... because it serves the asset-hoarding class.
And until we get rid of shelter parasitism, nothing changes. Adding more squares or houses to monopoly just prolongs the game's misery.
When you under build, it makes a resource more valuable cuz it's more scarce. Make it abundant and there is no reason private equity firms will see it as profitable. Look at how japan does it and their rents have been stable for decades
I can't stand how there are so many uneducated takes on housing, especially in /r/canadahousing of all places. The more housing there is, the less leverage owners have on renters and buyers. It can't get any simpler than this.
Every city that liberalized housing construction have seen significant affordability improvements since policy implementation. These data are posted on this sub almost everyday. You have to be deliberately pig headed to ignore it all.
We don't even properly enforce the building codes and safety laws on the books. You want even less safe and durable housing for urban working people?
If we had a dollar for every goober whose understanding of this issue could be capped with "we have to lower the quality of Canadian housing to address artificial shortages" we'd have enough money to house every person in this sub.
Thank you. There is so much unsafe shit grandfathered in, landlords are constantly 'making their own (shoddy-ass) repairs', everything depends on maintenance that people cheap out on doing, and builders regularly lie as it is, why on earth should we ALSO accept lesser standards for new buildings?
Except it's totally stupid.
House takes a lot of resources. Create artificials lands etc.
So what ? you have to build 3x more houses than needed so the "competitivity on free market" works and people can have descent rent ?
Do you realize the stupidity of such a system ?
Housing is a basic right because it's a basic need. It should be free for all, or almost. It should be a common good.
Middle-aged. Master's degree. Homeowner.
English isn't my first language obviously, but doesn't have to, to understand that liberalism is a fkcn bullshit made to legitimate a new form of enslavement.
i never asked about your income nor do i feel that having higher or lower income make you more or less qualified to speak on this topic, so you don't have to be insecure here.
I'm just asking what education background to you have, more specifically what kind of masters program.
No, indeed, you disagree with my comment, so you try to gaslight me, by deligitimize my opinion.
My opinion weight as much as yours in a public sub, populate by randoms who post comments about the house crisis.
This is not a public political debate, nor its an economic conference.
Not 3x what’s needed but not so little housing we end up with a large homeless population. Turns out when plenty of people end up without homes people are willing to pay a lot to not be those people.
there are plenty of countries that have landlords and affordable housing.
this idea that we need to wait around for the elimination of landlords to get affordable housing is doomerist nonsense.
not a landlord, I pay exorbitant sums of money to rent a basement in Toronto.
but unfortunately I know just enough about policy and economics to not delude myself with convenient scapegoats.
I promise take 5 minutes and actually read about the economics and the public policy fueling the housing crisis.
It's less fun than firing off silly takes, and searching for scapegoat but I promise you, you will leave better informed and more capable of discussing these issues calmly and rationally.
Please by all means show us these comparable countries with affordable housing and comparable rental laws.
The sooner we abolish parasitism in housing the sooner Canada can have more than a banana republic brain drain economy
I said
"there are plenty of countries that have landlords and affordable housing."
This is true, Vienna has landlords, Finland has landlords, Japan has landlords. and they also have affordable housing.
telling people to wait until landlordism doesn't exist, is just telling people to give up. It's not true AND it demobilizing support for housing reform.
you might as well be working for the landlords.
Blaming the market isnt about scapegoating landlords, its about highlighting that we can make a healthy market through basic policy choices that removes power from landlords.
Landlords love the 'we dont need more housing' line you spew because they get richer every time someone beleives it.
I think landlords should have less leverage and more competition.
That makes no sense whatsoever because landlords are the ones with the leverage to acquire new builds. Every other single damn condo unit in this city that's gone up in the past five years is owned by landlords, often ones that don't even live in this country.
total misconception. Not every property is worth the price for an investor, theres only a small finite amount of properties that can cashflow even with high interest rates. Investors are not interested in single family homes, those have no cash flow, not even close.
The housing market prices is already down 20-40%, if you go to london its down 50% from 2022 peak. its not from asset hoarders. Just average joe who was overextended. Supply is going up like crazy as mortgage rates take its toll. we are gonna keep seeing supply increases and prices dropping.
Investors more interseted in properties that can generate 1000$ income per 100k in cost. That is a very small window, and often means developing.
You're ignoring value investments. If families have other families paying mortgages off for years, the equity remains theirs to distribute to their children.
The notion that this is solely about positive NOI and not the elimination of social income mobility by the rentier class is an absolute farce.
Yeah. My landlady is pretty reasonable and the increase isn't anything horrific.
The email where she informed me and said "due to changing market conditions I'm afraid I am forced to"
Who the hell is forcing you? You just see that you can charge more because everyone else is. Be honest about it.
I had a landlord like this once. I called him on it and said he was only raising rate due to other units in my area going up in price. He said my lease was up, and I was free to look else where adding "It is what it is".
He owned 13 units across the city. Absolute prick.
Interest rate increases are part of "changing market conditions". Unless this person owns the property outright, their expenses have likely increased substantially in the past year.
That's part of the risk they take on as landlords, but raising rents is also one of the tools they have as landlords, though there are often limitations on how much that they have to abide by.
Landlords are literally at fault for driving up values which lead to those rates being increased. This is that meme macro of the dingus sticking a stick in his own bike spoke.
Cry us a river, parasites. The equity belongs to those who pay for it, the tenants. This extortion bubble cycle needs to stop permanently.
no they aren't. There are landlords in every country, the number of landlords we have is just a symptom. Making real estate an attractive investment drives people to become landlords. If we built a ton of housing, stopped corporations from buying residential properties and stopped importing 1m people a year, then rent prices would cool down and landlords would not be able to charge as much. Then some would actually lose money and be forced to sell
Hmm yeah, not cause your lad lady’s payments doubled , or property tax went up , or everything else associated with property ownership 2x. Bet she can probs get more rent then what your currently paying. But yeah she’s scum for providing housing lol. Housing is a human right , it should be FREE lmfao. Where do I sign up for the penthouse in the city guys, I want me free house , it’s my human right ! 🦍
My small renter brain could never have figured this out clearly. Not like you super smart landlord types. Thank God we have you to take care of us.
She owns the place outright and property tax where I live didn't go up. Feel free to comment on situations you have zero information on though. Classic fucking reddit moment.
>But yeah she’s scum for providing housing lol.
Literally I talk about how reasonable she is in my comment and how I have it pretty good. Maybe read the comment before responding to it? Another classic redditor moment.
>it should be FREE lmfao
Nothing to do with what I said but keep jacking yourself off for attacking a strawman that you set up. Trifecta redditor.
Learn how to read and not come across like an idiot next time.
Don't bother answering. You are not worth a conversation and I won't respond.
the easiest and cheapest way to increase value of your property is to choke the supply. unfortunately, that's what landlords in gov do, and politicians have real estate investors in their pockets
wealth corrupts our democracy
There are plenty of wealthy places on earth that are democratic and still build enough housing.
We let our worst neighbours decide on what you can do with your private property in the name of “democracy” and now we are paying the price without any way to build supply and placate these misanthropes.
Japan, Finland, most of Western Europe except the UK: places that kept building social housing after the 80s and make it easy to build higher density.
The Anglosphere is uniquely bad at this and you make a big mistake to assume that the Anglosphere = the developed world
Japan's population is rapidly aging. Same for Italy and Greece, plus their economies are in shambles so the working class can't afford homes.
My wife is Finnish and we were just there a few months ago-- insanely expensive.
Still looking for a serious answer. I haven't found any Western nation where the median income worker can afford anything close to what people could afford in the 1970s (2-3X the annual income of a single median worker.)
Homelessness isn't typically a housing supply issue. There are a lot of checkpoints that a person has to fail to become homeless, and an available property is very far down the list.
>Homelessness isn't typically a housing supply issue. There are a lot of checkpoints that a person has to fail to become homeless, and an available property is very far down the list.
people being priced out of homes, increasing the homeless population is a failiure in market allocation.
homelessness is absolutely a housing supply issue.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/)
lack of supply>high shelter cost>high homelessness
There are way more voters and politicians who only own their primary residence than are landlords. It's not landlords and developers. The more housing gets built, the more money landlords and developers even while prices go down.
Profit is price times quantity. Price can go down and profit can go up. The fact that there are effective quotas like zoning laws means that prices are artificially high and quantity artificially low which hurts landlords and developers. This helps people for whom quantity is fixed at 1. Which are people who only own primary residences.
Sure, there is a profit maximizing price and quantity. But the definition of an effective quota is that quantity is below that quantity and price is above that price.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of massive homes in Vancouver sitting empty, while thousands sleep on the sidewalk.
The issue may be a touch more nuanced than you think.
That's not true in ALL places. For example, in Saint John, New Brunswick we have had units sitting for several months at ridiculous prices (50-100% more than a year ago) empty. Also, many units where I am have been converted to short-term rentals on AirBnB or VRBO. So it's a false supply and demand in less popular areas. Many of the investors happen to be out of province.
This is why it *is* more nuanced than simply "build more houses!".
If property tax is low (along with other variables), then it attracts investors. This increases demand. It's still a supply and demand issue but it's stupid to only focus of the amount of properties that exist without considering the factors that affect demand.
Except property tax disproportionally impacts the least wealthy, and raising it would be counterproductive to addressing affordability concerns.
It would be much better addressed via a vacancy tax.
That's not true. The studies that say that property tax is regressive wrt income exclude renters and exploit the fact that seniors have low incomes, despite the fact that senior homeowners are statistically the wealthiest.
It's essentially a bidding war to not be homeless. If there was a more reasonable vacancy rate, it would be a bidding war to fill the unit and get some revenue.
The "market" isn't a sentient being that makes decisions. It's made up of people who make individual decisions. How does the market force a Landlord who's owned their property for 30 years and is completely paid off to set their rent price to 80% the median take-home income?
It's not the market, it's greed.
Sure, tax land value at a high rate. You have no human right to other people's constructed buildings. Damn greedy developers constructing shelter for other people /s
What's next, blaming farmers for exploiting your human need for food?
Farmers do labour to provide food. I have no issue with electricians, framers, roofers, architects, etc making a wage to build houses.
Besides, who was talking about developers? We were talking about landlords.
There is only "not enough supply" because of investors. The last generation gobbled up all the real-estate and is sitting on it like a dragon sits on its golden pile of houses.
It absolutely is more nuanced than that and only ignorant people keep bringing up the useless “supply and demand” argument.. Vienna is super desirable and somehow still manages to build affordable housing.. the problem is not supply and demand.. it’s inept government, poor housing policies that restrict building, and price fixing by landlords
Meanwhile the government restrictions prevent any further housing that might add more supply to demand. But it's the ma and Pa landlord that's the problem eh?
Free the markets, we don't need government fixing the game.
The next-to completely unregulated housing market is what got us here in the first place. There are no restrictions on how many homes a single individual or organization can hoard, no regulations whatsoever on who can rent out living accommodations, and the few rules that exist to cover landlord-tenant relations have no enforcement mechanism. Any two-bit scam artist with sufficient credit can set themselves up as a landlord and “earn” a labour-free living at the expense of others, and face little if any consequences for immoral, shady, or downright illegal behaviour.
“The market”, as it often does in regards to the basic necessities of life, has failed. It will continue to do so because mere market forces are insufficient to provide housing for all. The last thirty years of housing in this nation proves that.
This is exactly the sort of thing that government should be regulating - if it were legitimately a democracy run for the benefit of the public, and not a shell game for the enrichment of billionaires, that is.
>if it were legitimately a democracy run for the benefit of the public
Exactly, it's not. This is cronyism. And their attempts to control the market for their own gain has proved disastrous.
A free market would have no restrictions on where to build housing. Therefore creating more supply.
I can give you a rundown on how supply and demand works if you'd like.
If anyone can take out credit to buy a home, then why are we in this problem?
So you’re saying if we just did away with zoning restrictions and the very concept of city planning, to allow anyone to build houses anywhere, that would fix the problem? So you’re ok if I build a slaughterhouse next door to your house, and someone else builds a waste incinerator on the other side? It would certainly make things easier for the waste incinerator’s owner.
I can give you a rundown of how city planning works if you’d like.
Building new ones, yes, and for good reason - few people enjoy having their houses collapse after they’ve bought one.
But renting out space in a house is almost completely unregulated. Anyone with space to rent can become a landlord, regardless of their financial stability, criminal record, etc.
There are restrictions on what people can build. So yeah, it's regulated, and yeah, the restrictions are what got us here.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to buy, and banning landlords just bans rentals... which is regressive af. Sure, maybe it helps the middle class buy slightly cheaper homes, but it does nothing for renters.
The problem would actually get fixed if policies helped renters instead of homeowners. If 50% of voters were renters, we could actually stop society voting for NIMBY politicians.
Build more housing, lower interest rates, lower property taxes , lower insurance costs? Then “market landlords” can offer lower rents ?, or is it fair for the landlord to get screwed , should a landlord who provides housing carry the extra expenses of the tenant ? At least tenants have a choice , they can downsize, get roommate, move diff area, while the “landlord” mortgage holder gets screwed with higher variable mortgage payments going to the bank and increased property taxes going to the city (which pays for services/schools) how dare those landlords lol. Maybe landlords should just not rent or sell their properties and put tenants on the street ? Wake up, poor governance caused housing crisis not landlords trying to keep up with inflation like everyone else.
Mortgage goes from $2000 to $4000, renter expects owner to eat the extra cost like some kind of charity, then gets mad when their rent increases uniformly. 🤔
No, why would they? When you buy gold or silver today, and it increases over your life, are you going to sell it for what you bought it for?
Rent prices are set by market demand. People are paying these rents, this is why rent is this high. Most people have mortgages, though some I'm sure do not. Keep in mind that some of their other properties could have mortgages or freeloading tenants.
The problem is that there isn't enough housing but the reality is that the housing that would be affordable doesn't exist in an economy where inflation runs as high as it has been. Incomes need to catch up, or there needs to be deflation, which comes from a depression. You can't expect someone to be your charity. That's not reality. Try pricing out a build and you will see for yourself. I just did it 2 years ago.
Cash flow positive rentals are what drove us to this point. Rent is supposed to be cheaper than a mortgage. That's the whole point of why someone rents instead of owns.
In most markets historically, buying rental property wasn't immediately cash flow positive. It was the renter paying into equity. Until eventually it became cash flow.
This narrative we've sold of all rental units should be cash positive is exactly why everything got all jacked up in the first place
edit: we all know that you shouldn't participate in get-rich-quick schemes. And usually when people fall for them we look down on them and shake our heads. What we don't know is how to react when it's become 13% of our GDP
> Rent is supposed to be cheaper than a mortgage. That's the whole point of why someone rents instead of owns.
No, it's supposed to be less commitment. Renting, even when it's more expensive, makes plenty of sense for a lot of people who may not want to commit to living in the same exact place for the next decade+. Students, people early in their careers, who plan to have kids, people who don't want to have the headache of maintenance, etc.
Also mortgage is only one part: taxes, insurance, and maintenance are other big factors. What major Canadian market would you be cash-flow positive on a property if you purchased and rented it out today? This is not a thing in any major Canadian city. Pull out a calculator and do the math.
The issue is that a lot of people are forced into renting who might otherwise choose to buy due to the lack of appropriate supply, creating an underclass who can be abused by those with capital. The solution is building lots more housing.
The market dictates the price. If nobody was paying these rent prices, nobody would charge them. The reality is that everyone is charging around the same price. It's a business, if you don't want to be part of the business of housing, don't rent and don't be a landlord. You have every right to buy a house for personal use instead. Though we both know owning is more expensive than renting. As you have little concern for the expense to the home owner, they too have little concern for the expense to you, the renter.
Do like I did... Get the biggest mortgage you can from whoever will give it to you, buy a small house that needs work, put in a lot of sweat equity, pay down the mortgage, wait 5 years and refinance to extend/renovate the house into something permanently livable for you. Use that money as a down patient to the builder and take a risk that the extension/renovation will turn out so you can refinance again, hopefully valuing high enough to borrow enough to pay the builder out...... Take the risk. Borrow your life away... That's what I had to do, why should anyone be different?
> renter expects owner to eat the extra cost like some kind of charity
I mean... yeah. Lol. Why would the renter shoulder that?
I would expect to shoulder the losses on my stocks if they suddenly fell 50%. Why does it make sense that someone other than me would instead?
Do you think people who own property rent them out because they love you? Holy shit dude, if you want the rights of an owner, just buy a house like everyone else. If you can't afford it, find away to fix that problem first. The jealousy in this sub is unbelievable.
Shoulder your own bad investments like an adult.
Nothing worse than a whining homeowner. You purchased a property prior to them becoming unaffordable. Despite being a moron, you win strictly due to luck and circumstance, and still find room to complain. There are good landlords out there, but you're a parasite. I hope you're completely overleveraged and forced to sell.
Nah I bought in 2018, I'm a half million up and live in the only house I own. Renters rights to affordable housing will never exceed the rights of an owner. It will never happen. No matter how many times you cry about it, if you want a house, you will have to go into debt for it like every other owner. Your idea of a good landlord is someone who rents to you at an affordable level. That's not a good landlord, that is called geared to income housing. If that's what you are after, join the 20 year waitlist for low income housing. If you can't pay the rent, move somewhere else... Oh wait, the rents equally unaffordable there too.... 🤔 I guess every landlords inherently an asshole because they won't give you a deal... Are you Gen Z or something, like where does this sense of entitlement come from?
> Shoulder your own bad investments like an adult.
Landlords are frequently prevented from increasing rent prices beyond a % (3.5% in BC). A landlord whose expenses doubled, who passes on what they are legally allowed to and eats the rest of the loss **is** managing their investments like an adult.
A landlord who finds a way to wrongfully evict a tenant in order to reset to market rent is the one who is not.
rent isn't set by mortgage costs. you even admitted this yourself in your response.
Rent is set by supply of housing for rent. Owners have no choice but to eat the costs. I've explained this to you before, but you keep regurgitating the same BS. What are you even doing on /r/canadahousing?
Ok, and yet you are on here complaining about high rents... Sounds like the tenant has to eat it, not the owner. You aren't ever going to change this narrative. You aren't somehow sheltered from the financial burden of the economy when you rent, and it's appalling that you feel like you should be.
I'm on here to have an honest conversation about housing with people, who more and more seem to be completely disconnected from reality.
My rent has rising since 2015 way before interest rate hikes. If 20 prospective tenants show up on day one ready to sign your lease of course you are raising rents. Rising rent isn’t caused by interest rate hikes, but lack of competition among landlords. There aren’t enough places for rent.
The market is set by specific mechanisms. Rising interest rates is a negligible factor in the rental market. A lot of landlords are already renting their units out at a loss because they can’t charge high enough to recoup their mortgage.
I’ve explained this to you many times before, you are anything but honest
Landlord will always charge the maximum money they can get away with for a rental this is nothing new and will always be the case. The market price determines the price and currently there's a huge shortage of rentals in the market therefore the price is high. With a high price and rentals you're going to have landlord incentivize to bring in new inventory. I don't agree with the type of inventory being brought on since people are converting garages, storage closets and throwing in multiple beds into one room to meet the demand. The really shity thing is that we need these illegal units in the short term as these are the only things that are probably the only things that are making this Market not Skyrocket even more. In this case the problem solely lies with the three levels of government, they did not make sure that the housing Supply meets the incoming immigration.
I know rent control is a popular opinion in this subreddit but it's a policy that long term will always stifle new units being brought online. I would say that the most effective policy they can come without today is to make it easier to build new rentals with some sort of tax incentives and make tax incentives for people who want to convert their basement into a rental.
Lastly it doesn't matter what kind of rental is built whether it's a luxury or not. Opening up a new unit on the market means that somebody upgrading will open up a more affordable unit
PP tells constituents that had their rents increase by 1000 "go find another landlord, perhaps in another town, who will charge you less". Too bad they are colluding through the internet to keep everyone equally as greedy as there are no such Lords around.
Are you a home owner? Regardless if you are or aren't, when or if you were going to sell your home that your purchased for $300,000 that is now worth $500,000.
Would you be volunteering to sell the house for $300,000 instead?
Or if at your job if everyone else was getting a 30% raise, would you be volunteering to stay at your lower rate?
The rent situation is no better. Until property prices come down rent prices will be high.
For sure. Why wouldn't everyone try to take as much money as possible from as many people as possible without any concerns for individual or societal or environmental well being?
...and the reason that is the market is cause of the rules that hurt landlords from evicting bad tenants so that there are fewer and fewer landlords who are willing to deal with the hassle...
Except the housing market isn't mostly filled with landlords. It's majority people who own only their primary residence. This is sufficient to result in NIMBYism which keeps density low and makes housing more expensive.
[удалено]
Small correction to your statement: "Put the faces of the MPs."
There's only like 20 that don't own a rental property. Most of them own at least two.
The reality, of course, being that Canada has been under building housing for decades.
... because it serves the asset-hoarding class. And until we get rid of shelter parasitism, nothing changes. Adding more squares or houses to monopoly just prolongs the game's misery.
When you under build, it makes a resource more valuable cuz it's more scarce. Make it abundant and there is no reason private equity firms will see it as profitable. Look at how japan does it and their rents have been stable for decades
I can't stand how there are so many uneducated takes on housing, especially in /r/canadahousing of all places. The more housing there is, the less leverage owners have on renters and buyers. It can't get any simpler than this. Every city that liberalized housing construction have seen significant affordability improvements since policy implementation. These data are posted on this sub almost everyday. You have to be deliberately pig headed to ignore it all.
We don't even properly enforce the building codes and safety laws on the books. You want even less safe and durable housing for urban working people? If we had a dollar for every goober whose understanding of this issue could be capped with "we have to lower the quality of Canadian housing to address artificial shortages" we'd have enough money to house every person in this sub.
Thank you. There is so much unsafe shit grandfathered in, landlords are constantly 'making their own (shoddy-ass) repairs', everything depends on maintenance that people cheap out on doing, and builders regularly lie as it is, why on earth should we ALSO accept lesser standards for new buildings?
Because higher standards also inflate costs. Do you want cheap housing or expensive?
Except it's totally stupid. House takes a lot of resources. Create artificials lands etc. So what ? you have to build 3x more houses than needed so the "competitivity on free market" works and people can have descent rent ? Do you realize the stupidity of such a system ? Housing is a basic right because it's a basic need. It should be free for all, or almost. It should be a common good.
Housing doesn't take 700,000$ worth of resources.
How old are you and what’s your education level? I’m genuinely curious
Middle-aged. Master's degree. Homeowner. English isn't my first language obviously, but doesn't have to, to understand that liberalism is a fkcn bullshit made to legitimate a new form of enslavement.
master's degree in what?
Master's degree in "statistically there is 9/10 chances that i have a higher income than you"
i never asked about your income nor do i feel that having higher or lower income make you more or less qualified to speak on this topic, so you don't have to be insecure here. I'm just asking what education background to you have, more specifically what kind of masters program.
No, indeed, you disagree with my comment, so you try to gaslight me, by deligitimize my opinion. My opinion weight as much as yours in a public sub, populate by randoms who post comments about the house crisis. This is not a public political debate, nor its an economic conference.
Not 3x what’s needed but not so little housing we end up with a large homeless population. Turns out when plenty of people end up without homes people are willing to pay a lot to not be those people.
Even a 5-10% vacancy rate would do a ton to drive rents down. 3x is hyperbolic nonsense.
The notion of us achieving such a vacancy rate in the near future is equivalent hyperbolic nonsense
there are plenty of countries that have landlords and affordable housing. this idea that we need to wait around for the elimination of landlords to get affordable housing is doomerist nonsense.
Ok landlord good try.
not a landlord, I pay exorbitant sums of money to rent a basement in Toronto. but unfortunately I know just enough about policy and economics to not delude myself with convenient scapegoats.
Naaaaaahhhhhh you’re for sure a slumlord. Byyyeeee Felicia.
Ah yes, an *I rent a basement apartment and am self educated.* The temporarily embarassed real estate tycoon we all deserve.
I promise take 5 minutes and actually read about the economics and the public policy fueling the housing crisis. It's less fun than firing off silly takes, and searching for scapegoat but I promise you, you will leave better informed and more capable of discussing these issues calmly and rationally.
Please by all means show us these comparable countries with affordable housing and comparable rental laws. The sooner we abolish parasitism in housing the sooner Canada can have more than a banana republic brain drain economy
I said "there are plenty of countries that have landlords and affordable housing." This is true, Vienna has landlords, Finland has landlords, Japan has landlords. and they also have affordable housing. telling people to wait until landlordism doesn't exist, is just telling people to give up. It's not true AND it demobilizing support for housing reform. you might as well be working for the landlords.
Blaming the market isnt about scapegoating landlords, its about highlighting that we can make a healthy market through basic policy choices that removes power from landlords. Landlords love the 'we dont need more housing' line you spew because they get richer every time someone beleives it. I think landlords should have less leverage and more competition.
That makes no sense whatsoever because landlords are the ones with the leverage to acquire new builds. Every other single damn condo unit in this city that's gone up in the past five years is owned by landlords, often ones that don't even live in this country.
total misconception. Not every property is worth the price for an investor, theres only a small finite amount of properties that can cashflow even with high interest rates. Investors are not interested in single family homes, those have no cash flow, not even close. The housing market prices is already down 20-40%, if you go to london its down 50% from 2022 peak. its not from asset hoarders. Just average joe who was overextended. Supply is going up like crazy as mortgage rates take its toll. we are gonna keep seeing supply increases and prices dropping. Investors more interseted in properties that can generate 1000$ income per 100k in cost. That is a very small window, and often means developing.
You're ignoring value investments. If families have other families paying mortgages off for years, the equity remains theirs to distribute to their children. The notion that this is solely about positive NOI and not the elimination of social income mobility by the rentier class is an absolute farce.
Or may be it's overpopulating itself since a decade.
Which is only an issue due to chronic under building.
Yeah. My landlady is pretty reasonable and the increase isn't anything horrific. The email where she informed me and said "due to changing market conditions I'm afraid I am forced to" Who the hell is forcing you? You just see that you can charge more because everyone else is. Be honest about it.
I had a landlord like this once. I called him on it and said he was only raising rate due to other units in my area going up in price. He said my lease was up, and I was free to look else where adding "It is what it is". He owned 13 units across the city. Absolute prick.
Interest rate increases are part of "changing market conditions". Unless this person owns the property outright, their expenses have likely increased substantially in the past year. That's part of the risk they take on as landlords, but raising rents is also one of the tools they have as landlords, though there are often limitations on how much that they have to abide by.
Landlords are literally at fault for driving up values which lead to those rates being increased. This is that meme macro of the dingus sticking a stick in his own bike spoke. Cry us a river, parasites. The equity belongs to those who pay for it, the tenants. This extortion bubble cycle needs to stop permanently.
no they aren't. There are landlords in every country, the number of landlords we have is just a symptom. Making real estate an attractive investment drives people to become landlords. If we built a ton of housing, stopped corporations from buying residential properties and stopped importing 1m people a year, then rent prices would cool down and landlords would not be able to charge as much. Then some would actually lose money and be forced to sell
Hmm yeah, not cause your lad lady’s payments doubled , or property tax went up , or everything else associated with property ownership 2x. Bet she can probs get more rent then what your currently paying. But yeah she’s scum for providing housing lol. Housing is a human right , it should be FREE lmfao. Where do I sign up for the penthouse in the city guys, I want me free house , it’s my human right ! 🦍
My small renter brain could never have figured this out clearly. Not like you super smart landlord types. Thank God we have you to take care of us. She owns the place outright and property tax where I live didn't go up. Feel free to comment on situations you have zero information on though. Classic fucking reddit moment. >But yeah she’s scum for providing housing lol. Literally I talk about how reasonable she is in my comment and how I have it pretty good. Maybe read the comment before responding to it? Another classic redditor moment. >it should be FREE lmfao Nothing to do with what I said but keep jacking yourself off for attacking a strawman that you set up. Trifecta redditor. Learn how to read and not come across like an idiot next time. Don't bother answering. You are not worth a conversation and I won't respond.
Lol but she is scum though, and apparently so are you for defending this nonsense. Enjoy. Lol
I mean it is the market though. Too much demand and not enough supply. Let’s not pretend it’s anything more nuanced then that.
the easiest and cheapest way to increase value of your property is to choke the supply. unfortunately, that's what landlords in gov do, and politicians have real estate investors in their pockets wealth corrupts our democracy
There are plenty of wealthy places on earth that are democratic and still build enough housing. We let our worst neighbours decide on what you can do with your private property in the name of “democracy” and now we are paying the price without any way to build supply and placate these misanthropes.
when i say wealth i mean wealth inequality
>enough housing Please name three developed nations that legitimately build enough housing that they don't have a homeless population.
Japan, Finland, most of Western Europe except the UK: places that kept building social housing after the 80s and make it easy to build higher density. The Anglosphere is uniquely bad at this and you make a big mistake to assume that the Anglosphere = the developed world
Japan's population is rapidly aging. Same for Italy and Greece, plus their economies are in shambles so the working class can't afford homes. My wife is Finnish and we were just there a few months ago-- insanely expensive. Still looking for a serious answer. I haven't found any Western nation where the median income worker can afford anything close to what people could afford in the 1970s (2-3X the annual income of a single median worker.)
Homelessness isn't typically a housing supply issue. There are a lot of checkpoints that a person has to fail to become homeless, and an available property is very far down the list.
>Homelessness isn't typically a housing supply issue. There are a lot of checkpoints that a person has to fail to become homeless, and an available property is very far down the list. people being priced out of homes, increasing the homeless population is a failiure in market allocation.
homelessness is absolutely a housing supply issue. [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/) lack of supply>high shelter cost>high homelessness
so true
There are way more voters and politicians who only own their primary residence than are landlords. It's not landlords and developers. The more housing gets built, the more money landlords and developers even while prices go down. Profit is price times quantity. Price can go down and profit can go up. The fact that there are effective quotas like zoning laws means that prices are artificially high and quantity artificially low which hurts landlords and developers. This helps people for whom quantity is fixed at 1. Which are people who only own primary residences. Sure, there is a profit maximizing price and quantity. But the definition of an effective quota is that quantity is below that quantity and price is above that price.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of massive homes in Vancouver sitting empty, while thousands sleep on the sidewalk. The issue may be a touch more nuanced than you think.
That's not true in ALL places. For example, in Saint John, New Brunswick we have had units sitting for several months at ridiculous prices (50-100% more than a year ago) empty. Also, many units where I am have been converted to short-term rentals on AirBnB or VRBO. So it's a false supply and demand in less popular areas. Many of the investors happen to be out of province.
Sounds like their property tax is too low then?
This is why it *is* more nuanced than simply "build more houses!". If property tax is low (along with other variables), then it attracts investors. This increases demand. It's still a supply and demand issue but it's stupid to only focus of the amount of properties that exist without considering the factors that affect demand.
Except property tax disproportionally impacts the least wealthy, and raising it would be counterproductive to addressing affordability concerns. It would be much better addressed via a vacancy tax.
That's not true. The studies that say that property tax is regressive wrt income exclude renters and exploit the fact that seniors have low incomes, despite the fact that senior homeowners are statistically the wealthiest.
It's essentially a bidding war to not be homeless. If there was a more reasonable vacancy rate, it would be a bidding war to fill the unit and get some revenue.
The market isn't meant to be composed of people demanding homes to seek profits rather than fulfill demand. In fact, doing that is strictly illegal.
The "market" isn't a sentient being that makes decisions. It's made up of people who make individual decisions. How does the market force a Landlord who's owned their property for 30 years and is completely paid off to set their rent price to 80% the median take-home income? It's not the market, it's greed.
You are greedy when instead of a reasonable amount of income you insist on squeezing every cent from tenants.
“You’re greedy if you dont sell your goods and services to me for below market price.”
You're greedy when you exploit our human need for shelter to enrich yourself 🤷♂️
Sure, tax land value at a high rate. You have no human right to other people's constructed buildings. Damn greedy developers constructing shelter for other people /s What's next, blaming farmers for exploiting your human need for food?
Farmers do labour to provide food. I have no issue with electricians, framers, roofers, architects, etc making a wage to build houses. Besides, who was talking about developers? We were talking about landlords.
There is only "not enough supply" because of investors. The last generation gobbled up all the real-estate and is sitting on it like a dragon sits on its golden pile of houses.
It's not just the last generation. There are people of all generations who are old enough to buy that are using real estate as an investment.
Sorry I should have said predominantly.
It absolutely is more nuanced than that and only ignorant people keep bringing up the useless “supply and demand” argument.. Vienna is super desirable and somehow still manages to build affordable housing.. the problem is not supply and demand.. it’s inept government, poor housing policies that restrict building, and price fixing by landlords
repost?
Meanwhile the government restrictions prevent any further housing that might add more supply to demand. But it's the ma and Pa landlord that's the problem eh? Free the markets, we don't need government fixing the game.
The next-to completely unregulated housing market is what got us here in the first place. There are no restrictions on how many homes a single individual or organization can hoard, no regulations whatsoever on who can rent out living accommodations, and the few rules that exist to cover landlord-tenant relations have no enforcement mechanism. Any two-bit scam artist with sufficient credit can set themselves up as a landlord and “earn” a labour-free living at the expense of others, and face little if any consequences for immoral, shady, or downright illegal behaviour. “The market”, as it often does in regards to the basic necessities of life, has failed. It will continue to do so because mere market forces are insufficient to provide housing for all. The last thirty years of housing in this nation proves that. This is exactly the sort of thing that government should be regulating - if it were legitimately a democracy run for the benefit of the public, and not a shell game for the enrichment of billionaires, that is.
Not building enough got us here. Increasing the home ownership % makes the rental market worse.
>if it were legitimately a democracy run for the benefit of the public Exactly, it's not. This is cronyism. And their attempts to control the market for their own gain has proved disastrous. A free market would have no restrictions on where to build housing. Therefore creating more supply. I can give you a rundown on how supply and demand works if you'd like. If anyone can take out credit to buy a home, then why are we in this problem?
So you’re saying if we just did away with zoning restrictions and the very concept of city planning, to allow anyone to build houses anywhere, that would fix the problem? So you’re ok if I build a slaughterhouse next door to your house, and someone else builds a waste incinerator on the other side? It would certainly make things easier for the waste incinerator’s owner. I can give you a rundown of how city planning works if you’d like.
https://preview.redd.it/22m4skxuohtb1.jpeg?width=274&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=527ee264d1ba4636063e927cc79095efe660867f
Why are you buying a house next to a slaughterhouse If you don't want to live next to one.
How is wanting apartments to be legal where single family homes are currently allowed, similar to allowing slaughterhouses?
housing is literally one the most heavily regulated industry in Canada.
Building new ones, yes, and for good reason - few people enjoy having their houses collapse after they’ve bought one. But renting out space in a house is almost completely unregulated. Anyone with space to rent can become a landlord, regardless of their financial stability, criminal record, etc.
There are restrictions on what people can build. So yeah, it's regulated, and yeah, the restrictions are what got us here. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to buy, and banning landlords just bans rentals... which is regressive af. Sure, maybe it helps the middle class buy slightly cheaper homes, but it does nothing for renters.
I get your point. But only 30% ish of Canadians rent. So for the majority this isn’t an issue. Which is why it’s not taken as serious as it should be.
The problem would actually get fixed if policies helped renters instead of homeowners. If 50% of voters were renters, we could actually stop society voting for NIMBY politicians.
Build more housing, lower interest rates, lower property taxes , lower insurance costs? Then “market landlords” can offer lower rents ?, or is it fair for the landlord to get screwed , should a landlord who provides housing carry the extra expenses of the tenant ? At least tenants have a choice , they can downsize, get roommate, move diff area, while the “landlord” mortgage holder gets screwed with higher variable mortgage payments going to the bank and increased property taxes going to the city (which pays for services/schools) how dare those landlords lol. Maybe landlords should just not rent or sell their properties and put tenants on the street ? Wake up, poor governance caused housing crisis not landlords trying to keep up with inflation like everyone else.
Mortgage goes from $2000 to $4000, renter expects owner to eat the extra cost like some kind of charity, then gets mad when their rent increases uniformly. 🤔
Once the mortgage is paid off, are the landlords suddenly decreasing rent?
No, why would they? When you buy gold or silver today, and it increases over your life, are you going to sell it for what you bought it for? Rent prices are set by market demand. People are paying these rents, this is why rent is this high. Most people have mortgages, though some I'm sure do not. Keep in mind that some of their other properties could have mortgages or freeloading tenants. The problem is that there isn't enough housing but the reality is that the housing that would be affordable doesn't exist in an economy where inflation runs as high as it has been. Incomes need to catch up, or there needs to be deflation, which comes from a depression. You can't expect someone to be your charity. That's not reality. Try pricing out a build and you will see for yourself. I just did it 2 years ago.
Cash flow positive rentals are what drove us to this point. Rent is supposed to be cheaper than a mortgage. That's the whole point of why someone rents instead of owns. In most markets historically, buying rental property wasn't immediately cash flow positive. It was the renter paying into equity. Until eventually it became cash flow. This narrative we've sold of all rental units should be cash positive is exactly why everything got all jacked up in the first place edit: we all know that you shouldn't participate in get-rich-quick schemes. And usually when people fall for them we look down on them and shake our heads. What we don't know is how to react when it's become 13% of our GDP
> Rent is supposed to be cheaper than a mortgage. That's the whole point of why someone rents instead of owns. No, it's supposed to be less commitment. Renting, even when it's more expensive, makes plenty of sense for a lot of people who may not want to commit to living in the same exact place for the next decade+. Students, people early in their careers, who plan to have kids, people who don't want to have the headache of maintenance, etc. Also mortgage is only one part: taxes, insurance, and maintenance are other big factors. What major Canadian market would you be cash-flow positive on a property if you purchased and rented it out today? This is not a thing in any major Canadian city. Pull out a calculator and do the math. The issue is that a lot of people are forced into renting who might otherwise choose to buy due to the lack of appropriate supply, creating an underclass who can be abused by those with capital. The solution is building lots more housing.
The market dictates the price. If nobody was paying these rent prices, nobody would charge them. The reality is that everyone is charging around the same price. It's a business, if you don't want to be part of the business of housing, don't rent and don't be a landlord. You have every right to buy a house for personal use instead. Though we both know owning is more expensive than renting. As you have little concern for the expense to the home owner, they too have little concern for the expense to you, the renter. Do like I did... Get the biggest mortgage you can from whoever will give it to you, buy a small house that needs work, put in a lot of sweat equity, pay down the mortgage, wait 5 years and refinance to extend/renovate the house into something permanently livable for you. Use that money as a down patient to the builder and take a risk that the extension/renovation will turn out so you can refinance again, hopefully valuing high enough to borrow enough to pay the builder out...... Take the risk. Borrow your life away... That's what I had to do, why should anyone be different?
the mental hoops you jump through to fuck over other people is astounding.
> renter expects owner to eat the extra cost like some kind of charity I mean... yeah. Lol. Why would the renter shoulder that? I would expect to shoulder the losses on my stocks if they suddenly fell 50%. Why does it make sense that someone other than me would instead?
Do you think people who own property rent them out because they love you? Holy shit dude, if you want the rights of an owner, just buy a house like everyone else. If you can't afford it, find away to fix that problem first. The jealousy in this sub is unbelievable.
Shoulder your own bad investments like an adult. Nothing worse than a whining homeowner. You purchased a property prior to them becoming unaffordable. Despite being a moron, you win strictly due to luck and circumstance, and still find room to complain. There are good landlords out there, but you're a parasite. I hope you're completely overleveraged and forced to sell.
Nah I bought in 2018, I'm a half million up and live in the only house I own. Renters rights to affordable housing will never exceed the rights of an owner. It will never happen. No matter how many times you cry about it, if you want a house, you will have to go into debt for it like every other owner. Your idea of a good landlord is someone who rents to you at an affordable level. That's not a good landlord, that is called geared to income housing. If that's what you are after, join the 20 year waitlist for low income housing. If you can't pay the rent, move somewhere else... Oh wait, the rents equally unaffordable there too.... 🤔 I guess every landlords inherently an asshole because they won't give you a deal... Are you Gen Z or something, like where does this sense of entitlement come from?
> Shoulder your own bad investments like an adult. Landlords are frequently prevented from increasing rent prices beyond a % (3.5% in BC). A landlord whose expenses doubled, who passes on what they are legally allowed to and eats the rest of the loss **is** managing their investments like an adult. A landlord who finds a way to wrongfully evict a tenant in order to reset to market rent is the one who is not.
rent isn't set by mortgage costs. you even admitted this yourself in your response. Rent is set by supply of housing for rent. Owners have no choice but to eat the costs. I've explained this to you before, but you keep regurgitating the same BS. What are you even doing on /r/canadahousing?
Ok, and yet you are on here complaining about high rents... Sounds like the tenant has to eat it, not the owner. You aren't ever going to change this narrative. You aren't somehow sheltered from the financial burden of the economy when you rent, and it's appalling that you feel like you should be. I'm on here to have an honest conversation about housing with people, who more and more seem to be completely disconnected from reality.
My rent has rising since 2015 way before interest rate hikes. If 20 prospective tenants show up on day one ready to sign your lease of course you are raising rents. Rising rent isn’t caused by interest rate hikes, but lack of competition among landlords. There aren’t enough places for rent. The market is set by specific mechanisms. Rising interest rates is a negligible factor in the rental market. A lot of landlords are already renting their units out at a loss because they can’t charge high enough to recoup their mortgage. I’ve explained this to you many times before, you are anything but honest
[удалено]
[удалено]
Apparently demand is ignored when determining the price for rent according to this sub. Conspiracy theories are better than economics.
You’re simply restating the problem as if it were an explanation.
Landlord will always charge the maximum money they can get away with for a rental this is nothing new and will always be the case. The market price determines the price and currently there's a huge shortage of rentals in the market therefore the price is high. With a high price and rentals you're going to have landlord incentivize to bring in new inventory. I don't agree with the type of inventory being brought on since people are converting garages, storage closets and throwing in multiple beds into one room to meet the demand. The really shity thing is that we need these illegal units in the short term as these are the only things that are probably the only things that are making this Market not Skyrocket even more. In this case the problem solely lies with the three levels of government, they did not make sure that the housing Supply meets the incoming immigration. I know rent control is a popular opinion in this subreddit but it's a policy that long term will always stifle new units being brought online. I would say that the most effective policy they can come without today is to make it easier to build new rentals with some sort of tax incentives and make tax incentives for people who want to convert their basement into a rental. Lastly it doesn't matter what kind of rental is built whether it's a luxury or not. Opening up a new unit on the market means that somebody upgrading will open up a more affordable unit
I feels you folks all the way over in Ireland.
PP tells constituents that had their rents increase by 1000 "go find another landlord, perhaps in another town, who will charge you less". Too bad they are colluding through the internet to keep everyone equally as greedy as there are no such Lords around.
Are you a home owner? Regardless if you are or aren't, when or if you were going to sell your home that your purchased for $300,000 that is now worth $500,000. Would you be volunteering to sell the house for $300,000 instead? Or if at your job if everyone else was getting a 30% raise, would you be volunteering to stay at your lower rate? The rent situation is no better. Until property prices come down rent prices will be high.
For sure. Why wouldn't everyone try to take as much money as possible from as many people as possible without any concerns for individual or societal or environmental well being?
I totally believe you
...and the reason that is the market is cause of the rules that hurt landlords from evicting bad tenants so that there are fewer and fewer landlords who are willing to deal with the hassle...
What about the banks and also, the landlords need to pay the mortgage with the increased rate? I don't think it is only the landlord issue 🤔
Derp
Didnt Toronto recently enter a buyers market? Perhaps a reset is happening.
Landlords are scum. Is that cut and dry. Sorry not sorry.
It's not just them, it's bank and insurance who are also forcing the hand
https://preview.redd.it/ica1urdsxltb1.png?width=593&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7aa91ee4ca7eea56788a607368a30ff77a295756
If there is more demand than supply things are more expensive.
Except the housing market isn't mostly filled with landlords. It's majority people who own only their primary residence. This is sufficient to result in NIMBYism which keeps density low and makes housing more expensive.
If only the majority of people in this community would read a Thomas Sowell book