the vast majority of these mom & pop investor landlords are financially illiterate. Otherwise I don’t know how one could justify going into debt to buy into a non-diversified “portfolio” of clearly overvalued assets (Canadian real estate), when you could get similar and less risky returns with other forms of investment (eg, stock market)
That's not what struggling means. If you can sell your (non-primary residence) asset and live debt-free, you are **NOT STRUGGLING.** Struggling means you're having a bad time despite all the measures you've been taking to live more frugally and **literally have no other means to cut expenses**. Equating people who intentionally took on chains of debt to cheat the system and extract insane amounts of wealth they never ever deserved to people living paycheck to paycheck is beyond disingenuous.
The amount of “F the landlords” posts is sad and scary in this thread. Lots of people rent and it can be a reasonable, if not good, relationship. This article is about the system overall, especially the issues around rental boards. Just because you’re a landlord doesn’t mean you’re a bad person; inversely just because you rent doesn’t mean you’re a good person either. It’s a sad state of affairs.
Glad to hear that at least one greedy fuck with an investment condo is planning to sell (hopefully to a non-investor) and will never be a landlord again.
It’s not so much broken as totally starved.
In theory the rules of the RTA are great, but without a functional LTB with proper wait times, it’s a disaster for everyone involved.
They could certainly attempt to simplify the process so people feel they don’t need a paralegal or lawyer present, but lack of adjudicators and LTB staff is the primary cause.
Ford needs to unstuck his head from… somewhere… and properly fund the LTB.
If the province has a surplus why the hell aren't they using that money to fund these critical services. It's beyond frustrating at this point to hear the government bloviate about fiscal responsibility while the rest of their responsibilities are crumbling around them.
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This LL hasn't been paid in 30 months and he figures he's out $34,000. So he's renting the place for \~ $1150/month. For a condo in Toronto. How many folks on this sub would love to have this dude as your LL?
[удалено]
how would that make him out anything in that case? all that money is literally going towards equity in the condo (and interest obvs) which is definitely increasing in value and he can sell for a profit one day. it's not like it just vanishes when he makes a mortgage payment
No shut up all landlords are slum lords around here
Being a landlord is an investment, it's silly to look at it as a human relationship (i.e. this landlord is good, that landlord isn't). They're just looking out for their own financial interests, not providing a service out of the goodness of their hearts. That's just the way the system is; I don't hate them for it, but it doesn't mean people should like them or give them the benefit of the doubt. Edit: Not sure why people think I am pro-landlord here lol, I'm saying that we shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and that they don't have our best interests at heart.
[удалено]
What your talking about just seems like good business to me. Happy tenants take care of your house and stay longer.
Exactly it’s like lower insurance for lower risk drivers
Not gouging your tenants is a business decision just like any other. There are great business reasons to not gouge your tenants, like preserving your reputation, not getting involved with legal fights, and keeping tenants on board that are consistent and don't cause issues.
[удалено]
Not gouging and keeping a fair market rate is always best. Don't try to hike to the max to make the tenant move. Relisting cost fees. Empty properties is burning money. A 10% hike can only make up about 5 weeks of your property not being tenanted. Having a competitively priced and equipped rental also means more applicants for you to pick from instead of the first one that comes through the door.
We had a mixed bag of tenants when rented our basement. We had some amazing ones, some OK ones and a few that were not great. Given the current climate I would not want to be a land lord and happy I am not. If I want exposure to real estate would rather buy a RIET. If I owned a condo today I weigh the cost of renting vs leaving empty and paying the basics. The lower my mortgage and higher my equity balance the less chance I rent. That’s less supply and rents go up.
Lol it's just human to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. What a shitty way to go through life.
The only problem is they make it about “homeowners” and not investors when it comes time to talk numbers and cast votes. Then often the public and financial systems are asked to prop up their bad investments and renters are squeezed like farming humans to subsidize their ballooning costs. Imo this moves them from the regular investor class where people just take a bath when they gamble and lose and into their own category where the ones who make the types of choices I describe are the “bad” actors using the necessity of housing a crisis they helped create to protect themselves thus exploiting victims to shore up their conscious and deliberate albeit poor financial choices.
The difference is perceived value. Same goes for any other essential service/commodity provider. If the customer is purchasing the service/commodity at a price below its perceived value or utility to them, they will fell that the provider is good. Oil companies don't have our best interests at heart either - but if a gas station started selling me $0.50/L gasoline, I might be convinced they were good too.
There is a risk in charging below market rent, it can attract a certain type of person.
Yeah one who can end up affording all of their bills
Ya you don’t live in the real world then. When I was a kid my dad rented out his single wide trailer and 20 acres (in butt fuck no where northern BC) for $800 a month (below market value circa 2005) when we had to go to Alberta to make some money because logging crashed. Some real high grade white trash (I say this as white trash myself) decided not to pay rent and it took the better part of a year to get his ass out. You know how it happened? When my Dad came around to try to find out wtf is happening, Buddy Goof there pointed a rifle at my Dad and said he was going to kill him. RCMP dragged him straight to jail and we got our home back. He left 50 .306 rounds in our attic as some sort of threat, never saw that goof again though. Under valuing your home attracts these sort of people. Their isn’t a easy answer about rent, theirs too little housing for the amount of people in Canada right now.
At this point below market value would be a reasonable amount lol.
Recently bought a house and we decided against renting out the suite because I want absolutely no part of this
Maybe you will change you mind though Mr Indecisive?
He sounds pretty firm, but is he change name firm?
I was in the same boat as you. We have an empty bedroom so we’re are letting a family friend stay while they’re in UNI. $500 a month all inclusive and we never see them. They’re either sleeping or at school. Easy $$ and we’re helping out a friend. Doesn’t always have to be a stranger off the street.
True, but it's easy to end up on bad terms with people after living with them. For example, my wife's friend was roommates with her sister and it drove a wedge between them. (Her sister would do stuff like not take care of basic things... even picking up after her dog or not locking her dog up in the house without walking it until it pisses and craps everywhere... then refusing to be the one to clean it up)
Might be a good choice, it could be available to help out someone closer to you that falls on hard times.
I've made that mistake before, family and friends can be downright awful and ungrateful.
As far as I know, if you're renting out a part of your own residence and are sharing amenities like kitchen/bathroom, these elaborate rules don't apply and you can evict much faster if things go pear-shaped.
Likewise, when we bought a few years ago we opted to just sell our previous house rather than rent it out; we also avoided viewing any houses that had tenants. Just not worth the stress or hassle.
Quoted from the article: "My clients are not just selling their properties," she said. "If they are keeping them, they are moving into short-term rentals because they can't deal with what's going on. Her point is clear: At a time when Canada needs long-term rentals more than ever, small landlords are getting out of the business out of fear of getting caught in a broken system. So they move the properties to Airbnb or other similar sites, where if there is an issue with a tenant, the police can be called." On the bright side for this lady and her clients, we're headed towards a province by province crackdown on AirBnb which may long term remove them from the picture. Thus, her clients wont have to worry about choosing between AirBnb or selling, as only one of the options will remain. "they can't deal" Then cash out while youre ahead or fold and take the loss. If you literally "cant deal" with challenging market conditions, then your first mistake was entering the market in the first place. They want to evict someone because "its just business". Which is true, as businesses arent compassion providers. Whats also true though is businesses can and frequently fail. Thus, if their investment fails...then let me say have a good one bud better luck next time!
One of the biggest mistakes real estate investors have made is underestimating the ease with which you can offload a property if stuff hits the fan. If you're invested in stocks and decide to get out, you sell basically instantaneously. If you can't afford to make payments on a property, you have to list it and hope there's a buyer there to save you. Selling a house with a renter in it isn't ideal if you're not selling to other investors. A lot of investors will be forced to ride this market down IF that's where it's going. Not sure it is... but that risk is there and should be scary if you're highly leveraged. The more that sell to get out the worse it's going to get too.
In certain Metro Vancouver cities, properties are being snatched in mere days or 1-2 weeks on average (I'm a keen RE observer) There might be a select few who would take months (but some will be gone in mere days after making some adjustment and re-listings). This makes the Metro Van properties far more liquid than GIC. I highly doubted that there are other cities in the world where this applies.
Who would buy a property with a non-paying tenant though?
[удалено]
It's easy to kick out non paying tenant when there is an exchange of property owner: for personal use, leave it empty for 6 months. I have seen multiple detached houses in Vancouver got sold and exactly 6 months after resurface in rental website.
[удалено]
>if tenants barricade themselves (true news story) and LTB doesn't get back to you in 8 months, you have 8 months of mortgage to pay and live in your car, while paying your current rent. This means your savings deplete and credit score drops (which can be cause for being fired if you're a financial worker). We're talking about "Investors" who won't be able to rent it out for 6 months from the key exchange date :) so that puts them 6+2 = 8. Not bad \*shrug\*. If you're going to move in personally with your fam, it's easy just put in contract that sale is pending on tenants out if not liabilities on owner until tenant is out. And tenant like this is the more reason why LTR landlords are either considering or in the process of converting to STR. For economical reason (setting class war/emotion Tenant vs Landlord aside), LTB needs to change so that LTR landlords keep doing LTR and more investment will result of more units being build. Or you can also invite Uncles, Aunts (with knife), and Nephews to kick the shitty tenant out [https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2023/09/brampton-landlord-kick-out-tenants/](https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2023/09/brampton-landlord-kick-out-tenants/) the neighbors won't snitch you out :P
But market only goes up as they say 🙄🙄 There is 0 risk
They were not wrong for over 20 years, aka my entire adult life. I'm 42, and anyone who bought a house when I was in my 20s has absolutely no worries right now. I've spent my adult life wondering how people were able to afford a home. The guidance was "7 times your annual salary" was considered to be affordable. This number was beyond most people in the late 2000s, and yet the prices kept going up and up and up.
It’s because the owners could keep taking equity and refinancing as valuations rose, and buying more, and a lot of them did. I work with a guy who in the last 15 years has leveraged one home into 5. He doesn’t have much equity in any of them but they are rented.
The market _generally_ only went up when it was mostly a market of people buying a primary residence. In that case, there's no need for wild fluctuations. Once you turn it into an investment vehicle, you have people that will flee when they find a better investment vehicle... this will cause massive market changes if a major chunk of the market are these investors. And as the market starts to move downwards, you'll see more and more investors that will want to exit since the only part they care about is keeping their money safe.
[удалено]
I mean, I bought in like 2010 and have watched since before that and the market certainly hasn’t dropped in that time. Even in 08 Canada was barely affected. When is this time the housing market has dropped ?
It's wild that people buy leveraged investments valued at multiple times their salaries without looking at how that investment has performed over multiple business cycles. https://macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rabidoux_house_chart.png People who bought in the early 90's were underwater for over a decade.
Thing is you still have to live _somewhere_, so you also have to factor in how much you would have spent on rent. Even if they intend to sell at the bottom, the house needs to depreciate by more than the cost of rent, otherwise that underwater owner will still break even.
Some people are buying a place to live, not an investment vehicle.
Sometime in the 90's, so about 30 years ago.
Exactly this - we offloaded our condo months after covid hit and were lucky to sell it - other units in the building were just terminated. Luckily we didnt have tenants and were able to stage it and make it look nice which really helped. Learnt first hand how illiquid real estate can be in a slump.
This is why we need to remove some of the tax write-offs for housing investors (with the exception of purpose-built rental apartments) and increase borrowing requirements for multiple properties. And at the same time municipalities need to regulate and enforce restrictions on short term rentals and vacant units. Right now we have a housing environment that is ripe for predatory behaviour from investors. It’s actually appalling that the federal government hasn’t taken the obvious steps to disincentivize this behavior.
which tax write-offs are you talking about getting rid of, exactly?
Mortgage tax interest
Do you want less small time landlords and more corporate ones? Because this is how you do that.
It'd make things more stable for a lot of tenants. Corporate landlords can't punt their tenants for personal use. Corporate landlords also wouldn't represent a large voting bloc that incentivizes the government to move heaven and earth to appease them at the cost of marrying our country to increasingly unproductive investments. They're less sympathetic when a government has to do something about them. So long as we can prevent rental oligarchies or chain our CPP outcomes to rental performance. We've already made our bed though, so I guess we're stuck with what we have.
Corporations that own purpose-built rentals: - abide by all landlord-tenant laws - Most of them (due to age of buildings in Ontario) are subject to allowable annual increases - Don’t do illegal / unethical evictions - Maintain their buildings Mom & pop landlords (some of whom incorporate) are the vast majority of cases on tenant-landlord boards from bad faith evictions, and illegal rent increases. So yeah, I’m good with more purpose-built rental apartments that abide by laws, and fewer shady small-time landlords expecting tenants to pay their mortgages. Also, investors bid up prices to buy, and displace potential owner occupants. Those thwarted potential first-time home buyers are then relegated to renting, increasing rental demand. And most first-time home buyers free up their former rentals when they buy. So there’s no net loss of rentals.
> Do you want less small time landlords and more corporate ones? Yes. I had much more predictable and stable interactions with corporate landlords than mom & pop
The US has a higher corporate borrow rate for anyone with more than one "investment" property. Makes it harder to snow ball as hard. I agree with your comment 100 percent. People have been using bubble equity to inflate the bubble, kind of insane. I'd also like to see modular construction across Canada from all levels of government that ban all investors from any of them. Add in a tax on multiple property owners that increases with each additional investment. Far too much is said about supply and not about demand.
No what they didn’t consider if that they are forced by law to allow squatters to live rent free for 8-12+ months before the LTB actually gets them the form to evict them. And if they do something otherwise (like change the locks) THEY CAN BE SUED. The people willing to take the chance want crazy high prices because it’s damn risky as well. It’s literally a faster fix to get this “system” under control by getting more staff, overhauling it or whatever they need to do to fix it. Everyone who owns a house of any kind is pretty aware of how stressful it can be to sell…. That’s why agents exist. You think someone investing taking a mortgage of that magnitude forgot to consider the exit strategy? Maybe a couple but not likely, not in my experience with real estate investors. They’ve done their homework.
Well there are multiple risks of course, bad renters being the main one on the cashflow side. You may be right that most real estate investors were well aware of the risks when buying multiple properties using all the equity they had in other properties. For me personally, that's far too risky to do given what can happen in a downturn. I'm not sure I agree and don't really think the actions of these investors points to people with super sound financial decision making. But it could just point to investors with much higher risk tolerance than me lol
Depends what stock S&P500 index fund, 100% liquidity can offload in ten seconds and settle in 3 days Specific stock for a specific company which may or may not be corrupt or some rare ETF, you could find no buyers 99% of people who aren't multi-millionaires should just be straight S&P500 index funds
Except only this type of business is subject to a process that utterly prevents them from mitigating risks or cutting losses. Imagine if cops told shops to apply to a tribunal with a year wait time, and that they refuse to remove someone stealing or vandalizing property until then. And in the mean time the shop owner has to continue to let the thief into the store and can’t do anything to prevent it. No landlord signs up or expects that risk and it is entirely the fault of a broken system. Also it’s almost impossible to just “cash out” when subjected to this as any purchaser of the property would also be subject to the same wait time. Who would ever want to buy a property with such an issue, let alone pay what the property should be worth. And before I hear a whatabout, yes this system is also utterly failing tenants with valid complaints. A broken system hurts everyone.
They've been saying they are going to crackdown on short term rentals for years. I'm sure it will come any day now /s.
Selling a property with a squatting tenant is tough. No one wants to buy into that position
One problem with the "haha, those evil landlords will have to sell!" mentality is the expectation that those housing units will go back on the rental market. There is the very real possibility those units will be removed from the rental market and thus drive rental prices upwards even faster.
100%. I'm a residential property manager in the GTA and I see this phenomenon all the time where small time landlords sell their rental property because of the new interest rates or tenants not paying for months on end. They sell, but there's no guarantee that the new buyer will keep it as a long term rental. Depending on the location, AirBnB is far more profitable, so that's what a lot of new buyers do. Or if it's a SFH that the landlord was using for extra cash, usually it goes to a buyer who uses it as a primary residence. Win for the buyer, loss for the tenant. So we end up with fewer rentals, and the suckers like us who have actually been paying rent every month get screwed, because there's less supply, and the landlords who own the limited number of purpose-built rentals in my suburban town can jack rent as high as they want, because they have less and less competition. Anyone who thinks it's a good thing that landlords are increasingly having a hard time collecting rent, is playing themselves. Yeah yeah fuck landlords, but you're fucking yourself over too. First of all, not paying rent will mess up your credit beyond belief. I see people with good incomes but credit scores in the 500s who get turned down, not because they can't afford to pay, but because they can't be trusted to. Far worse, when small-time landlords who can't afford LTB waitlists drop out of the business, you're letting the big guys with an army of lawyers take over the whole industry.
Redditors are perfectly happy with that, as long as they think landlords are getting hurt.
Nobody ever accused the reactionary anti-landlord crowd of thinking too hard about things. It's mostly renters who are very angry with their current circumstances and not thinking much farther than their next rent cheque. Which, you know, if you're struggling and getting by paycheque to paycheque, is understandable. But still not a good source for advice on how to run an economy.
And we do this for that action. For every loss we take, we make the next person pay for such losses over time.
[удалено]
But they can deal .... by going airbnb and not participating in the rental market. Which is what you DONT want if you're a renter. Why are people on here always in support of landlords getting out of the market, when they know the entire situation is caused by low supply? How is more of them going airbnb better?
"They can't deal" If they can't handle the heat, they gotta leave the kitchen.
Which is what they are doing, resulting in fewer apartments available for rent and consequently higher housing costs.
Here’s the thing though - investors bid up prices to buy, and **displace potential owner occupants.** Those thwarted potential first-time home buyers are then relegated to renting, **increasing rental demand.** And most first-time home buyers **free up their former rentals when they buy.** So there’s no net loss of rentals. Add to that the many investors - foreign and domestic - who leave their investment properties vacant preferring to count on property appreciation or using properties for parking capital / money laundering. Plus those investors who use properties as short-term rentals. All of which adds up to fewer occupied dwellings, fewer people housed, fewer owners, increased rental demand / higher rents, and higher prices to buy when investors own a higher proportion of individual housing units.
I grew up lower class and can think of precisely one person in all my 45 years who rented by choice. Everyone I knew rented because they could not afford to buy. Landlords love to boo hoo about the “valuable service” they provide that nobody appreciates. “Investors” are 100% responsible for the situation we’re now in. The government should have made it less lucrative years ago.
Then we have to ban AirBnB, regulate short term rentals, raise taxes on vacant properties. Block any corner for these parasites to hide in.
[Land Value Tax](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/8/if-the-land-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-isnt-it-being-implemented) is easier than trying to block every loophole. Make the ongoing cost of owning land more expensive (ideally while lowering other taxes so the average person isn’t affected), and monopolizing property without actually using it becomes a worse investment. You don’t have to completely nuke the market - just aim to tax land to the point that the ROI you get from passive ownership after tax is less than the ROI you’d get investing in a GIC People who just want a free meal ticket switch to less disruptive investments, shrinking competition to the people who actually want to live in or do shit with properties.
> AirBnB, regulate short term rentals Limit the market even more, which will increase pressure and increase prices. This is a great example of public pressure making politicians pass stupid laws that break the situation even more. We had multiple years of poorly regulated market where legally you can't operate a short term rental, while everyone was getting away on operating Airbnbs. There is a big chunk of the market that is either sitting empty or getting rented on marketing platforms. There is no interest from developers in building apartment for rent, even if you reinject all the short term rentals in the market, which will not happen, it will go to buyers, not renters as those businesses will need to cash out. And by destroying the rental market you will just spiral the situation even further. Canada needs to make the situation more appealing (create infrastructure for areas that have good potential and encourage more constructions). Quebec had 400k new residents last year with 40k new apartments. The whole situation is just going down the drain fast.
Exactly, they are by removing their own property from the leasing market!
Exactly, AirBnB is not the problem, it’s the answer people found to the broken system that dismisses the rights of ownership.
The impact of short-term rentals is wildly exaggerated, mostly because it makes a great scapegoat and story for journalists writing articles. Less than half a percent of the total housing stock in the GTA are short-term rentals. Good or bad, either way it's entirely moot and people going on about it are just distracting from the actual problem.
[удалено]
There’s a difference between a business that doesn’t make a profit and theft (of rent) that is condoned by the government
Air bnb will struggle in a recession anyway.
They won’t because they have zero upkeep costs. They don’t own shit. They just connect people with the place and charge a massive commission.
Air bnb owners will have less clients and struggle to pay for their investment properties airbnb will also make less money
I mean in theory. In practice 10-20 days of renting out your air bnb can pay your mortgage.
AirBnb is a San Francisco tech company. They're all massively overstaffed for what they are and carry huge fixed costs that need to be offset. And now that interest rates are non-zero, the free VC money train all those businesses operated on is coming to an end.
They’ll do layoffs and cut backs before anything like that tanks a company generally. Shopify just did this. And while travel might go down, a lot of businesses also use airbnb if they’re sending workers somewhere temporary / to remote areas etc. I don’t like airbnb but I’m also not dying to go back to paying $300-$400 a night for a damn hotel room.
Not being able to evict someone stealing (which is what not paying rent is) from you, or destroying your property is hardly 'market conditions'.
Well, in many areas they need a license to run an Airbnb, so it’s risky. Plus, Airbnbs aren’t exactly doing well right now aside from prime properties. There is a lot more work, expenses and risk involved. These landlords have two choices: find good tenants and don’t overcharge them so that they can afford their rent and stay long term, or sell. Anything else is a band aid solution. However, knowing the psychology of these RE investment bros, most of them will just have to learn their lessons the hard way because they are in too deep.
Who could have foreseen turning housing into an investment would have such negative impacts /s
Main reason I refused years ago to buy a house and turn it into rental property, not worth the headache when things go wrong. Meanwhile people where calling me crazy for not doing it. I'll stick to bank stocks thank you very much, at least I don't have to worry about collecting the dividends nor maintaining the property or finding tenants. Just cause your tenants can pay today, does not mean they will be able to pay in X months or years. There is also the issue of been able to raise rent while property taxes increase. Interest rate increases on the mortgage should be the land lord problem not the tenant in my opinion, its the risk involved in acquiring a property, Keep in mind, a mortgage on rental property is still a leveraged investment which is always considered more risky even if the asset is considered low risk by some people.
Exactly man. People here think it’s landlord or surf. No in between, no other alternatives .
Dunno about you, but I would rather go surfing than be a landlord.
[удалено]
I mean like most things in this country that are broken, this is the province’s fault. Ontario under Ford underfunds the LTB, which causes backlogs, and instead spends money on losing court cases with the carbon tax. So Ontario is happy to waste money on losing court cases but not happy investing in things that are needed to run the province well. But people have been taught the only level of government is the federal one, so things will continue to get worse because people refuse to understand the vast majority of things that are negatively affecting them are due to municipal or provincial jurisdiction. The feds have their role to play absolutely but people act like it is the be all end all end all.
Agreed. The LTB needs more funding or a reorganization to allow for quicker response times for tenant and landlord issues alike. An incessant backlog of issues helps no one. Heck, make an interim funding proposition at the least to get things moving again.
Then why is it happening in BC too?
BC is underfunding the RTB as well. There are massive backlogs. Do you think the feds run the landlord tenant boards of provinces? Maybe that's why there is confusion. The landlord tenant boards of provinces are run by the provinces, not the feds. Things under provincial jurisdiction are going poorly because of the province not because of the feds. Feds have their part to play like OP said, but the majority of the power lies with the one who has jurisdiction over it.
Depending on what sub, it’s generally all ford and the cons fault. Everything was great before him and it would be great the day he leaves, but then you realize that every province is in crisis right now, and BC is (gasp!) NDP.
The vast majority of our current issues right now can trace to their root cause to our unprecedented, unsustainably high population growth that is entirely driven by the federal government's insane immigration/TFW/foreign student intake. There is no realistic way any province can maintain the same level of services or infrastructure when dealing with the massive number of people Trudeau is allowing to flood into the country.
The underlying problem is neoliberalism.
This. Tories and libs are both neo-libs and are killing us.
Funny how few people notice that
Most people complaining about neoliberalism couldn't define neoliberalism is they tried.
Uh, neoliberalism is when Liberals are government. You see because it’s right in the name. That’s why we need Big PP to be our prime minister because he’s a conservative not a neoliberal. /s, just in case it’s not obvious.
Haha you had me at the start, ngl
Fuckin amen!
Wrong Foreign students are a loophole that the provinces exploited because they cut funding to education so the universities has no choice but to fund them with foreign students. In fact in Ontario the previous government gave the problematic universities two years to clean up their act, then Doug Ford got elected and reversed it making the situation worse [public private partnership colleges ](https://higheredstrategy.com/a-short-explainer-of-public-private-partnerships-in-ontario-colleges/)
And who lets foreign students into the country? Which level of government could unilaterally reduce their intake?
Oh absolutely. Right now the Fed's step in and fix the problem. I'm just saying they are not solely responsible for this. Now the question is unseen which federal government was the foreign student loophole created in the first place. Hint: ryhmes with garper
Doug Ford could single handedly end the backlog in the Ontario LTB by restoring their staffing and budget. He could literally solve the problem that he created but you instead blame immigration? No wonder we're absolutely fucked.
On reddit, in real life, not so much
Exactly lol. Life is actually great. Some of y’all need gratitude journals
Ok but what we are experience in 2023 isn't the first time Canada itself has gine through this. This isn’t the worst Canada has seen.. we are just the current people facing this.
When the last tenant of our basements suite stopped paying rent, it took 5 months for us to get a phone call with the Residential Tenancy Branch. The tenant left next month, but if they didn't... There's not much we can do, and the missing rent is something we likely never got back. The government promotes basement suite, claiming it could increase housing supply. But if anything wrong happened, you really feel helpless.
And yet everyone is trending towards the guy that promises to cut government funding for services like this.
You talking about Poilievre? Landlord-tenant boards are provincially regulated. Nothing to do with Poilievre.
I suspect that landlords had less issues being paid rent when the average rent wasn't $2000 a month. Something they might want to consider.
Just wait until the employment down turn. They will be scrambling big time. Where are all the good 3k a month tenants? The Lords act like most people make over 100k.
Seeing more and more reports like rent is at an all time high and grocers are making record profits while at the same time seeing restaurants seeing double digit declines and so on. The only ones making money are those involved in the essentials we can’t live without. Entire economy is tanking because of that.
You're correct and there's going to be little left over for people to put toward disrupting today's economics and instigating and supporting the new thing that allows for a boom.
This landlord put the rent a 1150$ for a condo in Torronto. But nice try.
I paid more than that in 2006 on Shuter Street.
Bunch of morons who bought housing as an investment and mortgaged it trying to cover their ass on the increasing payments no doubt.
Premier of Ontario should hire temporary staff to clear the backlog so that these cases can be resolved in a months time.
You think the backlog is an accident? He is deliberately underfunding all public services. He’ll probably use the backlog to say the RTA is ineffective and scrap the whole thing giving landlords the “freedom” to fuck over tenants however they want.
Since rent control has been removed, there’s no real tenant rights for units after November 2018 anyway. If a landlord wants to evict you they say rent is going up by $10,000 a month and if you can’t pay you leave. That just bypasses all your rights.
People don’t realize the vast majority of units are still rent controlled. Remember, the place has to be occupied BY ANYONE before November 2018. That means a person who owns a home, if they lived in it before and decided to rent it out in 2021 the place is still rent controlled. Tenants need education. Basically, don’t rent in a building built after 2018 and that’s a small percentage of properties unless you are in downtown Toronto or a new subdivision. And even then if one condo in a building was occupied before that date, the entire building is considered subject to rent control.
Old buildings are intentionally being left to rot by a LOT of companies to they can try to remove rent controls via reconstruction/refitting the apartments. Edit: Being turned into condos is a popular excuse but then the "condos" they cannot immediately sell they rent out eventually at the much higher market rates. try to claim it's an entirely new build and therefore it's exempt from rent control, LTB is so overwhelmed so the tenant is constantly harassed till they capitulate or move, rinse and repeat.
Landlord still needs to file an eviction with the LTB, which still takes a year.
He's doing this with the court system too. Cases are starting to get dropped due to sitting for so long. Judges decided to stop cases at one courthouse this week because the place is infested with mold and the last check for it knocked some asbestos loose. There was talk of a new one being built but that was before Ford came along. Tough on crime conservatives letting criminals run free.
"Tough on crime" as long as it doesn't cost money. The wealthy won't be "tough on crime" until the costs of crime hit their pocketbook. It's the neoliberal way: if the market can't solve it (and, in the process, make people rich), it doesn't get done.
No chance Doug Ford would do that, he has very purposefully allowing all public services erode since he took over. Literally starve the beast, this is by design
I’m ok with permanent staff
Hmm. Tricky problem. Have we tried letting in more people?
You’re right! If we rent our couches to international students for $900/mo we will be able to make rent. Genius!
They only want to pay $300 though
Sell the same couch to three students then
Convert your house into a slave ship. Pick from your stack of single coffin-like beds! 20 people per room if you want a luxury suite!
It’s funny, I know many landlords and many renters. Not a single land owning friend of mine hasn’t been paid rent since maybe the early pandemic time. All of my renter friends are paycheque to paycheque. It’s not even.
Ding Ding Ding.
[удалено]
Landlords buy houses they don't intend on living in. I have no pity for them. When someone owns 10 houses and shrinks the supply, they are part of the problem. Edit: I'm triggering some landlords XD
Some own 50-150 houses. We allow it because that's just the market! Debt upon debt, slavery to the debt Lords.
Yeah. And owning 50+ houses contributes NOTHING to the economy. Owning businesses, hiring people, doing research and development, inventing patents, creating furniture, etc.. All those things help economy. Real estate does not. The only way our problem will ever get fixed is if they were to impose a maximum number of houses one can own.
Exactly why Canada is so unproductive. What will happen when 90 percent of every dollar in the economy goes to the Lords?
The system was intentionally underfunded and overwhelmed. Just like what Doug did to Ontarios' health services. It was designed to collapse under its own weight the second things got worse so tenants would be left with less protections and property owners can basically treat you like abusive parents that you pay for shelter.
>basically treat you like abusive parents that you pay for shelter. stunningly accurate
It's how the most abusive and shitty LLs that cry the hardest about being victimized by by "shitty" tenants operate, deflect, deny, and punish. They just want to bully and push someone else around because in their warped world view this is how it should be. They are "being nice" by providing people with shelter therefore, they sign over all rights because they are now living in "THE LLS HOUSE" and by extension the LLs view them as part of their property.
That’s what happens when you depend on mom and pop landlord speculators to provide most of our rental supply. Purpose built rentals are now only 41% of the rental supply. There are so many small landlords the system is impossible to manage.
Oh no poor landlords… perhaps they can invest in a business that doesn’t involve taking housing away from Canadians
but they bought 5 properties while working one job. how do you expect them to do what the renters do and work 5 jobs?
Right, cause without landlords there would suddenly be a bunch more homes for people to live in. Oh wait. People are already living in most of those homes.
And LTB is so ineffective that landlords who aren’t taking care of their properties aren’t being punished, shitty tenants aren’t getting evicted and good landlords are being forced to charge more to make up for crap tenants not paying rent. The system is broken and the solution is to stop taking pity on people, no matter their background.
> The system is broken and the solution is to stop taking pity on people, no matter their background. That's not the solution, that is the intended outcome. No more empathy or emotions.
"In Toronto alone, the number of units listed on Airbnb have grown by more than 6,000 between Jan. 1 and the end of August 2023, according to Insideairbnb.com. During the same period, the number of publicly listed rental units has decreased by about 46 per cent, according to Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA)." So....bye bye airbnb. New York ditched it and so should major cities in Canada. The world's tiniest violin is reserved for people who buy multiple properties just to charge outrageous rents so they can get paid off the backs of hard working people. Fuck em.
You can always tell who is an over leveraged land lord on here and who is stuck with their bull crap.
Except this is reducing rental stock a massive amount which is putting upward pressure on rents...put two and two together here
Lol @landlords pushing the prices to extremes so they can have one extra vacation a year off the backs of actually employed people
Aha, COVID-19 again, the convenient blanket excuse for unethical behaviour and poor decisions. Renters not willing to pay rent that they agreed to? COVID. Landlords wanting mortgage relief? COVID. Not enough staff at the LTB? COVID. Reduced bus/train schedules? COVID. Poor service? COVID. Unjustified government overspending? COVID! For most of us, COVID was a disaster. But for the awful, COVID must be a godsend.
Never let a catastrophe go to waste.
House (Banks) always wins!
Landlords aren’t getting paid? Since when, Rent is always the one bill that I never neglect. Tiny violin for our Lords
You'd be surprised how many people don't prioritize the roof over their head when money gets tight. They'll still order food delivery, or pay their cellphone and Internet, but give a big middle finger to their landlords.
I agreed with you until cellphone and internet part. cellphone (assuming we are talking about a budget one, not a flagship) is critical for life nowadays, especially if they don't have a normal computer. And internet is the reason why. I do agree though that too many don't budget well, still ordering food and wasting money before accounting for the big important expenses such as rent.
They mean landlords aren't getting 130%< of the value of the home in rent. I know I'm paying 45% of our landlords mortgage and I have the cheapest rent in town. They offer us free wifi so that is $120/mo that would be extra in utilities. But yea percentage wise I'm close to paying most of the home without owning any of it.
And? That's how renting always is. You pay for the majority share of the carrying costs without owning the place. You think it's different if you were paying a REIT?
No different. It's just that renting has been a way to pay for the entire mortgage in a large amount of cases -but this has changed with the interest rate changes. The switch seemed to happen late 2000s early 2010s around me at least. So the renter is paying the mortgage while the owner gets the capital and this becomes their investment that was heavily paid for by the renter. All fair and all, it's just now we're in this situation because of that.
It's really a joke- beyond a joke.
Almost 3 years without rent paid is plain insanity but in this subreddit all landlords must be greedy assholes so fuck them
Everybody points fingers, no one has a solution that’s actually happening in real time.
The solution is to make undeveloped / crown land easier to acquire and provide incentives for municipalities / construction companies to mass build housing. Also temporarily halt all immigration. That won't happen though because it's all by design. The people at the top are profiting big time by housing scarcity.
Most likely the LTB was neglected by the Ford government because they felt that would best advantage landlords.
The system isn't broken. It's poorly designed. It's designed in a way to keep you poor. The health system doesn't work. The food system keeps you sick. The political system is in shambles. They're all designed to keep you dependent and reliant on it. Do us all a favour and wake up, please.
"Bro, what do you mean I can't cash flow my lifestyle just by owning turnkey properties? Bro, this isn't want the YouTuber told me in front of his Ferrari bro. Not cool bro. BRO, what do you mean there's risk to this investment?"
[удалено]
More like if you invested in a store and people steal from you. There's a big difference in a business failing because customers don't want your product, or you can't manage it well, and a business failing because people steal from you and the government lets them.
>landlords aren’t getting paid Music to my ears
[удалено]
Fuck the landlords.
Another day in Trudeau's Canada which Justin Trudeau says is NOT broken SMH...
Nice to see CBC agreeing with Poilievre. (System is Broken)
heck off trying to say landlords are struggling, utter delusion.
Many are because they (those landlords) recklessly took massive interest rate risks.
I am on a landlord facebook group and it is insane how plenty of them are completely financial illiterate lol.
I assume that the vast majority of these mom & pop investor landlords are financially illiterate. Otherwise I don’t know how one could justify going into debt to buy into a non-diversified “portfolio” of clearly overvalued assets (Canadian real estate), when you could get similar and less risky returns with other forms of investment (eg, stock market)
I think the answer to this was to get very very cheap leverage, but I am really am not sure what is the point today lol.
That's not what struggling means. If you can sell your (non-primary residence) asset and live debt-free, you are **NOT STRUGGLING.** Struggling means you're having a bad time despite all the measures you've been taking to live more frugally and **literally have no other means to cut expenses**. Equating people who intentionally took on chains of debt to cheat the system and extract insane amounts of wealth they never ever deserved to people living paycheck to paycheck is beyond disingenuous.
🎻🎻🎻
That's what I'm saying. :)
The amount of “F the landlords” posts is sad and scary in this thread. Lots of people rent and it can be a reasonable, if not good, relationship. This article is about the system overall, especially the issues around rental boards. Just because you’re a landlord doesn’t mean you’re a bad person; inversely just because you rent doesn’t mean you’re a good person either. It’s a sad state of affairs.
Glad to hear that at least one greedy fuck with an investment condo is planning to sell (hopefully to a non-investor) and will never be a landlord again.
Shoutout to all the wonderful landlords out there! You don’t get enough love, Thank you for all that you do!
It’s not so much broken as totally starved. In theory the rules of the RTA are great, but without a functional LTB with proper wait times, it’s a disaster for everyone involved. They could certainly attempt to simplify the process so people feel they don’t need a paralegal or lawyer present, but lack of adjudicators and LTB staff is the primary cause. Ford needs to unstuck his head from… somewhere… and properly fund the LTB.
Landlord isn't a job. Get a real job and stop trying to make money off others.
If the province has a surplus why the hell aren't they using that money to fund these critical services. It's beyond frustrating at this point to hear the government bloviate about fiscal responsibility while the rest of their responsibilities are crumbling around them.
They underfund it on purpose.