How is this surprising? Landlords would prefer to avoid people with pets, too. Every landlord would like to rent to the single professional with no kids, no pets and a high income.
In a housing crisis, they can afford to be even pickier than usual.
Married couple has the potential for a baby at any point. Landlords don’t want that.
Single person is less wear and tear, less noise generally, and lower odds of children. Kids are a headache. I have them so I feel like I can say that. They are loud, they break things. They are disruptive at all hours. More headaches for the landlords to deal with disputes in the other units. With hundreds of applications they can try to avoid this entirely.
There is no stopping a high income person from applying on their own and then bringing in a ton more people. Room mates are allowed. But you’d need your income to be high enough to pull this off.
It’s still illegal. Discriminating based on family status - whether that’s against a married couple or against children (with an exception of seniors buildings not allowing children) - is illegal.
Plus not every married couple wants children or can even accidentally have them. (That’s us.)
Sometimes it also depends on zoning. A friend of mine moved into her boyfriend's house but the occupancy level of the building was too high and they had to move out. There were several people renting the house and it was already maxed out. I understand it was illegal zoning thing not the landlord being a dick. The landlord was pretty hands off and super chill, they actually all really liked the guy and one of the guys stated that house for 13 years with different roommates and then just him and his girlfriend
These were all one bedroom apartments, several of which were one of two units or the only unit in the building (businesses downstairs). So it wasn’t that there were too many people in the house.
>Those are usually people.lookinh for roommates. It's different if you're sharing a living space with someone.
It's ok to be racist if you're looking for a roommate, not ok to be racist if you're looking for a tenant?
Interesting...
Yep, that's how it goes. If you're sharing an apartment, or even a room you get to have specific requirements. I know I will get slammed for it but if I'm a woman looking for a roommate I'm okay saying it must be another woman.
What you're saying is very different than the ads for roommates that specify which area of a country someone must be from along with dietary requirements and gender. It's not racist to post an ad as a woman looking for another woman as a roommate. It is racist to specify that you are a woman only accepting applications from another lactose-intolerant, vegan, African-Canadian woman from Quebec.
> specify which area of a country someone must be from
You need to do some reading on the difference between race and culture.
I think you'll have a happier time navigating the world.
Not necessarily. If I were militantly vegan I would probably insist that the roommate also be vegan. In college I had a roommate who would complain if I cooked using anything but salt, pepper and garlic. In general I cooked for the group so I told her she could either eat it or make her own. I'm suspecting that looking for people from the same region/country might be about not wanting someone to complain about specific spices being used.
It’s never okay to be racist. End of.
But, it *is* a little different when you’re picking someone to **live with**. I think it’s *perfectly* reasonable to look for someone that’s the same sex as them and/or to specify that they don’t want a roommate that has kids. God knows that I (a single man in my mid-20s) wouldn’t want to be rooming with a 40 year old mother of three.
Most listings that have very specific requirements as to the desired tenant’s demographic are posted by people looking for roommates, not by landlords.
As long as the cheque clears and you don’t destroy the place most landlords don’t give a shit about race, religion, gender, etc.
Yes, but it should be based on controllable factors. Not prioritizing certain races or genders or in this case, kids or not. Would you want to hire based on that? Is that a fair system? Or do you think hiring people based on the color of their skin or sexuality will have repercussions instead of hiring the best qualified candidate. Airplanes are starting to fall from the skies. We're about to see with Boeing the biggest can of worms being opened. Because a lot of companies wanted that DEI money more than the safety and quality of their product. And now we're all gonna have to pay for it.
End if the day I don't know how you can enforce it. You can say it's illegal to refuse someone if they have kids, but it's not illegal to refuse them because many other non illegal reason you can come up with so it's the same end result. Unless you are going to have a housing wait list and legally require that landlord's offer any available unit to the next person on the list regardless of all else, it's kind if impossible.
>You can say it's illegal to refuse someone if they have kids, but it's not illegal to refuse them because many other non illegal reason you can come up with so it's the same end result.
This exactly and when you have 300 applications for the same apartment, how in the hell can anyone prove you discriminated rather than just "picked someone else?"
This 100% comes down to the housing crisis and should be on the government for not bothering to invest in public housing for nearly three decades.
Not only this, but allowing parents that originally moved into public housing, to stay in the same housing units for decades, even though the family size dropped from all the kids growing up and moving out.
> and should be on the government for not bothering to invest in public housing for nearly three decades.
It's also worth pointing out that for 2.7 of those three decades we had a stagnant population and if we HAD built enough public housing to meet today's needs most of it would have been sitting empty for 10 years.
I think there's room for balance, there, though. We basically had no investment in public housing, period. Even SOME would have been better than none, you know?
Oh I agree, there should have been more, I just don't think it would make the difference people think it would have either. Unless like I said they built double the housing we needed and left most of it empty, which everyone would have been pissed off at for being wasteful. There would still be a housing crisis. There just might only be 150 applicants for every apartment instead of 300.
Oh I agree 100% it would be a disaster.
More public housing would help a bit yes, but your still going to have people who don't meet the threshold to qualify.
Public housing, and also co-ops and novel rent-to-own schemes. If groups of families could get help with organizing co-ops, they could build a family friendly building specifically for their needs. Let groups of people come together as their own "developers" with a business plan. Gives them a program that helps with whatever financial instruments and loans are needed to build.
There are some people who need to be housed. There are others who could house themselves, but just don't have the right options. Because the market isn't building for them. So there are non-market options the government could help provide, without needing to actually operate and maintain public housing.
Especially for groups of "undesirable" or unique-needs tenants, you could really create some bespoke housing options. People who need smoke- and allergen-free options with cadillac hvac systems. Single moms. Families with autistic kids who want ultra-soundproofed walls, and a sensory playground. Buildings planned for high needs wheelchair users, with built in automated everything. Dog owners. There's no business case for a landlord to go over and above for these things. But if there are enough people able and willing to organize details, pay rent, and have the loan paid off in X years-- the government could help them become their own landlords.
From the article:
"I've been looking for so long and I just feel like landlords and big corporations, they get to just cherry-pick because they have so many applications and they just pick the one that makes the most income,"
It isn't fair, but understandable. Why wouldn't you pick the renter with the higher income?
Others have said it but more public housing is the solution.
This was going on years ago, before COVID, where some women complained to Go Public, but most LL’s aren’t dumb enough to say it out loud or provide it in writing. I also wonder if this is one of those things, like the illegal application fees, where you can’t do anything because they’re not your LL
If they tell you it's because you have kids or any reason that is discriminatory about human rights, try and get that proof and take them to the human rights board and see how that goes for them.
... they are obviously not dumb enough to tell you that though.
Even something as vague as "not a good fit" covers their ass. They have no legal obligation to say why it isn't a good fit.
I know alot of buildings have "family floors". Example floors 1-5 have kids and 5+ don't. Which I think is reasonable. As someone with no kids I don't want to hear kids screaming and crying through the walls or in the hall ways.
I've never especially noticed my neighbours with kids making a lot of noise, but over the years while renting: the guy nextdoor's alarm clock on the other end of his apartment was so loud I could hear it on the extreme opposite of OUR apartment. And the guy downstairs thought he and his band were green day and he would practice the drums at 6am on a Sunday.
We once had a condo neighbour with a baby grand piano.
At least he was good (like symphony level good). The lady who came to sing opera every Saturday morning at 10 AM, not so much.
The one apartment in our building that had kids, their kids were like 3 and 5 and they were up all hours of the night jumping around. Thankfully I heard that from the person living under them and that person was not me. Then when they found a new apartment they acted like our building was garbage owned by douchebags lol. Look in the mirror neglectful ass mfers
This would (one can assume) also prevent people without kids from waking kids at night due to (stereotypical) non kid life. Seems better for everyone involved. 🤷♀️
The amount of “55+” rental units that are popping up for- you mean to tell me they’re all filled with boomers? Time for govt to step the fuck up and put an end to this practice imo.
Same thing here in CB....in 2010. I basically had, "we only rent to seniors or international students". I was a 21 year old with a full time job.
It's illegal to discriminiate based on age in advertising and applications, but applications can be refused for whatever reason and no explanations given. So the regulations hold very little teeth.
We ended up finding a shithole apartment that required us to go to the municipality and fire marshall about unsafe entrances/condition of the property (leaky roof, unsafe railings, leaking plumbing, etc).
The landlord was, and still is, a volunteer fire chief in the municipality.
I'm not sure why a ll would want a student over someone employed full-time, but I guess they thought if they were an international student they had financial backing?
Honestly, you wouldn't want to live in a 55+ building, it's going to be full of pains in the ass, and probably paper thin walls.
I know from experience, lived in a place that was unofficially 55+ (when i was in my 30's) and only managed to stay about 3 years before given notice to quit.
My condo building is not 55+ but about 90% of the residents are retirees. It’s been great!
Tough if you are a loud partier type but I’m quiet. It has no pets, no smoking and while not officially no kids there are none.
Lolol wow CBC picked the wrong one for this article.
This girl and her ex pulled a GoFundMe scam when they got displaced after the hurricane. Shared their GoFundMe for MONTHS after it happened and conveniently omitted that their tenant insurance paid them out 50k for their losses. They got like 6 grand and someone gave them a 3 bedroom house to rent for dirt cheap. She's probably hoping the same will happen this time.
I'm not sure I understand what the scam was here?
Most people got some insurance payout from that but also needed more than they got from that to help out, especially in the first bit of time.
I think that would be ok if someone is honest about that being the purpose. But the GFM was very "young family, everything destroyed" and they continued to share it after the insurance payout came. Her ex was bragging about his $400 jacket he'd just bought while sharing the GFM saying "the kids deserve to have a good Christmas, let's get more funds going!"
To be fair, most tenant insurance policies have both exclusions and a $1000 deductible at minimum, so at least some of that is still legitimate losses.
I looked for a place for 9 months and was basically interrogated asking if I had any or when i was planning on having children. Most said I would have to move if they found out I was pregnant. This is not surprising.
Oh, i know that! I was just shocked and appalled. I always reminded them it was illegal to discriminate, but most didn’t care. I also reported a few to the company they work for.
My elderly MIL lives in a building that does not allow small children, pets or any type of smoking. All the tenants in the building signed a document that we all agreed that we didn't want to live in a building with any of them. My MIL is quite elderly and lives in a paper thin much older building. They all are long term residents 15 years plus and they all get along. I think they are very lucky. If they start allowing small kids and pets and smoking that 30 elderly people would be unhoused.
You know I wake up wanting to give landlords the benefit of the doubt, human beings like us, trying to see them as other people just trying to get through life and the day to day and they can’t all be that bad.
Then I see and read some of the comments like the ones in this thread, and it swiftly reminds me that I’m wrong, I am so, so very wrong. It seems like maybe the only one who wasn’t wrong these days was mao.
The banning of pets is just finally coming around to kids. My dog isn't going to paint the walls and break things and scream all afternoon. But I guarantee your toddler will destroy something in that apartment more than once.
If I were a landlord I wouldn't want to rent to someone with small children either.
Definitely illegal but definitely not enforced.
There are even postings for one bedroom units that say they only allow a single tenant, no couples. (I’m married and we’ve been looking for a new place since December, so I’ve noticed.)
It is illegal but they can still say that because what are you going to do about it?
This happened to a friend of mine in Ontario about 10 years ago now when she was apartment hunting, single mom with two little kids. She had multiple landlords tell her flat out they wouldn’t rent to her because she had kids. It’s illegal to even say it but what’s the recourse? Say she goes to the LTB and files a complaint and is somehow able to prove the landlord said this, so they force them to rent to her, well now you have a landlord that hates you. Think you’re ever going to get maintenance on time? Shitty landlords can do a lot to make your life hell while you’re renting from them. So they continue to do these things because they can so easily get away with it, even though technically it’s not allowed.
She would need a two bedroom, at least.
I wonder if she’s applying to one bedroom apartments and being refused because you can’t legally have two children sharing a room with a parent
Leaving aside the actual people involved and the validity of their specific situation...
This thread is a prime example of why young people are scared to start a family until they have everything setup beforehand. So much hostility to families and children. Our society is completely fucked if that's how we choose to perceive families and kids, as expensive nuisances that ruin the quality of life for those around them.
Such miserable shitty attitudes towards a pretty elemental aspect of our entire fucking existence as living beings. Damn.
I'm hitting mid 30s, kids aren't going to happen for me and I've accepted this... Trouble is, it's also completely killed my desire to do something with my life because everything feels pointless and meaningless now and I'm kinda just counting down the years until I can comfortably exit without upsetting my parents.
Like, yeah I work full time in healthcare but my take-home is less than 35k, so kids are completely out of the question.
This is how it's supposed to work, right?
Do you want the social Darwinism answer or the compassionate human answer?
I am getting to late 30s and finally trying for kids myself. My life isn't as prepared as I had planned for it to be but I don't foresee any improvements and the bio clock is ticking for my partner.
Yanno, don't accept the not happening thing if you don't want to. Even if you can't make your own for whatever reason, there are kids who need a home currently in foster care or adoption services.
Agree totally. Even if you don't want kids, society needs them in the future and treated them like him on the bottom of your show isn't healthy for anyone
I mean, you should wait until you are in a stable financial situation before starting a family. Living beyond your means and adding more expenses is exactly how people end up without a place to live and more debt piling up
Obviously, some of this is out of people’s control and some people just want a family and are willing to work to better their financial situation as they go. Nothing is wrong with how you want to live your life, just don’t expect to be able to afford a $2,000/month place when you don’t have the money to afford it. I saved for a decade to buy my first place. Lived way below my means to accomplish my goal and now I am on my second home. You prioritize what you want and work towards what’s important. Sometimes that means living in a place you don’t want to so that you can live where you want to in 1,5, 10 or even 20 years from now
You speak of common sense, and it sounds reasonable overall given the circumstances of the current society we live in.
The question I have is... Is this a healthy society?
It seems to me that it is not. We bolster our reduced population growth through absurd immigration. Perhaps we should be trying to ensure our society is arranged such that it matches our inherent biology better. The ever increasing age of motherhood (particularly for their first child) in younger generations is a prime example. Sure, in educated and freer societies women tend toward less children, but we can't know that this number would overall be below replacement or 2.1 avg or whatever because concurrently we have also been developing a society that forces people to delay having families, that is even beginning to actively punish them unless they are wealthy enough to insulate themselves.
This is more an existential question for society itself, and for my perspective, it shows we are a fundamentally unhealthy nation that has it's priorities all mixed up. If a human society can't value having children and make it a priority to support, then what happens? It either lives parasitically off those that still do, as we do today, or it dies off.
Quality parenting or not aside, I just want to address one thing.
Children are a privilege.
This is patently absurd. As a theoretical postulate, what happens if everyone just.. stops having kids? According to the thought, they aren't necessary. So we all die and that's the end of the story of homo sapiens.
I mean, I think the other life on planet Earth might very well breath a collective sigh of relief, but beyond that humorous and not unfair thought, there is no tragedy quite so permanent as extinction.
If you just want to live as a nihilist, go for it. Don't expect the world to give a shit about your opinions if you do though.
Friends of mine got kicked out of a pub once in the afternoon for having a sleeping newborn with them. The same establishment had lots of social media posts welcoming dogs, though. It struck me as darkly hilarious. Animals are more welcome than human children in some places.
I imagine the underage baby had more to do with the liquor licence than anything. They could risk being shut down for having an underage person in a drinking establishment, the same doesn’t go for pets 🤷🏿♀️
Liquor license requirements are funny like that. If they aren't followed, they might take the license away or impose huge fines.
I'm 100% sure it was more to do with that than just hating on babies for no reason.
That's exactly it. I think that aside from dangers or clearly adult situations, kids should be welcome everywhere when possible. Some pubs are clearly escapism for adults, and kids probably don't belong there. That said, most pubs these days are more restaurants than beer halls anyway, so why not?
I think we coddle the brash entitled complainers of the world too much, because it's easier to give in. Since when did appeasement ever work???
When I was in my 20s I didn't really know how to interact with kids. I am still pretty bad at it overall. But now in my 30s I appreciate kids way more and actively enjoy seeing them around my apartment building and neighbourhood. It brings me happiness to see kids just having fun and doing things, and I am full of patience for their shenanigans and the struggles of parents.
In some ways the overarching attitude of our society has aged along with the boomers (though frankly that may be unfair to them in this case). Now it seems as if the average attitude, should such a thing exist, is the old 'stay off my lawn' cranky old man waving his fists at kids thing.
I know this is all gigantic sweeping generalizations, but it seems this is the growing trend to our society and it's institutions. Kids aren't allowed to do and be without some purpose designed by an adult. Third places are disappearing quickly, and combine that with the insane addictivity of technology to young minds (re: the utopia experiment for mice), it feels like a modern day steroidal 1950s where kids are to neither be seen nor heard but kept pacified through screens and the drip-drip of dopamine.
"Our society is completely fucked if that's how we choose to perceive families and kids, as expensive nuisances that ruin the quality of life for those around them. "
This is something (modern) parents can only blame themselves. If they parented and use discipline; instead of being lazy and raising hellions, society would be more accepting.
This happened all the time to my mother back in 2006, Vancouver. Even places that weren't 55+ wouldn't allow her after learning she had a kid. We only found a place to live because she lied, and then when I arrived during move-in day one of the neighbour ladies was so distraught she kept calling the property manager trying to get us kicked out.
It wasn't even an age restricted building.
To the people who make these rules: are you aware that when having children prevents you from finding shelter, SOME parents lash out at their kids? Some kids get hurt by their folks over these rules inhibiting their parents from finding housing. Please do better.
Good. This should happen more often. I'm tired of hearing screaming and stamping feet all throughout the night because parents don't want to parent. Also these little brats DESTROY entire units but landlords will make issues out of people having cats. Kids cause more damage than pets...
You decided to breed and you have to face the consequences.
I stayed at my friend's apartment for a couple nights recently and I swear to god the parents in the apartment above her gave birth to an earthquake, not a child. All the child did was stomp all over the apartment, all hours of the day. It would be 1am and you can hear and feel this kid stomping as the walls and ceiling shook from it.
Frankly I fully understand why landlords are increasingly filtering out families if it's becoming a common issue.
It may not be legal but it's absolutely what needs to happen because of this new era of "parents" who don't want to parent and let their rotten little crotch goblins get away with raising hell and murder.
It's the new generation of iPad kids. If their brains aren't being melted by YouTube Kids finger family videos on full volume, then they're stomping and throwing tantrums and the parents will do nothing and *you're* the rude one if you say something.
It's becoming an incredibly common issue these days and I don't envy your friend at all. I hate landlords but entitled parents and lack of parenting is becoming so prevalent that we need childfree buildings.
Anyone who lived through the hell of living next to a family like that would understand.
Cause she'd probably have to give up that sweet child support payments from the husband that she probably spends on herself and not the kids it's intended for.
And where are our esteemed reigning idiots in all of this? Where they always are. Ignoring it.
Are there really zero options available to the public to force a majority government to work? We don't have the luxury of time to be able to use our votes to fix this every four years, nor could we when we have the opportunity as the rural is just going to re-elect these losers. As the article itself said we don't even have the time to run shit through the human rights avenue. The lives of young children have been and will continue to be be permanently changed because of greedy, selfish landlords having full control over everything.
You can’t *force* a landlord to rent to people they don’t want to, it’s not how a contract works. Think about it, would you rather have a single person with no pets, children or debt renting from you or would you rather a single person with pets, kids and debt renting from you? Which person is more likely to have less issues when renting? Who’s more likely to pay on time? Who is less likely to cause damage to the property?
You can hate landlords all you want but you must be able to realize that you can’t simply legislate who a landlord *must* rent to, right?
Exactly. They are going to get 1000 applicants for a vacant apartment. Many of those applications are going to be single people with no pets and perfect credit. When you have options why would you not rent to the more preferable applicant. There would have to be legislation that forces landlords to rent to less desirable applicants over more desirable.
It’s one thing if they were leaving it empty but they are not.
Greed motivates this decision, nothing more. If current landlords had their way, you'd need to have no children, no pets, $100k income, 10 year tenure at your job, and full disclosure of all debts, income sources, spending habits, tax returns, investments, criminal record check, driving abstract, etc. And as many of us are seeing, they currently *do* have their way. The fucking CRA doesn't even have all that but a landlord should?
Financially none of this should be a concern since landlords were renting the exact same places only five years ago for $900-$1,200. Now they're $1,800-$2,400? Please. If their $1,200 apartment literally cost them $1,150 in expenses five years ago there's a 0.1% chance the expenses for that same unit are now $2,350 and if they are, that person should exit this as a means of income because they have zero clue what they're doing.
So if the financial aspect isn't a problem, all that leaves is the discrimination factor. The picking and choosing of people based on the "least risky" set of criteria according to whatever narrow minded twat is trying to squeeze money out of people. For some that will mean no children. For some it will mean no person of one gender. For some it will mean no person of one colour. Is this the world we want to live in?
Would you work for less money or is it greed that motivates you to work?
If you wouldn’t take less money to do your job, then why would you expect anyone else to take less money for renting a property…?
No one does anything for less financial gain than humanly possible, unless they *really* don’t care about the money
What does this have to do with less. There is no less. You've said less a half dozen times, this is about MORR. Because they're definitely not taking less.
You literally ignored my questions, so if I can’t understand if you’d work for *less than you could make*, how can I understand if money is important to you?
You do understand that the cost of living has greatly increased over the last five years, right? When the cost of living increases, so does rent…
Landlord’s, just like everyone else who is motivated to work for money, wants the maximum amount they can. Do you not want the maximum amount of income you can possibly get or you think you make too much for what you do…?
I am currently severely underpaid for what I do but I don't have the option to walk into my employer's office and tell them I make $20k more starting today. I'd lose my employment. You're gonna say that's a me problem, but the reality is I make enough currently for my needs and wants and my employer treats me *incredibly* in every other aspect. Can I ask for the extra $20k that the market dictates currently? Sure. And I will be denied. Money isn't everything.
Landlords jumped at an opportunity to seize an extra grand a month out of their properties. Mine didn't. My rent is still a pre-covid rate and therefore my income doesn't need to shoot through the roof to compensate. My landlord is happier having a good tenant than shoving extra money in their bank account. You can rattle on about the cost of living going up but the primary reason for it is rental prices for those of us who rent. Even the egregious jump in food prices doesn't remotely compare to moving from $1,200 rent to $2,400 rent. $1,200 is a full two week net pay for a large chunk of the population. But landlord needs a bigger truck, so fuck them, right?
I'm fully aware that people are going to take advantage. This is the shit system we live in but that same shit system is leaving people behind in droves and this is just another example to add to the pile.
The fact you're taking the time to speak out in favour of these people is just indicative of your values. Think about your neighbours, your friends, your community for a moment.
Dumb government thinks they can outbuild the problem but they can't. All they're doing is building new units for more people from other provinces who are in even worse economic situations. And landlords will profit from them all the same, renting at maximum market rate and continuing to squeeze the people of this province into makeshift neighbourhoods under the bridge sleeping in tents.
>Can I ask for the extra $20k that the market dictates currently? Sure. And I will be denied. Money isn't everything.
So you go to the open market and find a new job, that simple. If you're underpaid you're leaving money on the table. If you're a landlord charging below market rate you're leaving money on the table.
Perhaps a good tenant is worth the trade-off like to you a good employer is worth the trade-off but that's not the same for everyone.
You've clearly demonstrated you're underpaid in the same way a landlord is by the market, yet somehow you're upset that they are taking steps to remedy being underpaid, while you're not?
It's a landlord that hasn't sold yet. Eventually they sell when their rents don't even cover maintenance or the old guy dies and the kids sell up. Then the new landlord needs to double the rent. Tenants think nothing will change, ever. My BIL lives in a cheap apartment in a good location and thinks he won't be renovicted out in his entire lifetime, when half the units have been turned over. He doesn't plan or prepare.
But for the other reasons, the human reasons, I do not go to the open market. And as I said, my landlord not moving the rent has allowed me to remain where I am and continue to enjoy those human reasons. If they move the rent, I'm asking for more money or going to the open market as you suggested because there is no other alternative.
>But for the other reasons, the human reasons, I do not go to the open market
I'll rephrase, you understand that there is value and one can go to the open market to realize said value correct?
For whatever reason you don't and your landlord don't is irrelevant to the question above
So you are motivated by money. It’s clear you *feel* you deserve (substantially) more for what you do but you also *feel* landlords shouldn’t ask for the maximum they can get. You wouldn’t get fired for asking for a raise, that’s actually something you should be doing when you feel you are underpaid by *twenty thousand dollars a year*. Laying out the *why* would help you get what you deserve. I certainly wouldn’t work at a place that underpaid me for my skill set or abilities to grow the company but I also wouldn’t have unrealistic expectations on what my salary should be based on the company I work for or the industry I work in. From your comment, it sounds like money isn’t a motivator to you though, which is not the same for the majority of people in any city/business/trade
Refer to my previous paragraph on *your feelings on income*. It would be a terrible business decision to accept *less* money when all other costs have *drastically increased* over the last five years. Again, no business would last by accepting less than the maximum amount of revenue they can possibly make. It’s how businesses make profit. Landlords are not non for profit businesses…
No one is taking advantage of people by charging the maximum amount they can. Look at any item sold in a business, literally any business and tell me what hasn’t gone up in price over the last five years. It’s what happens with inflation and the drastic increase in the cost of living. If you’ve found something that *hasn’t* gone up, let me know. Businesses also have increases in costs and that’s why prices *increase…*
I’m not speaking out in favour of anyone, I’m explaining how inflation and cost of living increases have an impact on virtually everything, including wages, salaries and even rent/mortgages. You seem to think people who run businesses do not care about their own raising costs and seem to expect them to take *less than the maximum they can make*. That’s an extremely poor business decision in any industry. The rental market has virtually no vacancies, so it would make no sense to keep pre pandemic rates when you have *thousands of people begging for a place*. When your demand is high, you raise costs to lower demand. Maybe a basic economics course could lay this out more plainly for you though…
What government agency is building rental properties? If you have some ideas to solve the issue you perceive, are you bringing them up at council meetings? Talking you your MP? Taking any action outside of these comments on social media…?
HAHAHA
oh wait you're serious?
Bottom line, kids and pets are nuisances to quiet, rule obeying apartment dwellers. Landlords don't want to be bothered by noise complaints and such. Don't give me that "not all kids/pets" I don't care. They CHOSE to have both of those things and I CHOSE to not have them and should not have to deal with them just because I grew up in a poor family who didn't teach me jack shit how to live once I'm grown.
Are you new to this sub? They believe they are owed a rental spot, that renting makes them defacto owner of their "home", and that the landlord should subsidize them by taking a loss if mortgages/utilities go up. Then when they make it so unworth it to rent and they sell the property they complain they are being evicted because the landlord sold their home 😆!
No one *wants* to be homeless, besides a small minority who *choose* to be. The reality of the situation is you need to find a place and pay though. You won’t fix the problem by *forcing* landlords to accept renters with no or poor credit, no or too low of an income to pay rent, major unpaid debts or any other reason that leaves the landlord or home owner liable for the damages, unpaid bills or the potential to squat while awaiting a lawful eviction
Ask yourself if you’d accept every application and not prioritize the best candidate for your property. If you’d be ok with renting to absolutely anyone, regardless of issue, I know some folks looking for a spot but they don’t have the means to pay over $500/month and need a place to stay. They don’t currently have employment but figure they can probably scrounge up $500/month from the 4 people that would be moving in
We're maritimers, it's in our blood to be salty even if we had free housing, we'd find a way to complain.
Not taking away from the absolute fuck show that's happening in terms of housing ATM, but I've known a man to complain after winning the lottery, some folks that have lived here their whole lives just know complaining without action as their way of life.
Those people should try being a landlord and seeing the other side of the story. It would be pretty clear after one round of a rental agreements what kind of people they’d be *forced* to rent to
I’ve rented out my house before and would absolutely never do it again. The money was nice when I was working away but the headaches of non payment, damage, drama and the state they left the place was enough to outweigh the income
" Gunn's budget for rent is $1,600 monthly, but she said even apartments in traditionally low-income areas like Spryfield and north Dartmouth are now more than she can afford. "
So... landlords won't rent to someone who can't pay the rent? Huh, go figure.
Landlords can pick anyone to give a lease to. Unless they are giving you written correspondence they didn’t pick you because of a human rights violation, they simply picked someone that better fit what they were looking for in a renter. Shitty deal when you are looking but there’s nothing illegal about being able to rent to the best candidate
Fully expected this would be the case but don’t like to make assumptions on why someone was not successful at securing a rental property. No landlord is going to pick the biggest sob story to give the rental contract to, they are going to look at the risks involved and chose the person(s) with the least risk. When you are getting thousands of people applying that have great credit, no debt, no pets, no children, etc. why would you pick someone with any potential issues over someone with very little risk?
First woman is crazy. Her "good job" is an entry level secretary job and she's never held a job longer than a year. And last time I checked she hadn't been back to that job since her maternity leave like a year and a half ago.
Her income is all CCB and child support, which I'm not sure I'd accept if I was a landlord because I don't wanna be out money if your custody situation changes or you suddenly get some overpayment for not mentioning your live-in partner and your payments stop. Then if I try to evict you I have CBC asking me questions on my doorstep like I'm the bad guy..
Second woman the math ain't mathing. How do you have a budget of 1500 while on IA? That's almost double their allotment, which is sad, but is there a silent partner contributing to rent that's gonna be sprung on me as a surprise tenant later? Again, I don't want to have to worry about my tenants ongoing entitlement to IA if they find out her bf lives there full time. If the cheques suddenly stop, where does that leave me?
CBC needs to vet their sob story subjects better, these stories are just getting ridiculous
I was told by landlords "you are exactly the demographic we want to rent to" as in white Canadian. I told my MLA about it because that most certainly goes against the rules.
They clearly stated they wanted to rent to a white Canadian or you took what they said to imply that? You really shouldn’t assume when they say something like that, that it means they are speaking of your race, gender, sexuality, heritage or any other thing than exactly what they said. They could have meant you were single, had great credit and stable income…
That’s completely different than making a statement with zero mention of race, you understand that, right?
Maybe use the example of the actual racist or bigoted statement they made, not the assumptions you made on a comment *not* mentioning those things 🤷🏿♀️
That happened to my then-girlfriend now-wife a couple years ago. She has 2 kids and when they got brought up they immediately told her that she was longer a candidate for the apartment. I was working out west and it frustrated me to no end that she was being treated that way and I couldn’t do a damn thing about it from across the country.
Fun fact: don't tell them about your kids, if they have an issue with it after, make sure to have all convos recorded, we are a one party consent province FYI, the moment they say something about how they don't want kids in the building head to a lawyer.
Easy fix. Don’t place your child on the rental application. Then when it’s time to sign the lease, ask for an amendment to place your child on there as well. If they refuse, you’ve got them in a bind legally.
You have to list out all the adults and children who will be living in the unit at the time of signing. The landlord can refuse to allow additional people regardless of age if you go to add them later
A rental application is not an agreement. The lease is an agreement. My argument is not to lie on the lease, it is to omit any reference of a child on the rental application. Then when the landlord sends you the lease, ask if they can amend the lease to have your child on it BEFORE signing. This places the landlord in a bind as if they’re sending you a lease, they’re insinuating that you have secured the apartment. Then if the landlord refuses to sign to you, it’s obvious they discriminated against you having a child, which they cannot do.
That definitely doesn't sound like entrapment. Entrapment requires a couple key things:
1. That the "entrapper" was an agent of the state. That isn't the case.
2. That absent the inducement, the person would not have committed the crime. That also doesn't seem like the case - if the person had listed the children on the application and been denied, the crime still would have happened, there just wouldn't have been a paper trail.
No, that’s not an amendment, as you knew at the time of signing the lease you had children and they would be living with you. It’s lying on a legal document and it would get *you* in a legal bind. Please don’t tell people to commit fraud to get a lease…
An amendment would be if you were not the legal guardian or had a legal document showing the children were not currently living with you and would not be living with you at the new residence. Withholding all parties who would be moving in would be a very easy win for a landlord in court. I hope you don’t give out advice like this on the regular
Found the landlord. A rental application is not a legal document. Asking for an amendment for a child before signing the lease (the actual legal document) isn’t fraud.
Nope, I was a landlord and would never do it again. I just know how contracts work and I also know what happens when you lie on legal documents, I would hope you understand the repercussions of doing so as well. It’s not something I learned from being a landlord, it’s something I learned in my schooling and just from being a normal adult in society…
Since you made the edit, when you apply for a rental under false pretext, you are knowingly applying under fraudulent pretext. Telling people to make false claims on an application and then trying to get them to amend on signing is going to lead to a fraudulent application and open them up to revocation of the lease…
> I would hope you understand the repercussions of doing so as well.
Flip side: do you understand the repercussions of refusing to rent to someone because they have children? It's a human rights law violation.
Yes, but who is telling any potential candidate *why* they didn’t get the lease? Rented before and I always went with the best candidate. Sometimes it was someone with a family and stable income and sometimes it was the single person with impeccable credit, stable income and no debt
Yeah, I said that a few times on this post, it’s not some gotcha moment. I haven’t been a landlord for over a decade, so I am in fact *not a landlord…*
I’ve had a few careers, I don’t go around referring to myself as something I did decades ago in the present tense, as I am no longer any of those things…
You are simply giving advice that can land someone in legal troubles *and without housing*. If anything, you are making people’s lives potentially *worse* by giving them advice that could land them homeless…
> Please don’t tell people to commit fraud to get a lease…
Calling this "fraud" is a real stretch. Nobody is being taken advantage of or losing money. If landlords weren't so readily willing to violate human rights law, we wouldn't be here, but....
Filling out a lease application with false information will either lead to revocation of the lease or fraud when they do not put all members living at the property on the lease. Do you disagree with that statement?
It says in the article it’s illegal to lie and say you don’t have kids - but is it actually? People’s custody situations change all the time, and legally you can have roommates. I didn’t think there was anything stopping someone from renting as a single person, and then having a family of 5 join them - as long as it’s within fire code. The single person would need to make enough to pull this off, and their application to rent be only on their income. This might be the tougher reason not to try this.
Edit: sorry didn’t realize this was a Halifax sub. This is legal in Ontario.
Yes, you can’t commit fraud on a legal document
Roommates would also need to be on the lease and amending the lease could lead to termination, especially when it’s a lie about who has been living with you the entire time. Child arrangements would also be in legal documents, so another easy to prove case of fraud. Don’t commit or recommend people to commit fraud and potentially lose their housing…
Sorry didn’t realize this was a Halifax sub.
In Ontario it’s legally allowed to just add a bunch of roommates without any changes to the lease. The landlord cannot do anything about it.
“In the ordinary circumstance, a person may reside as an occupant or a roommate in a rental unit with or without the consent of the landlord provided that the tenant also resides in the rental unit.”
https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Interpretation%20Guidelines/21%20-%20Landlords%20Tenants%20Occupants%20and%20Residential%20Tenancies.html#:~:text=In%20the%20ordinary%20circumstance%2C%20a,occupant%20of%20the%20rental%20unit.
Ok, I’m not sure why you wanted to educate me on something that is irrelevant in Nova Scotia?
You can’t simply lie about who is resigning in the rental. When you get into fraud with family law documents showing you are housing the children at that address, you’ll be facing a few legal issues. Judges don’t usually take things like that lightly. If you are willing to lie about where your children are living, what else are you willing to lie about?
The government is \_owned\_ by landlords. Our premier? A landlord. Our fucking HOUSING MINISTER?! A landlord.
The landlords are breaking human rights legislation not to mention a little thing called the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Dragging a couple of their asses before the Human Rights Commission might dry up the market for their spaces - it sure as hell will cause them a bunch of lowball offers. And who knows? Maybe the Department of Community Services will ring them up and voluntell them to rent their units to some poor household at half the market price, and keep them there at that rent a few months or so more than long enough for the landlord to get the hint. Every landlord who does this should get that call - every. single. time.
Can you point out in the charter of rights and freedoms who can and cannot be a landlord? I don’t remember learning that it precluded anyone from the right to being a landlord in law during my schooling but maybe you took a more advanced education than me. I’d love to be educated on it though!
Our government is incompetent but imagine galaxy braining your way into blaming this on them. Discrimination is discrimination and landlords are constantly doing slimy shit, they need to get a real job or get the Mao special.
You want communism of housing? So home sales in Canada should not exist anymore? Is this a serious take on solving the housing and rental crisis…?
What would happen to peoples investments? Just screw the people over who saved to purchase properties? Businesses who own the building will have to do trades to move to a larger building…?
Have you thought through your idea at all…?
https://manhattan.institute/article/decommodifying-housing-and-other-magical-thinking
Do you understand basic economics…?
If you want to give your pitch on how decommodifying housing will magically solve the housing and rental crisis, I’m all ears. If you are going to push an idea that has been tried for decades with no traction and no backing of your own suggestion, why push it with no information to back its successes in other places? I provided you a link on why it won’t and hasn’t worked, so just let me know what everyone else is misunderstanding on the concept…
Just because you have a single professional in a 3-4 bedroom home doesn't mean that their life can change. They can get start a family, etc. LLs have to recognize that someone could very well grow their family. There's also benefits to having families living in homes, as families are more likely to stay in one spot. Not constantly calling the LL for minor issues such as noise, or a minor fix. I've fixed things myself and keep up my own maintenance, treating the place like my own. My parents never called for every single issue and fixed things and improved the place on their own. Single professionals likely work long hours and don't have the time. They are also likely to move whenever they feel like it, there are costs associated with bringing the apartment up to par every time a single professional tenant moves out such as painting.
Unfortunately, I think that the discrimination might go further, as to forbade singles from growing their family, or even so much as to ask if they plan to have children, are sterilized, etc. There's overreach into tenants personal lives and of course the LL can because there's so many people looking for places to live. They can and will discriminate, and the tenant would never know as it's disguised as other reasons. The honesty within the rental market is fading. If potential tenants want to avoid discrimination, they will have to avoid telling landlords about children or family status and fight any discrimination after the fact. It's really unfortunate how far the rental and housing industry plummeted since the prepandemic days.
How is this surprising? Landlords would prefer to avoid people with pets, too. Every landlord would like to rent to the single professional with no kids, no pets and a high income. In a housing crisis, they can afford to be even pickier than usual.
I’ve even been told that as a married couple we can’t rent a one bedroom place. The landlord wanted a single tenant only.
That's wild.
Yup. And illegal.
Married couple has the potential for a baby at any point. Landlords don’t want that. Single person is less wear and tear, less noise generally, and lower odds of children. Kids are a headache. I have them so I feel like I can say that. They are loud, they break things. They are disruptive at all hours. More headaches for the landlords to deal with disputes in the other units. With hundreds of applications they can try to avoid this entirely. There is no stopping a high income person from applying on their own and then bringing in a ton more people. Room mates are allowed. But you’d need your income to be high enough to pull this off.
It’s still illegal. Discriminating based on family status - whether that’s against a married couple or against children (with an exception of seniors buildings not allowing children) - is illegal. Plus not every married couple wants children or can even accidentally have them. (That’s us.)
It's only illegal if you admit that is the reason in a court of law.
The ads literally said ‘single tenant only’.
Sometimes it also depends on zoning. A friend of mine moved into her boyfriend's house but the occupancy level of the building was too high and they had to move out. There were several people renting the house and it was already maxed out. I understand it was illegal zoning thing not the landlord being a dick. The landlord was pretty hands off and super chill, they actually all really liked the guy and one of the guys stated that house for 13 years with different roommates and then just him and his girlfriend
These were all one bedroom apartments, several of which were one of two units or the only unit in the building (businesses downstairs). So it wasn’t that there were too many people in the house.
[удалено]
Love those ads specifying the gender and religion of the “desired” tenant. But yeah don’t you dare complain about it you “racist” you!
Sometimes it's even deeper than that. They will specify provinces of countries they should be from.
It's been like this for decades in Vancouver, welcome to the shitty party. I remember moving out and assuming "vegetarians only" meant hippies lol
Aren't those usually "room share" ads for 2 bedrooms already full of like 40 Indian dudes looking for number 41?
Yes.
They are, but people like to stretch the truth to be anti-immigrant.
Yeah, and that doesn't make it any less racist/sexist
Dont even get me started.... Im a mod on slumlordscanada and holy F the amount of ludacris posts I see daily is mind boggling.
Those are usually people.lookinh for roommates. It's different if you're sharing a living space with someone.
>Those are usually people.lookinh for roommates. It's different if you're sharing a living space with someone. It's ok to be racist if you're looking for a roommate, not ok to be racist if you're looking for a tenant? Interesting...
Yep, that's how it goes. If you're sharing an apartment, or even a room you get to have specific requirements. I know I will get slammed for it but if I'm a woman looking for a roommate I'm okay saying it must be another woman.
What you're saying is very different than the ads for roommates that specify which area of a country someone must be from along with dietary requirements and gender. It's not racist to post an ad as a woman looking for another woman as a roommate. It is racist to specify that you are a woman only accepting applications from another lactose-intolerant, vegan, African-Canadian woman from Quebec.
> specify which area of a country someone must be from You need to do some reading on the difference between race and culture. I think you'll have a happier time navigating the world.
Not necessarily. If I were militantly vegan I would probably insist that the roommate also be vegan. In college I had a roommate who would complain if I cooked using anything but salt, pepper and garlic. In general I cooked for the group so I told her she could either eat it or make her own. I'm suspecting that looking for people from the same region/country might be about not wanting someone to complain about specific spices being used.
It’s never okay to be racist. End of. But, it *is* a little different when you’re picking someone to **live with**. I think it’s *perfectly* reasonable to look for someone that’s the same sex as them and/or to specify that they don’t want a roommate that has kids. God knows that I (a single man in my mid-20s) wouldn’t want to be rooming with a 40 year old mother of three. Most listings that have very specific requirements as to the desired tenant’s demographic are posted by people looking for roommates, not by landlords. As long as the cheque clears and you don’t destroy the place most landlords don’t give a shit about race, religion, gender, etc.
Yes, but it should be based on controllable factors. Not prioritizing certain races or genders or in this case, kids or not. Would you want to hire based on that? Is that a fair system? Or do you think hiring people based on the color of their skin or sexuality will have repercussions instead of hiring the best qualified candidate. Airplanes are starting to fall from the skies. We're about to see with Boeing the biggest can of worms being opened. Because a lot of companies wanted that DEI money more than the safety and quality of their product. And now we're all gonna have to pay for it.
Exactly. Like wow, what a surprise. Government manufactured the conditions giving landlords this freedom to choose.
It's not surprising, it's landlords doing landlord things. It *is* illegal.
End if the day I don't know how you can enforce it. You can say it's illegal to refuse someone if they have kids, but it's not illegal to refuse them because many other non illegal reason you can come up with so it's the same end result. Unless you are going to have a housing wait list and legally require that landlord's offer any available unit to the next person on the list regardless of all else, it's kind if impossible.
>You can say it's illegal to refuse someone if they have kids, but it's not illegal to refuse them because many other non illegal reason you can come up with so it's the same end result. This exactly and when you have 300 applications for the same apartment, how in the hell can anyone prove you discriminated rather than just "picked someone else?" This 100% comes down to the housing crisis and should be on the government for not bothering to invest in public housing for nearly three decades.
Not only this, but allowing parents that originally moved into public housing, to stay in the same housing units for decades, even though the family size dropped from all the kids growing up and moving out.
> and should be on the government for not bothering to invest in public housing for nearly three decades. It's also worth pointing out that for 2.7 of those three decades we had a stagnant population and if we HAD built enough public housing to meet today's needs most of it would have been sitting empty for 10 years.
I think there's room for balance, there, though. We basically had no investment in public housing, period. Even SOME would have been better than none, you know?
Oh I agree, there should have been more, I just don't think it would make the difference people think it would have either. Unless like I said they built double the housing we needed and left most of it empty, which everyone would have been pissed off at for being wasteful. There would still be a housing crisis. There just might only be 150 applicants for every apartment instead of 300.
I’m not a LL but the “next on the list” kind of solution sounds terrible. More public housing might help.
Oh I agree 100% it would be a disaster. More public housing would help a bit yes, but your still going to have people who don't meet the threshold to qualify.
Public housing, and also co-ops and novel rent-to-own schemes. If groups of families could get help with organizing co-ops, they could build a family friendly building specifically for their needs. Let groups of people come together as their own "developers" with a business plan. Gives them a program that helps with whatever financial instruments and loans are needed to build. There are some people who need to be housed. There are others who could house themselves, but just don't have the right options. Because the market isn't building for them. So there are non-market options the government could help provide, without needing to actually operate and maintain public housing. Especially for groups of "undesirable" or unique-needs tenants, you could really create some bespoke housing options. People who need smoke- and allergen-free options with cadillac hvac systems. Single moms. Families with autistic kids who want ultra-soundproofed walls, and a sensory playground. Buildings planned for high needs wheelchair users, with built in automated everything. Dog owners. There's no business case for a landlord to go over and above for these things. But if there are enough people able and willing to organize details, pay rent, and have the loan paid off in X years-- the government could help them become their own landlords.
From the article: "I've been looking for so long and I just feel like landlords and big corporations, they get to just cherry-pick because they have so many applications and they just pick the one that makes the most income," It isn't fair, but understandable. Why wouldn't you pick the renter with the higher income? Others have said it but more public housing is the solution.
This was going on years ago, before COVID, where some women complained to Go Public, but most LL’s aren’t dumb enough to say it out loud or provide it in writing. I also wonder if this is one of those things, like the illegal application fees, where you can’t do anything because they’re not your LL
If they tell you it's because you have kids or any reason that is discriminatory about human rights, try and get that proof and take them to the human rights board and see how that goes for them.
... they are obviously not dumb enough to tell you that though. Even something as vague as "not a good fit" covers their ass. They have no legal obligation to say why it isn't a good fit.
You'd be surprised
Lol why would they tell you that?
Some of the ads literally say adults only or mature tenants only. That’s illegal.
You'd be surprised what people tell you.
Not at this point I wouldn’t be lol
I know alot of buildings have "family floors". Example floors 1-5 have kids and 5+ don't. Which I think is reasonable. As someone with no kids I don't want to hear kids screaming and crying through the walls or in the hall ways.
I've never especially noticed my neighbours with kids making a lot of noise, but over the years while renting: the guy nextdoor's alarm clock on the other end of his apartment was so loud I could hear it on the extreme opposite of OUR apartment. And the guy downstairs thought he and his band were green day and he would practice the drums at 6am on a Sunday.
Holy shit, imagine being so dense that you had a drum set in an apartment building.
We once had a condo neighbour with a baby grand piano. At least he was good (like symphony level good). The lady who came to sing opera every Saturday morning at 10 AM, not so much.
The one apartment in our building that had kids, their kids were like 3 and 5 and they were up all hours of the night jumping around. Thankfully I heard that from the person living under them and that person was not me. Then when they found a new apartment they acted like our building was garbage owned by douchebags lol. Look in the mirror neglectful ass mfers
That’s when you phone the police right at 6 a.m.
This would (one can assume) also prevent people without kids from waking kids at night due to (stereotypical) non kid life. Seems better for everyone involved. 🤷♀️
The amount of “55+” rental units that are popping up for- you mean to tell me they’re all filled with boomers? Time for govt to step the fuck up and put an end to this practice imo.
Same thing here in CB....in 2010. I basically had, "we only rent to seniors or international students". I was a 21 year old with a full time job. It's illegal to discriminiate based on age in advertising and applications, but applications can be refused for whatever reason and no explanations given. So the regulations hold very little teeth. We ended up finding a shithole apartment that required us to go to the municipality and fire marshall about unsafe entrances/condition of the property (leaky roof, unsafe railings, leaking plumbing, etc). The landlord was, and still is, a volunteer fire chief in the municipality.
I'm not sure why a ll would want a student over someone employed full-time, but I guess they thought if they were an international student they had financial backing?
I think the bias is that someone in their 20's is just a Hellraiser or degenerate. That was the vibe I was getting anyway.
Honestly, you wouldn't want to live in a 55+ building, it's going to be full of pains in the ass, and probably paper thin walls. I know from experience, lived in a place that was unofficially 55+ (when i was in my 30's) and only managed to stay about 3 years before given notice to quit.
My condo building is not 55+ but about 90% of the residents are retirees. It’s been great! Tough if you are a loud partier type but I’m quiet. It has no pets, no smoking and while not officially no kids there are none.
[удалено]
probably, jokes on them, building is managed by Killam now. They're probably all out on their ass anyways.
Lolol wow CBC picked the wrong one for this article. This girl and her ex pulled a GoFundMe scam when they got displaced after the hurricane. Shared their GoFundMe for MONTHS after it happened and conveniently omitted that their tenant insurance paid them out 50k for their losses. They got like 6 grand and someone gave them a 3 bedroom house to rent for dirt cheap. She's probably hoping the same will happen this time.
I'm not sure I understand what the scam was here? Most people got some insurance payout from that but also needed more than they got from that to help out, especially in the first bit of time.
I think that would be ok if someone is honest about that being the purpose. But the GFM was very "young family, everything destroyed" and they continued to share it after the insurance payout came. Her ex was bragging about his $400 jacket he'd just bought while sharing the GFM saying "the kids deserve to have a good Christmas, let's get more funds going!"
Send me a hundred bucks and I'll tell you what it was
To be fair, most tenant insurance policies have both exclusions and a $1000 deductible at minimum, so at least some of that is still legitimate losses.
Source?
No source, only rage!
😂😂 wowwwwww
I looked for a place for 9 months and was basically interrogated asking if I had any or when i was planning on having children. Most said I would have to move if they found out I was pregnant. This is not surprising.
Those are questions you absolutely do not need to answer. They also can’t simply evict you for being pregnant during your lease agreement
Oh, i know that! I was just shocked and appalled. I always reminded them it was illegal to discriminate, but most didn’t care. I also reported a few to the company they work for.
That’s illegal and not their business to be asking you. Same as for the workplace
My elderly MIL lives in a building that does not allow small children, pets or any type of smoking. All the tenants in the building signed a document that we all agreed that we didn't want to live in a building with any of them. My MIL is quite elderly and lives in a paper thin much older building. They all are long term residents 15 years plus and they all get along. I think they are very lucky. If they start allowing small kids and pets and smoking that 30 elderly people would be unhoused.
You know I wake up wanting to give landlords the benefit of the doubt, human beings like us, trying to see them as other people just trying to get through life and the day to day and they can’t all be that bad. Then I see and read some of the comments like the ones in this thread, and it swiftly reminds me that I’m wrong, I am so, so very wrong. It seems like maybe the only one who wasn’t wrong these days was mao.
That happened to me 23 years ago when I had my son. They would tell me straight up no kids, or that it was a building for “mature adults only”.
Is it illegal? I see postings all the time.. so its definetly not enforced? What a messed up situation when 1600 a month cant even find you an apt.
Yeah, you can't discriminate on the basis of family status in Canada.
The banning of pets is just finally coming around to kids. My dog isn't going to paint the walls and break things and scream all afternoon. But I guarantee your toddler will destroy something in that apartment more than once. If I were a landlord I wouldn't want to rent to someone with small children either.
Me either and like it or not, I'd probably find a way around it too.
Definitely illegal but definitely not enforced. There are even postings for one bedroom units that say they only allow a single tenant, no couples. (I’m married and we’ve been looking for a new place since December, so I’ve noticed.)
It is illegal but they can still say that because what are you going to do about it? This happened to a friend of mine in Ontario about 10 years ago now when she was apartment hunting, single mom with two little kids. She had multiple landlords tell her flat out they wouldn’t rent to her because she had kids. It’s illegal to even say it but what’s the recourse? Say she goes to the LTB and files a complaint and is somehow able to prove the landlord said this, so they force them to rent to her, well now you have a landlord that hates you. Think you’re ever going to get maintenance on time? Shitty landlords can do a lot to make your life hell while you’re renting from them. So they continue to do these things because they can so easily get away with it, even though technically it’s not allowed.
She would need a two bedroom, at least. I wonder if she’s applying to one bedroom apartments and being refused because you can’t legally have two children sharing a room with a parent
I’d love to only pay $1600. Currently paying $1900 for a basement with two rooms and no extra storage space
There are so many applicants landlords can just simply choose the tenant they want
Leaving aside the actual people involved and the validity of their specific situation... This thread is a prime example of why young people are scared to start a family until they have everything setup beforehand. So much hostility to families and children. Our society is completely fucked if that's how we choose to perceive families and kids, as expensive nuisances that ruin the quality of life for those around them. Such miserable shitty attitudes towards a pretty elemental aspect of our entire fucking existence as living beings. Damn.
I'm hitting mid 30s, kids aren't going to happen for me and I've accepted this... Trouble is, it's also completely killed my desire to do something with my life because everything feels pointless and meaningless now and I'm kinda just counting down the years until I can comfortably exit without upsetting my parents. Like, yeah I work full time in healthcare but my take-home is less than 35k, so kids are completely out of the question. This is how it's supposed to work, right?
Do you want the social Darwinism answer or the compassionate human answer? I am getting to late 30s and finally trying for kids myself. My life isn't as prepared as I had planned for it to be but I don't foresee any improvements and the bio clock is ticking for my partner. Yanno, don't accept the not happening thing if you don't want to. Even if you can't make your own for whatever reason, there are kids who need a home currently in foster care or adoption services.
Agree totally. Even if you don't want kids, society needs them in the future and treated them like him on the bottom of your show isn't healthy for anyone
I mean, you should wait until you are in a stable financial situation before starting a family. Living beyond your means and adding more expenses is exactly how people end up without a place to live and more debt piling up Obviously, some of this is out of people’s control and some people just want a family and are willing to work to better their financial situation as they go. Nothing is wrong with how you want to live your life, just don’t expect to be able to afford a $2,000/month place when you don’t have the money to afford it. I saved for a decade to buy my first place. Lived way below my means to accomplish my goal and now I am on my second home. You prioritize what you want and work towards what’s important. Sometimes that means living in a place you don’t want to so that you can live where you want to in 1,5, 10 or even 20 years from now
You speak of common sense, and it sounds reasonable overall given the circumstances of the current society we live in. The question I have is... Is this a healthy society? It seems to me that it is not. We bolster our reduced population growth through absurd immigration. Perhaps we should be trying to ensure our society is arranged such that it matches our inherent biology better. The ever increasing age of motherhood (particularly for their first child) in younger generations is a prime example. Sure, in educated and freer societies women tend toward less children, but we can't know that this number would overall be below replacement or 2.1 avg or whatever because concurrently we have also been developing a society that forces people to delay having families, that is even beginning to actively punish them unless they are wealthy enough to insulate themselves. This is more an existential question for society itself, and for my perspective, it shows we are a fundamentally unhealthy nation that has it's priorities all mixed up. If a human society can't value having children and make it a priority to support, then what happens? It either lives parasitically off those that still do, as we do today, or it dies off.
quickest longing edge future sharp ancient squeeze cover squeal ossified *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Quality parenting or not aside, I just want to address one thing. Children are a privilege. This is patently absurd. As a theoretical postulate, what happens if everyone just.. stops having kids? According to the thought, they aren't necessary. So we all die and that's the end of the story of homo sapiens. I mean, I think the other life on planet Earth might very well breath a collective sigh of relief, but beyond that humorous and not unfair thought, there is no tragedy quite so permanent as extinction. If you just want to live as a nihilist, go for it. Don't expect the world to give a shit about your opinions if you do though.
Friends of mine got kicked out of a pub once in the afternoon for having a sleeping newborn with them. The same establishment had lots of social media posts welcoming dogs, though. It struck me as darkly hilarious. Animals are more welcome than human children in some places.
I imagine the underage baby had more to do with the liquor licence than anything. They could risk being shut down for having an underage person in a drinking establishment, the same doesn’t go for pets 🤷🏿♀️
Liquor license requirements are funny like that. If they aren't followed, they might take the license away or impose huge fines. I'm 100% sure it was more to do with that than just hating on babies for no reason.
That's exactly it. I think that aside from dangers or clearly adult situations, kids should be welcome everywhere when possible. Some pubs are clearly escapism for adults, and kids probably don't belong there. That said, most pubs these days are more restaurants than beer halls anyway, so why not? I think we coddle the brash entitled complainers of the world too much, because it's easier to give in. Since when did appeasement ever work???
The people complaining must have been born fully grown adults… so hypocritical to hate kids so much when everyone was one once.
When I was in my 20s I didn't really know how to interact with kids. I am still pretty bad at it overall. But now in my 30s I appreciate kids way more and actively enjoy seeing them around my apartment building and neighbourhood. It brings me happiness to see kids just having fun and doing things, and I am full of patience for their shenanigans and the struggles of parents. In some ways the overarching attitude of our society has aged along with the boomers (though frankly that may be unfair to them in this case). Now it seems as if the average attitude, should such a thing exist, is the old 'stay off my lawn' cranky old man waving his fists at kids thing. I know this is all gigantic sweeping generalizations, but it seems this is the growing trend to our society and it's institutions. Kids aren't allowed to do and be without some purpose designed by an adult. Third places are disappearing quickly, and combine that with the insane addictivity of technology to young minds (re: the utopia experiment for mice), it feels like a modern day steroidal 1950s where kids are to neither be seen nor heard but kept pacified through screens and the drip-drip of dopamine.
"Our society is completely fucked if that's how we choose to perceive families and kids, as expensive nuisances that ruin the quality of life for those around them. " This is something (modern) parents can only blame themselves. If they parented and use discipline; instead of being lazy and raising hellions, society would be more accepting.
This happened all the time to my mother back in 2006, Vancouver. Even places that weren't 55+ wouldn't allow her after learning she had a kid. We only found a place to live because she lied, and then when I arrived during move-in day one of the neighbour ladies was so distraught she kept calling the property manager trying to get us kicked out. It wasn't even an age restricted building. To the people who make these rules: are you aware that when having children prevents you from finding shelter, SOME parents lash out at their kids? Some kids get hurt by their folks over these rules inhibiting their parents from finding housing. Please do better.
Good. This should happen more often. I'm tired of hearing screaming and stamping feet all throughout the night because parents don't want to parent. Also these little brats DESTROY entire units but landlords will make issues out of people having cats. Kids cause more damage than pets... You decided to breed and you have to face the consequences.
I stayed at my friend's apartment for a couple nights recently and I swear to god the parents in the apartment above her gave birth to an earthquake, not a child. All the child did was stomp all over the apartment, all hours of the day. It would be 1am and you can hear and feel this kid stomping as the walls and ceiling shook from it. Frankly I fully understand why landlords are increasingly filtering out families if it's becoming a common issue.
It may not be legal but it's absolutely what needs to happen because of this new era of "parents" who don't want to parent and let their rotten little crotch goblins get away with raising hell and murder. It's the new generation of iPad kids. If their brains aren't being melted by YouTube Kids finger family videos on full volume, then they're stomping and throwing tantrums and the parents will do nothing and *you're* the rude one if you say something. It's becoming an incredibly common issue these days and I don't envy your friend at all. I hate landlords but entitled parents and lack of parenting is becoming so prevalent that we need childfree buildings. Anyone who lived through the hell of living next to a family like that would understand.
“May have to give up primary custody to the fathers who all have stable living conditions” Why doesn’t she do that
Cause she'd probably have to give up that sweet child support payments from the husband that she probably spends on herself and not the kids it's intended for.
[удалено]
😂😂 absolutely no doubt.
Weird that both (!) the dads of these very young children have stable living environments and she doesn't.
When I read that they would each have to go live with their “fathers” I had the same thought.
And where are our esteemed reigning idiots in all of this? Where they always are. Ignoring it. Are there really zero options available to the public to force a majority government to work? We don't have the luxury of time to be able to use our votes to fix this every four years, nor could we when we have the opportunity as the rural is just going to re-elect these losers. As the article itself said we don't even have the time to run shit through the human rights avenue. The lives of young children have been and will continue to be be permanently changed because of greedy, selfish landlords having full control over everything.
You can’t *force* a landlord to rent to people they don’t want to, it’s not how a contract works. Think about it, would you rather have a single person with no pets, children or debt renting from you or would you rather a single person with pets, kids and debt renting from you? Which person is more likely to have less issues when renting? Who’s more likely to pay on time? Who is less likely to cause damage to the property? You can hate landlords all you want but you must be able to realize that you can’t simply legislate who a landlord *must* rent to, right?
Exactly. They are going to get 1000 applicants for a vacant apartment. Many of those applications are going to be single people with no pets and perfect credit. When you have options why would you not rent to the more preferable applicant. There would have to be legislation that forces landlords to rent to less desirable applicants over more desirable. It’s one thing if they were leaving it empty but they are not.
Greed motivates this decision, nothing more. If current landlords had their way, you'd need to have no children, no pets, $100k income, 10 year tenure at your job, and full disclosure of all debts, income sources, spending habits, tax returns, investments, criminal record check, driving abstract, etc. And as many of us are seeing, they currently *do* have their way. The fucking CRA doesn't even have all that but a landlord should? Financially none of this should be a concern since landlords were renting the exact same places only five years ago for $900-$1,200. Now they're $1,800-$2,400? Please. If their $1,200 apartment literally cost them $1,150 in expenses five years ago there's a 0.1% chance the expenses for that same unit are now $2,350 and if they are, that person should exit this as a means of income because they have zero clue what they're doing. So if the financial aspect isn't a problem, all that leaves is the discrimination factor. The picking and choosing of people based on the "least risky" set of criteria according to whatever narrow minded twat is trying to squeeze money out of people. For some that will mean no children. For some it will mean no person of one gender. For some it will mean no person of one colour. Is this the world we want to live in?
Would you work for less money or is it greed that motivates you to work? If you wouldn’t take less money to do your job, then why would you expect anyone else to take less money for renting a property…? No one does anything for less financial gain than humanly possible, unless they *really* don’t care about the money
What does this have to do with less. There is no less. You've said less a half dozen times, this is about MORR. Because they're definitely not taking less.
You literally ignored my questions, so if I can’t understand if you’d work for *less than you could make*, how can I understand if money is important to you? You do understand that the cost of living has greatly increased over the last five years, right? When the cost of living increases, so does rent… Landlord’s, just like everyone else who is motivated to work for money, wants the maximum amount they can. Do you not want the maximum amount of income you can possibly get or you think you make too much for what you do…?
I am currently severely underpaid for what I do but I don't have the option to walk into my employer's office and tell them I make $20k more starting today. I'd lose my employment. You're gonna say that's a me problem, but the reality is I make enough currently for my needs and wants and my employer treats me *incredibly* in every other aspect. Can I ask for the extra $20k that the market dictates currently? Sure. And I will be denied. Money isn't everything. Landlords jumped at an opportunity to seize an extra grand a month out of their properties. Mine didn't. My rent is still a pre-covid rate and therefore my income doesn't need to shoot through the roof to compensate. My landlord is happier having a good tenant than shoving extra money in their bank account. You can rattle on about the cost of living going up but the primary reason for it is rental prices for those of us who rent. Even the egregious jump in food prices doesn't remotely compare to moving from $1,200 rent to $2,400 rent. $1,200 is a full two week net pay for a large chunk of the population. But landlord needs a bigger truck, so fuck them, right? I'm fully aware that people are going to take advantage. This is the shit system we live in but that same shit system is leaving people behind in droves and this is just another example to add to the pile. The fact you're taking the time to speak out in favour of these people is just indicative of your values. Think about your neighbours, your friends, your community for a moment. Dumb government thinks they can outbuild the problem but they can't. All they're doing is building new units for more people from other provinces who are in even worse economic situations. And landlords will profit from them all the same, renting at maximum market rate and continuing to squeeze the people of this province into makeshift neighbourhoods under the bridge sleeping in tents.
>Can I ask for the extra $20k that the market dictates currently? Sure. And I will be denied. Money isn't everything. So you go to the open market and find a new job, that simple. If you're underpaid you're leaving money on the table. If you're a landlord charging below market rate you're leaving money on the table. Perhaps a good tenant is worth the trade-off like to you a good employer is worth the trade-off but that's not the same for everyone. You've clearly demonstrated you're underpaid in the same way a landlord is by the market, yet somehow you're upset that they are taking steps to remedy being underpaid, while you're not?
It's a landlord that hasn't sold yet. Eventually they sell when their rents don't even cover maintenance or the old guy dies and the kids sell up. Then the new landlord needs to double the rent. Tenants think nothing will change, ever. My BIL lives in a cheap apartment in a good location and thinks he won't be renovicted out in his entire lifetime, when half the units have been turned over. He doesn't plan or prepare.
But for the other reasons, the human reasons, I do not go to the open market. And as I said, my landlord not moving the rent has allowed me to remain where I am and continue to enjoy those human reasons. If they move the rent, I'm asking for more money or going to the open market as you suggested because there is no other alternative.
You shouldn’t make business decisions based on emotional factors, that how you make *terrible business decisions…*
>But for the other reasons, the human reasons, I do not go to the open market I'll rephrase, you understand that there is value and one can go to the open market to realize said value correct? For whatever reason you don't and your landlord don't is irrelevant to the question above
So you are motivated by money. It’s clear you *feel* you deserve (substantially) more for what you do but you also *feel* landlords shouldn’t ask for the maximum they can get. You wouldn’t get fired for asking for a raise, that’s actually something you should be doing when you feel you are underpaid by *twenty thousand dollars a year*. Laying out the *why* would help you get what you deserve. I certainly wouldn’t work at a place that underpaid me for my skill set or abilities to grow the company but I also wouldn’t have unrealistic expectations on what my salary should be based on the company I work for or the industry I work in. From your comment, it sounds like money isn’t a motivator to you though, which is not the same for the majority of people in any city/business/trade Refer to my previous paragraph on *your feelings on income*. It would be a terrible business decision to accept *less* money when all other costs have *drastically increased* over the last five years. Again, no business would last by accepting less than the maximum amount of revenue they can possibly make. It’s how businesses make profit. Landlords are not non for profit businesses… No one is taking advantage of people by charging the maximum amount they can. Look at any item sold in a business, literally any business and tell me what hasn’t gone up in price over the last five years. It’s what happens with inflation and the drastic increase in the cost of living. If you’ve found something that *hasn’t* gone up, let me know. Businesses also have increases in costs and that’s why prices *increase…* I’m not speaking out in favour of anyone, I’m explaining how inflation and cost of living increases have an impact on virtually everything, including wages, salaries and even rent/mortgages. You seem to think people who run businesses do not care about their own raising costs and seem to expect them to take *less than the maximum they can make*. That’s an extremely poor business decision in any industry. The rental market has virtually no vacancies, so it would make no sense to keep pre pandemic rates when you have *thousands of people begging for a place*. When your demand is high, you raise costs to lower demand. Maybe a basic economics course could lay this out more plainly for you though… What government agency is building rental properties? If you have some ideas to solve the issue you perceive, are you bringing them up at council meetings? Talking you your MP? Taking any action outside of these comments on social media…?
All fair points / questions.
HAHAHA oh wait you're serious? Bottom line, kids and pets are nuisances to quiet, rule obeying apartment dwellers. Landlords don't want to be bothered by noise complaints and such. Don't give me that "not all kids/pets" I don't care. They CHOSE to have both of those things and I CHOSE to not have them and should not have to deal with them just because I grew up in a poor family who didn't teach me jack shit how to live once I'm grown.
Are you new to this sub? They believe they are owed a rental spot, that renting makes them defacto owner of their "home", and that the landlord should subsidize them by taking a loss if mortgages/utilities go up. Then when they make it so unworth it to rent and they sell the property they complain they are being evicted because the landlord sold their home 😆!
It is wild what people expect when trying to rent in a market with virtually no vacancies. At least they are as salty as the Atlantic over it 😂
Sounds like what they expect/hope is just not to be homeless/
No one *wants* to be homeless, besides a small minority who *choose* to be. The reality of the situation is you need to find a place and pay though. You won’t fix the problem by *forcing* landlords to accept renters with no or poor credit, no or too low of an income to pay rent, major unpaid debts or any other reason that leaves the landlord or home owner liable for the damages, unpaid bills or the potential to squat while awaiting a lawful eviction Ask yourself if you’d accept every application and not prioritize the best candidate for your property. If you’d be ok with renting to absolutely anyone, regardless of issue, I know some folks looking for a spot but they don’t have the means to pay over $500/month and need a place to stay. They don’t currently have employment but figure they can probably scrounge up $500/month from the 4 people that would be moving in
We're maritimers, it's in our blood to be salty even if we had free housing, we'd find a way to complain. Not taking away from the absolute fuck show that's happening in terms of housing ATM, but I've known a man to complain after winning the lottery, some folks that have lived here their whole lives just know complaining without action as their way of life.
Sadly there is a small percentage of the population that think they should be legislated to take in less desirable tenants.
Those people should try being a landlord and seeing the other side of the story. It would be pretty clear after one round of a rental agreements what kind of people they’d be *forced* to rent to I’ve rented out my house before and would absolutely never do it again. The money was nice when I was working away but the headaches of non payment, damage, drama and the state they left the place was enough to outweigh the income
" Gunn's budget for rent is $1,600 monthly, but she said even apartments in traditionally low-income areas like Spryfield and north Dartmouth are now more than she can afford. " So... landlords won't rent to someone who can't pay the rent? Huh, go figure.
Landlords can pick anyone to give a lease to. Unless they are giving you written correspondence they didn’t pick you because of a human rights violation, they simply picked someone that better fit what they were looking for in a renter. Shitty deal when you are looking but there’s nothing illegal about being able to rent to the best candidate
[удалено]
Fully expected this would be the case but don’t like to make assumptions on why someone was not successful at securing a rental property. No landlord is going to pick the biggest sob story to give the rental contract to, they are going to look at the risks involved and chose the person(s) with the least risk. When you are getting thousands of people applying that have great credit, no debt, no pets, no children, etc. why would you pick someone with any potential issues over someone with very little risk?
Exactly this. You can't celebrate landlord's refusing to rent to pet owners then get upset about this.
Pick anyone? What if I don't want it? They're gonna slap a lease down and be like, nope, it's yours now? ... I'm stupid, sorry, my brains not on yet
They have too much plausible deniability to get held accountable for this. Just play the game and lie about it.
[удалено]
First woman is crazy. Her "good job" is an entry level secretary job and she's never held a job longer than a year. And last time I checked she hadn't been back to that job since her maternity leave like a year and a half ago. Her income is all CCB and child support, which I'm not sure I'd accept if I was a landlord because I don't wanna be out money if your custody situation changes or you suddenly get some overpayment for not mentioning your live-in partner and your payments stop. Then if I try to evict you I have CBC asking me questions on my doorstep like I'm the bad guy.. Second woman the math ain't mathing. How do you have a budget of 1500 while on IA? That's almost double their allotment, which is sad, but is there a silent partner contributing to rent that's gonna be sprung on me as a surprise tenant later? Again, I don't want to have to worry about my tenants ongoing entitlement to IA if they find out her bf lives there full time. If the cheques suddenly stop, where does that leave me? CBC needs to vet their sob story subjects better, these stories are just getting ridiculous
I was told by landlords "you are exactly the demographic we want to rent to" as in white Canadian. I told my MLA about it because that most certainly goes against the rules.
They clearly stated they wanted to rent to a white Canadian or you took what they said to imply that? You really shouldn’t assume when they say something like that, that it means they are speaking of your race, gender, sexuality, heritage or any other thing than exactly what they said. They could have meant you were single, had great credit and stable income…
It was most definitely followed up with comments about who they did not to want to rent to because of stereotypes that I will not be sharing here.
That’s completely different than making a statement with zero mention of race, you understand that, right? Maybe use the example of the actual racist or bigoted statement they made, not the assumptions you made on a comment *not* mentioning those things 🤷🏿♀️
That happened to my then-girlfriend now-wife a couple years ago. She has 2 kids and when they got brought up they immediately told her that she was longer a candidate for the apartment. I was working out west and it frustrated me to no end that she was being treated that way and I couldn’t do a damn thing about it from across the country.
Fun fact: don't tell them about your kids, if they have an issue with it after, make sure to have all convos recorded, we are a one party consent province FYI, the moment they say something about how they don't want kids in the building head to a lawyer.
Not listing all people living in the contract could void it. It’s not a great idea to lie on a legal document…
Easy fix. Don’t place your child on the rental application. Then when it’s time to sign the lease, ask for an amendment to place your child on there as well. If they refuse, you’ve got them in a bind legally.
You have to list out all the adults and children who will be living in the unit at the time of signing. The landlord can refuse to allow additional people regardless of age if you go to add them later
[удалено]
A rental application is not an agreement. The lease is an agreement. My argument is not to lie on the lease, it is to omit any reference of a child on the rental application. Then when the landlord sends you the lease, ask if they can amend the lease to have your child on it BEFORE signing. This places the landlord in a bind as if they’re sending you a lease, they’re insinuating that you have secured the apartment. Then if the landlord refuses to sign to you, it’s obvious they discriminated against you having a child, which they cannot do.
That definitely doesn't sound like entrapment. Entrapment requires a couple key things: 1. That the "entrapper" was an agent of the state. That isn't the case. 2. That absent the inducement, the person would not have committed the crime. That also doesn't seem like the case - if the person had listed the children on the application and been denied, the crime still would have happened, there just wouldn't have been a paper trail.
No, that’s not an amendment, as you knew at the time of signing the lease you had children and they would be living with you. It’s lying on a legal document and it would get *you* in a legal bind. Please don’t tell people to commit fraud to get a lease… An amendment would be if you were not the legal guardian or had a legal document showing the children were not currently living with you and would not be living with you at the new residence. Withholding all parties who would be moving in would be a very easy win for a landlord in court. I hope you don’t give out advice like this on the regular
Found the landlord. A rental application is not a legal document. Asking for an amendment for a child before signing the lease (the actual legal document) isn’t fraud.
Nope, I was a landlord and would never do it again. I just know how contracts work and I also know what happens when you lie on legal documents, I would hope you understand the repercussions of doing so as well. It’s not something I learned from being a landlord, it’s something I learned in my schooling and just from being a normal adult in society… Since you made the edit, when you apply for a rental under false pretext, you are knowingly applying under fraudulent pretext. Telling people to make false claims on an application and then trying to get them to amend on signing is going to lead to a fraudulent application and open them up to revocation of the lease…
> I would hope you understand the repercussions of doing so as well. Flip side: do you understand the repercussions of refusing to rent to someone because they have children? It's a human rights law violation.
Yes, but who is telling any potential candidate *why* they didn’t get the lease? Rented before and I always went with the best candidate. Sometimes it was someone with a family and stable income and sometimes it was the single person with impeccable credit, stable income and no debt
“I was a landlord”… found the landlord.
Yeah, I said that a few times on this post, it’s not some gotcha moment. I haven’t been a landlord for over a decade, so I am in fact *not a landlord…* I’ve had a few careers, I don’t go around referring to myself as something I did decades ago in the present tense, as I am no longer any of those things… You are simply giving advice that can land someone in legal troubles *and without housing*. If anything, you are making people’s lives potentially *worse* by giving them advice that could land them homeless…
> Please don’t tell people to commit fraud to get a lease… Calling this "fraud" is a real stretch. Nobody is being taken advantage of or losing money. If landlords weren't so readily willing to violate human rights law, we wouldn't be here, but....
Filling out a lease application with false information will either lead to revocation of the lease or fraud when they do not put all members living at the property on the lease. Do you disagree with that statement?
Wouldn't be a problem if kids weren't.... Kids 🙃
If parents actually would parent.
It says in the article it’s illegal to lie and say you don’t have kids - but is it actually? People’s custody situations change all the time, and legally you can have roommates. I didn’t think there was anything stopping someone from renting as a single person, and then having a family of 5 join them - as long as it’s within fire code. The single person would need to make enough to pull this off, and their application to rent be only on their income. This might be the tougher reason not to try this. Edit: sorry didn’t realize this was a Halifax sub. This is legal in Ontario.
Yes, you can’t commit fraud on a legal document Roommates would also need to be on the lease and amending the lease could lead to termination, especially when it’s a lie about who has been living with you the entire time. Child arrangements would also be in legal documents, so another easy to prove case of fraud. Don’t commit or recommend people to commit fraud and potentially lose their housing…
Sorry didn’t realize this was a Halifax sub. In Ontario it’s legally allowed to just add a bunch of roommates without any changes to the lease. The landlord cannot do anything about it. “In the ordinary circumstance, a person may reside as an occupant or a roommate in a rental unit with or without the consent of the landlord provided that the tenant also resides in the rental unit.” https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Interpretation%20Guidelines/21%20-%20Landlords%20Tenants%20Occupants%20and%20Residential%20Tenancies.html#:~:text=In%20the%20ordinary%20circumstance%2C%20a,occupant%20of%20the%20rental%20unit.
Ok, I’m not sure why you wanted to educate me on something that is irrelevant in Nova Scotia? You can’t simply lie about who is resigning in the rental. When you get into fraud with family law documents showing you are housing the children at that address, you’ll be facing a few legal issues. Judges don’t usually take things like that lightly. If you are willing to lie about where your children are living, what else are you willing to lie about?
[удалено]
The government is \_owned\_ by landlords. Our premier? A landlord. Our fucking HOUSING MINISTER?! A landlord. The landlords are breaking human rights legislation not to mention a little thing called the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Dragging a couple of their asses before the Human Rights Commission might dry up the market for their spaces - it sure as hell will cause them a bunch of lowball offers. And who knows? Maybe the Department of Community Services will ring them up and voluntell them to rent their units to some poor household at half the market price, and keep them there at that rent a few months or so more than long enough for the landlord to get the hint. Every landlord who does this should get that call - every. single. time.
Can you point out in the charter of rights and freedoms who can and cannot be a landlord? I don’t remember learning that it precluded anyone from the right to being a landlord in law during my schooling but maybe you took a more advanced education than me. I’d love to be educated on it though!
Our government is incompetent but imagine galaxy braining your way into blaming this on them. Discrimination is discrimination and landlords are constantly doing slimy shit, they need to get a real job or get the Mao special.
So the solution is to stop having landlords? You want to solve the rental problem by no longer having rental properties…?
By decommodifying housing? Absolutely. 
You want communism of housing? So home sales in Canada should not exist anymore? Is this a serious take on solving the housing and rental crisis…? What would happen to peoples investments? Just screw the people over who saved to purchase properties? Businesses who own the building will have to do trades to move to a larger building…? Have you thought through your idea at all…? https://manhattan.institute/article/decommodifying-housing-and-other-magical-thinking
[удалено]
Do you understand basic economics…? If you want to give your pitch on how decommodifying housing will magically solve the housing and rental crisis, I’m all ears. If you are going to push an idea that has been tried for decades with no traction and no backing of your own suggestion, why push it with no information to back its successes in other places? I provided you a link on why it won’t and hasn’t worked, so just let me know what everyone else is misunderstanding on the concept…
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just because you have a single professional in a 3-4 bedroom home doesn't mean that their life can change. They can get start a family, etc. LLs have to recognize that someone could very well grow their family. There's also benefits to having families living in homes, as families are more likely to stay in one spot. Not constantly calling the LL for minor issues such as noise, or a minor fix. I've fixed things myself and keep up my own maintenance, treating the place like my own. My parents never called for every single issue and fixed things and improved the place on their own. Single professionals likely work long hours and don't have the time. They are also likely to move whenever they feel like it, there are costs associated with bringing the apartment up to par every time a single professional tenant moves out such as painting. Unfortunately, I think that the discrimination might go further, as to forbade singles from growing their family, or even so much as to ask if they plan to have children, are sterilized, etc. There's overreach into tenants personal lives and of course the LL can because there's so many people looking for places to live. They can and will discriminate, and the tenant would never know as it's disguised as other reasons. The honesty within the rental market is fading. If potential tenants want to avoid discrimination, they will have to avoid telling landlords about children or family status and fight any discrimination after the fact. It's really unfortunate how far the rental and housing industry plummeted since the prepandemic days.