Tenant Protection Law B

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Rent Control and Affordability - Week 8 Discussion

Please read the article “Rent Controls in Ontario” which deals with rent control myths from the tenants’ perspective and an excerpt from “The Affordability of Housing in Ontario” by Vincent Brescia, President of the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario, which argues from the landlords’ side that rent controls should be eliminated in favour of income supplements and government policies favouring development.

Note: the deadline for posting for this discussion is the start of class in Week 10.

Questions:

1. Do rent controls help or hurt tenants? For example, landlords will argue that rent controls are a disincentive to build new units or to maintain existing units?

2. Does vacancy decontrol (removing controls when renting to new tenants) create an affordability problem for tenants (they cannot afford to move) and create an incentive for landlords to evict tenants?

3. Should landlords have to justify any increase? Under the present system landlords can get an automatic increase every year, although at a prescribed rate, even if they do not need it.

posted by Richard Leighton at 9:34 p.m.

39 Comments:

  • Hi there everyone

    By Blogger Unknown, at 9:10 a.m.  

  • So here we are... the batle begins... landlords ready...tenants ready... go!

    I'm sure that there are many tenants that are so relieved that there are rent controlls in place. I'm also sure that if such rent controlls were not in place, some greedy landlords would be raising rents as and when they needed more money. Not a good thing for the tenant. But let's take a closer look at these rent controlls. Our wonderfull government has decided that it's OK for a landlord to increase rents every year. Then it justifies this action by only allowing these increases to be a certain percentage... NEWSFLASH! 1.8% of $1,200.00 works out to be almost $260.00 per year. But that's not important becuase everyone can afford $260, especially people on fixed or low incomes, and as for those who live below the "poverty line", maybe that 25 cent an hour raise that you got will more than cover your rent increase as per the guideline in 2009.

    In our last two blogs, you all may have noticed that I refer to the landlords as business people, and I'm not going to move away from this in this blog either. Landlords are in it for the money. Just like any business "WE ALL WAN'T TO HAVE A GREATER OWNERS EQUITY". So should we really be having a go at the landlords? Or another question... what should we be having a go at the lanlords about?

    Your buisiness is your buisiness and every buisiness has certain legal requirments... stay within those requirements and keep your builing clean and safe, then there's nothing to have a go about.

    We should'nt be questioning the fact that the landlords are not building new rental units, it's a bad investment...for those of you that do question, I suggest you do a Homer Simpson and keep your money in pumpkins year round. And as for vacancy de-controll, once again, it's buisiness. If a perspective tenant don't like the price... don't move in.

    Sorry folks but from a business point of view I have to side with the landlord on this one.

    But wait, I'm not done yet.... how about that wonderfull government. Alowing rent increases yearly... oh and even setting out how much these increases can be... legalized "Price Fixing" comes to mind.

    How many new homes could be built for the price of, oooo, lets say... 40 new street cars and 80 new transit buses? Stop buying things not needed on the public's behalf and concentrate that money on goverment housing... not just for the needy, but for everyone. Use the example of Eurpoean countries where "Council Housing" is a norm rather than a neccessaty.

    My message to the government..
    Look after the people. Stop trying to blame corporations for your downfalls, and should one of the people fall victim to a vacany de-controll... let that person come live with you in your OWNED house.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 10:03 a.m.  

  • Once again...there are two sides to every controversial topic. As Greg stated, as a business person, your goal is to increase your equity. Hell, even not being a business person, we all want to increase our equity. Sorry folks, if I were to sell something, I'd want to get as much as I could for it...friend or no friend. In a perfect world I'd might even try to get more than what I paid for it. Now, on the other hand, it would be nice that a landlord provide reasons for a rent increase to justify one every year. This may eliminate increases that are for the sole purpose of greed. People with lower incomes, disabilities, the seniors, etc. pay taxes like everyone else. Maybe the demand for the development of controlled housing should be the issue. Maybe there isn't enough of this type of housing to accommodate many. It actually is easier to blame individuals (landlords) than the government. After all, doesn't the government make most of these rules? Anyways, the good thing about opinions is that they are just that. They are, however, the cause to many arguments, so people, please be kind to me, don't be bashing me for my opinion. :)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:30 p.m.  

  • I believe that rent controls help tenants. I agree with tenants and their protest to have rent controls in Ontario. Rent controls help to protect tenants and the cost of living. I believe that rent controls ensure that people are not paying more than necessary for living accommodations. I feel that rent controls are important for seniors and low income families. Many people benefit from rent controls.
    Moreover, I feel that vacancy decontrol is another way for landlords to make money. Vacancy decontrol compensates landlords for evicting tenants. The law allows a landlord to remove rent controls for the vacant apartment. Landlords can then charge as much as they want or the maximum market price for the vacant apartment. I believe that vacancy decontrol will lead to rent increases and evictions for tenants. It will create an affordability problem for tenants. I do not feel that vacancy decontrol is fair for both parties involved. The law should be reasonable for both the landlord and the tenant.
    Lastly, I believe that landlords should have to justify any increase. They should not get an automatic increase every year when it is not needed. I feel this way because I also believe that not every landlord uses the increase to build new units or to maintain existing units. I feel that rent increases are a way for some landlords to make an unnecessary profit. Landlords make enough profit from their property investment. Landlords should not take advantage of tenants, and should help to make affordable housing available for tenants.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:28 p.m.  

  • Hey Greg, I like the idea of government housing. My fear is that it would not be very well run. Our government cannot even organize flu shots efficiently. An effective system of rent control, where landlords have to justify all increases, might work better.

    By Blogger Hippy Chick, at 4:46 p.m.  

  • I have added the following link that describes vacancy decontrol and how it was a “disaster” for New York City in the 1970s. Why would it be any different for Ontario?
    http://www.tenant.net/tengroup/Metcounc/May97/vacancy.html

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:49 p.m.  

  • vacancy.html

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:57 p.m.  

  • Good one Hippy Chick!

    I still feel that if the gov would look at housing is looked after elsewhere it could work. The gov supplies the housing and the tenants are responsible for maintaing their houses (apart from major repairs). This has worked for centuries in the UK

    By Blogger Unknown, at 7:20 p.m.  

  • Thank you Angela. Very informative. I also have serious misgivings about vacancy decontrol. However, as always, there are downsides to everything. Rent controlled apartments in New York are renting far below market value. There are stories (urban legends?) of tenants being murdered for their apartments.

    By Blogger Hippy Chick, at 7:55 p.m.  

  • Very well informed Hippy Chick. I wonder how much you are being paid to keep this blog moving along.
    Guys, vacancy decontrol is no different to egg farmers selling eggs after the salmonella (don't care how it's spelt) scare of 1999.If you wnnt the eggs...pay the price, if not... buy whatever. Don't cry people. When we graduuate and want to charge $175.00 per hour for our services when our clients can get the same for $174.00. IT'S BUSINESS

    By Blogger Unknown, at 5:33 p.m.  

  • Hi Greg,

    You made some valid points on the business for landlords. Being a landlord is definitely a business, and being a landlord is just like any other business.
    This landlord tenant issue is not an easy one to solve, because both sides have valid concerns. However, I don't suscribe to the socialist idea that if the government control everything all of us will be happy.
    I believe rent controls are necessary when the demand for rental housing outstrip the availability of rental housing. However, the more rent controls you have the less new rental units will be built. It's very simple equation of economics. People who have money to invest will only invest it where they believe they will get a reasonable return on their investment.
    Take a look at the socialist countries, their economies are in shambles. If our government were to invest more in the rental housing market, the investors will get out leaving the government with the bag. Guess who will get the bill, us the tax payers.

    I think the government needs to come up with social programs to protect the needy, seniors and those below the poverty line in the low income bracket. The government should get out of the rental housing business totally, and let the investors run the market. The government should keep rent controls until the demand in the market place go up to a point to be determined.
    The needy should be subsidized for their housing.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 11:52 a.m.  

  • I definitely agree with Angela; vacancy decontrol is definitely a way for landlords to make money..and PEOPLE THIS IS SO WRONG. As much as I agree with Greg about landlords being business people, I also do believe that they should not be able to make money utilizing such. I am a landlord and I don’t support such. It is a means of preying on the vulnerable, and often used as a means to evict good tenants. I remember living in an apartment couple years ago paying $950 a month for a 2 bedroom. I was a good tenant – paid my rent on time, cause no trouble etc., yet I was constantly harassed by landlord. I later learned that this was a tactic to get me out of my apartment as several other tenants had experienced the same treatment.
    When my apartment was finally broken into, I was forced to move because I was fearful both for myself and my child. Until this day, I swear this was a set up by my landlord to get me out//( yeah yeah!!!I know this is an assumption)
    Upon moving out I learnt that the landlord had rented the same unit for $1350 a month. Come on now? Why should landlords be able to get away with unethical practices like this…..DOWRIGHT UNACCEPTABLE and the government ought to enact laws to deal with such…Like Angela said the “the law should be reasonable for both the landlord and the tenant.”

    By Blogger Adrea - Jamaican Queen, at 11:54 a.m.  

  • Hippy chick love the comment about government and thier great organizational skills. Greg great posting I do agree that a business is a business and landlords neec to make money. I also agree with Anglea about decontrols and it not being as structually sound for the tenants. As Gail said there are two sides I couldn't agree more.
    Lanlords need to make money but I do and Greg is right if you follow the rules it can be a very fair system. When the system breaks down however things get blurry. I think a good landlord is hard to find and also a good tenant. Adrea had the right idea. She was good tenant paid on time but her landlord wanted more money. Not cool. This should not happen. I would be happier having rent of 950 every month instead of 1350 in a slow econmy, during lay offs.

    By Blogger Rebecca, at 4:06 p.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Rebecca, at 4:06 p.m.  

  • Some landlord jokes.

    Where can you find a good landlord?
    In the city morgue.

    When landlords die, why do they burry them 600 feet underground?
    Cause deep down they are really nice guys.

    If you drop a snake and a landlord off the top of the Empire State Building, which one hits first?
    Who cares.

    How do you know the difference between dead landlords and dead skunks on the road?
    Vultures aren't gagging over the skunk.

    What do landlords use for birthcontrol?
    Their personalities.

    How many landlords does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
    One. One landlord holds it and the whole world revolves around him.

    What do UFO's and honest landlords have in common?
    You hear about them but you never see them

    By Blogger Hippy Chick, at 11:05 a.m.  

  • hehehe...too damn funny Hipppy Chick. You gotta admit, when all else is tense, there's nothing like a few jokes to lighten the topic.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:29 p.m.  

  • Gail: I echo the same sentiments in regards to your last blog. lol Hippy Chick

    By Blogger Adrea - Jamaican Queen, at 11:03 p.m.  

  • I find GCulver’s honesty refreshing, and I am sure some of us concur with his sentiment: “if I were to sell something, I'd want to get as much as I could for it...friend or no friend. In a perfect world I'd might even try to get more than what I paid for it.” Unfortunately, gouging tenants, engaging in unethical behavior, and increasing rent unnecessary are landlords’ way of trying to craft that perfect world to get more. Nevertheless, I do understand that this is still a capitalist nation and capitalism’s best mate, in most cases, is greed, and unfortunately, most landlords and investors are greedy...I am not advocating socialism, but….

    On the other hand, asking the government to do either (control and decontrol) will not be beneficial to tenants; instead, it will create a see-saw effect. Let’s face it, a kingpin cannot prohibit his trained goons from pilfering, and later demand to be paid his share. It will only result in rebellion from the goons who know the trick better than him. This is the politics of landlords and the government.

    Here is my suggestion; how about if we, as a people, especially landlords, practice “CAPITALISM WITH A CONSCIENCE” if for nothing else, but for common human decency.
    Who knows, this “novel” idea might make a difference in our financial dealings with our neighbors.

    By Blogger iva.obayuwana, at 1:08 a.m.  

  • It’s a harsh reality, but most people are out for themselves. Yes rent controls can be seen as a negative thing because many of those who live in affordable housing are struggling to make ends meet, so adding a rent increase every year just makes it harder for them. However, it does set a limit to what a landlord can do. Without this limit, landlords could then raise the rent by whatever amount they choose. So it’s a double edged sword. So what is the best option? The main problem I see is that these increases of rent might not be used to better the community by building more units and maintaining the existing ones. The landlord can choose to do whatever he wishes with the money he makes. But like I have already stated as did Angela, “rent controls ensure that people are not paying more than necessary for living accommodations.”(Angela) The only thing I’m really not understanding is “vacancy decontrol”. Could someone please explain to me what this is? Angela stated that, “The law allows a landlord to remove rent controls for the vacant apartment. Landlords can then charge as much as they want or the maximum market price for the vacant apartment. I believe that vacancy decontrol will lead to rent increases and evictions for tenants.” (Angela) I’m a little confused on this whole concept. How does this evict the tenants? Should there be a limit to how much a landlord can charge for a vacant apartment? I’m just not following….. Please someone explain.
    However, with regards to the last question, it might be unfair that landlords raise the rent every year without justifying the increase, but if the law says it can be raised at a prescribed rate then what’s the point of providing an explanation. If the justification is unfair or complete nonsense, it’s not going to stop the rent from increasing, so what’s the point of the justification. Any thoughts? I would appreciate any clarification.

    By Blogger J-Rod, at 10:30 p.m.  

  • I like Iva’s idea, “CAPITALISM WITH A CONSCIENCE”. It just sounds too good to be true. However, I don’t think this will work, in our capitalist society GREED is our mantra. I will grab whatever I can get whenever I can get it.
    I mean you can’t fault the landlords for this; our society loves this providing it’s all going into my pocket.
    I agree with all who say rent controls are good; however, this will not solve the problem for those who can’t afford to pay next month’s rent. We can’t wait around for landlords to be a means to an end for this solution. The solution has to come from us the voters, to tell the government how we want this problem solved.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 2:09 p.m.  

  • I definately agree with "mquelch", it is so true that the idea of rent control is very good because it prevents landlord's from increasing the rent whenever they please; however, it does contain some flaws as Greg and many other bloggers commented on. It is unfair that the landlords have a chance to raise the rent every year even when they have no reason to do so. And yes I also agree with Greg that being a landlord, is in fact a business, and they require a certain amount of money, but the greed is just getting to be ridiculous! i agree with HippyChick when she said, "An effective system of rent control, where landlords have to justify all increases, might work better". I think that it would defienately work better, and the Government should amend the conditions for rent control in order to prevent rent increases for mere profit. It is unfair to the tenants who are not making enough means and have to or choose to rent. This is especially important due to our current state within our economy right now, with all the lay offs and employment freezes. I agree with Gail's comment on the fact that it is easier to blame indivduals instead of the Government who make the rules, because it is true we do put the blame mainly on the landlords when really we should be looking towards our government, and ourselves the voters who put that Government into power. We should all take careful considerations when deciding who to vote for, in order to make sure siuations such as rent control are properly dealt with and fixed.
    With respect for vacancy decontrol, I believe that it does in deed create an affordability problem for tenants, by a landlord being able to remove controls when renting to a new tenenat it opens the door for the landlord to take advantage of the new tenant, and possibly does create an incentive for landlords to evict tenants.
    Overall, I feel that landlords do contain a business with respect to renting out to tenants, and more times than not Government Rules give way for the landlord to be greedy and take advantage of tenants. It is completely unfair to tenants who are normally individuals under our country's poverty line.

    By Blogger Amanda .A., at 4:00 p.m.  

  • Also, HippyChick, I loved all the landlord jokes you posted earlier! They definately put a smile on my face! Thanks

    By Blogger Amanda .A., at 4:04 p.m.  

  • Rent controls help tenants and I believe that it is a good strategy for long-term affordable housing for the province. All those myths about the disincentive that it brings to landlords are not true. Landlords argue that it reduces their ability to earn a profit on their property, thereby discouraging them from investing any further to maintain or upgrade the property. It is also not true because construction trends in more recent decades were related to other factors such as zoning and other regulations related to urban planning. Also, statistics have proved that apartments stopped to be built because the government incentives were taken away. Without rent regulation, landlords can demand any amount and tenants must either pay or move. Thus, tenants can become vulnerable to arbitrary increases above market value. Rent control is a justified mean to protect tenants against unreasonable rent increases. Also, it is necessary where government's fiscal position does not allow the expansion of its public housing program.
    Vacancy decontrol is an open-ended opportunity for landlords to replace limitations on maximum-allowable rents regulated by the government. Landlords can now charge whatever the market will bear for a vacant apartment. Tenants can be threatened, pressured or intimidated by a landlord who wants them to move out or to pay a higher than legitimate rent. It leaves tenants with a choice. They can stay in their current apartment where the rent will increase by an allowable few percent per year, or they can move and pay the inflated going rate plus annual increases. Moreover, once the tenant has moved in, the costs of moving again are very high. It is actually an incentive for landlords to evict tenants because when a rental unit becomes vacant, rent-control regulations do not apply. A landlord and a prospective tenant can negotiate the rent and the services to be included, without any government restrictions on the final agreed rent. Once a new tenancy agreement exists, the regulations, including rent control, take effect.
    Under the present system landlords get an automatic increase every year; however, in my opinion any increase in the rent should be justified by the landlord as any other contract. Unfortunately the tenant's income does not always get raised every year, so why should the landlord have this benefit if it is not justified?

    By Blogger Fernanda Welzel Lourenco, at 10:10 p.m.  

  • J-Rod:
    I hear you loud and clear. After all, laws were enacted to better control society? And like you said the law does state that landlords can raise rent at a prescribed rate. Clearly then the landlords are not violating any laws are they? So why should they provide an explanation. Isn’t that discriminatory? When other people business people impose an increase, there is no justification. Gas prices recently increase. Did anyone provide a thorough explanation? I think not and for those of us who drive we had no choice to but to purchase the gas.
    Inflation rates and expenses are always increasing, even for the landlords. When the government raises taxes we whine and go on. The rippling effect trickles down to those providing good/services, hence they in turn increase their goods/services….the end result we end up paying more for goods and services. We are give no explanation and life goes on…. Let’s be fair and practical – what is fair for one should be fair for all, and such landlords are no different from any other business in society – and I will say this again they need not justify any increase.

    By Blogger Adrea - Jamaican Queen, at 11:03 p.m.  

  • Do rent controls help or hurt tenants? For example, landlords will argue that rent controls are a disincentive to build new units or to maintain existing units?
    Rent control is a matter of a variety of disciplines: economic, philosophy, politic, urban planning and others. Moreover, there are several approaches about it. There is one approach contrary to the rent control named libertarian approach; libertarians view the rent controls as an illegal confiscation of property from landlords without compensation. Rent control statutes operate to take part of the landlord’s interest in his reversion and to transfer it to the tenant, there is a taking of private property. Libertarians affirm that rent control is unconstitutional and rent control is an unjustified taking of private property for private use without fair compensation for the property so taken. Moreover, Governments in democratic, market societies should be reluctant to impose rent control. But the opposite point of view can argue saying that ownership of property is constrained in many ways, such as taxation, rules against building standards, etc. The owner of rental units is aware that his or her ownership is subject to regulation. There is a limitation on the power of the State to regulate. Whether or not a rent control statute is confiscatory is a matter of degree. Rent control that restrains landlords from charging market price is illegal.
    To determine if rent controls help or hurt tenants. I think that rent control made appropriate with a technical study, projections and expertise in the topic and a multidisciplinary equip with respect of the human rights, constitutions and principles of the law, and the government can develop statutes and provision which can help the tenants and the landlords in the same tame. Because if the rent control is confiscatory, it could hurt the landlord and the tenant to because the leasing could decrease in this figure.
    I think, the existence of rent control is because the imperfection of the systems of market in our society, because the juridical system in the field of this civil rights of the property is not regulated and controlled in some way the liberty of the market can hurt the economy and can hurt the landlord and the tenants in the same moment. That is the reason of the existence of the rent control, Ii think the rent control exist to remedy unfair situations of the economy in a Democratic Society.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 11:39 p.m.  

  • Does vacancy decontrol (removing controls when renting to new tenants) create an affordability problem for tenants (they cannot afford to move) and create an incentive for landlords to evict tenants?
    I think that the vacancy is a mechanism creates to give a legal possibility to end a relationship between the landlords and tenant (contractual relationship-lease). Because the landlords should have the right to disposition of his/her property for different reasons. The proceeding describes in the Residential and Tenancy act give the possibility to evict the tenant when the leasing terminate. The law create legal an fair reasons to evict a tenant for example in the case that a tenant do not pay his/her rent reiterative or the case in which the tenant practice illegal conduct such as the commercialization of drugs and other reasons more, for this i said that the evict should be for fair reasons. What is going to happen if in the legal system the landlord does not have the possibility to evict a tenant? I think the landlord can use other mechanisms that are such as evict in illegal way. That is the reason of the existence of the Tribunal of Board and Courts to decide and intervene in this situations, to try to balance the rights of the tenant and the rights of the landlords in a society which the peace and values are the most important.
    Should landlords have to justify any increase? Under the present system landlords can get an automatic increase every year, although at a prescribed rate, even if they do not need it.
    According to the s. 126.(1) of the RTA “A landlord may apply to the Board for an order permitting the rent charged to be increased by more than the guideline for any or all of the rental units in a residential complex in any or all of the following cases:...”. In this case the increase should be according to the guideline formula of each year
    Each year the Ontario Government announces the province’s rent increase guideline for the following year. In most cases, the rent for a unit can be increased if at least 12 months have passed since the tenant first moved in or since his or her last rent increase. The tenant must be given proper written notice of the rental increase at least 90 days before the rent increase takes effect. This annual rent increase guideline is based on the Ontario Consumer Price index (CPI).This prices are based in statistics and objective measure of inflation. Finally, the landlords may justify and increase that is more than the prices of the guideline. The landlords may also apply for an increase above the guideline for operating costs related to security services and for eligible capital expenditures. The landlords may increase the rent in accordance with the prescribed rules. But, a landlord should not increase rent by more than the guideline plus 3 per cent of the previous lawful rent charged. (According to the s. 121(3) of the RTA).

    By Blogger Unknown, at 11:39 p.m.  

  • Let's dump on the landlords - it's dump on the landlord day. Where is Adrea, she is a landlord. How do you feel about this.

    Let's face it folks, if we froze everything, rent and increases right now. Let's say the government put a freeze on rent increases for the next five years, do you really think anything is going to change?
    We will still have tenants being evicted. This will not have any impact on those low income earners who cannot meet next month's rent. It will not change the situation for those people waiting for low-income housing. All of these people will still have the same problems. So dumping on the landlords and rent controls are not the solution. We need a solution that allow these people to have a home so they can live in dignity, and not to worry about if they will be able to afford next month's rent.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 9:52 a.m.  

  • In my opinion rent control hurts tenants. Rent goes up every year as the article stated, whether or not the landlord needs the money. My rent goes up, and I don't see any improvements to my complex. So where is that extra money going?

    Vacancy decontrol does hurt tenants. If people cannot afford to move this affects their quality of life. Why do nameless corporations have so much control over a person's personal happiness and level of comfort? This isn't right...it always seems like the little guy suffers and the big guys profit more and more at the expense of people who have don't have the means or the ability to stand up for themselves.

    YES!!! Landlords should definitely have to justify increases. As tenants we are not given a print out of the yearly expenses (credits and debits) from our landlords...and if rent is going to be increased we should see these things. When people pay rent and are being asked to pay more they should know why they are being asked to pay more. If the roof of a building or complex needs changing, that would justify a potential rent increase, but if those kinds of repairs are not necessary and the rent increase happens anyway...the surplus just goes into the pockets of the landlords, while the tenants quality of living decreases because they have less money to spend on personal needs, because more of it is going to their overall housing costs. Why isn't the government doing something to control whether or not these increases are actually necessary and valid?

    By Blogger $$$$Richey Rich$$$$$$$$$$$$, at 3:33 p.m.  

  • I agree with what one blogger said about allowing people to live in dignity...just because they earn a low income doesn't mean that they should have to constantly worry about eviction. Rent should be geared to income...period...why are people being made to suffer because maybe they didn't have the means or the opportunity to get a level of education that guarantees them a certain income? It's not right!

    By Blogger $$$$Richey Rich$$$$$$$$$$$$, at 3:41 p.m.  

  • I disagree with the statement that rent control helps tenants because the amount that landlords are asking for the quality of some apartments and townhouses is ridiculous! We need something more than rent control...rent geared to income should be allowed for as many people as need it. There shouldn't be waiting lists of ten plus years to get into an income geared apartment.

    By Blogger $$$$Richey Rich$$$$$$$$$$$$, at 3:43 p.m.  

  • I agree with Greg that being a landlord is a business, but I also agree with Amanda that greed and the level of it with landlords is insane. Somebody should say when enough is enough...why aren't landlords regulated more carefully? Why doesn't someone say ok...you don't NEED anymore...the U.S. (Obama)is doing something similar in the banking industry, by telling the CEO'S of the top banks that they don't NEED the bonuses of millions of dollars when the salaries are already in the millions. Why can't a similar strategy be organized for landlords? Perhaps a gov't that regulates them...too many slumlords allowed to continue, in my opinion.

    By Blogger $$$$Richey Rich$$$$$$$$$$$$, at 3:47 p.m.  

  • Rent control would have been the simple way to end rent increases by the landlord even though t the landlords will never welcome the idea of rent control. I agree with Gculver that rent increase should be justified to eliminate greed, however, when you read in-between the arguments of the landlords, it shows that the landlords are just being voracious. Greg will always argue that the landlords are businessmen, agreed, remember rent control was first introduced in 1944 as a result of severe rent gouging by your so called businessmen. I would think that business should be done with conscience, not with the urge of preying on the defenceless tenants, thus unreasonably enriching pockets at expense of other people.
    Greg believe this, we will continue to have a go like you said on the landlords until the landlords stop living above their income. It is not required in business that a businessperson outgoings be more that his earnings. This is exactly why landlords raises rent whenever, anyone of their needs arises. Now tell me does your employer get to increase your salary anytime you have a pressing need of changing your car, or paying your children’s tuition fee in Harvard University. NO
    The landlords line of thought is that rent controls are a disincentive to build new units or maintain existing units, I disagree because it is shown that the landlords and developers built many of the high rise apartments with the major government incentives both in taxation, with accelerated capital cost allowance write offs and other necessary programs. Evidence shows that they stopped building immediately government allowances was withdrawn, in my opinion the landlords and developers claim of not building apartments is a threat of a toothless bulldog, because the landlords were not able to build after the government withdraw all the incentives and subsidies of taxpayer’s which include the taxes of the tenants.
    This is to say that the landlords never built one single apartment, the apartments that was built then was built with government assistance, can you imagine? With the government assistance, landlords were increasing rents by huge amounts. People let us reason together, what do you think will happen to tenants if apartments are built without the government assistance. Food for thought
    I want to point out at this point, that there is a need to institute rent control; it will be a relief on the tenants, Angela, I agree with you it is important in order not to pay more than necessary for living accommodation. Reasonable fee I suggest, if it is ok for the government to assist the landlords, by breaking down the landlords taxes, and capital cost allowance written off, I see no reason why the government cannot participate by way of rent control.
    Furthermore, if the government can control the cost of living by the taxes we pay, rent should not be an exception.
    On the issue of vacancy, decontrol in my opinion is a compensation for the landlords for evicting the tenants unlawfully. I agree with Adrea that they should be a law to check and balance inappropriate conduct. Why vacancy decontrol this can never generate rent affordability for tenants, this will rather augment the pockets of the landlords. There should be a balance for both landlords and tenants.
    I conclude by calling on the government to focus on the issue of addressing
    affordable housing

    By Blogger Fc, at 3:54 p.m.  

  • Rent control would have been the simple way to end rent increases by the landlord even though t the landlords will never welcome the idea of rent control. I agree with Gculver that rent increase should be justified to eliminate greed, however, when you read in-between the arguments of the landlords, it shows that the landlords are just being voracious. Greg will always argue that the landlords are businessmen, agreed, remember rent control was first introduced in 1944 as a result of severe rent gouging by your so called businessmen. I would think that business should be done with conscience, not with the urge of preying on the defenceless tenants, thus unreasonably enriching pockets at expense of other people.
    Greg believe this, we will continue to have a go like you said on the landlords until the landlords stop living above their income. It is not required in business that a businessperson outgoings be more that his earnings. This is exactly why landlords raises rent whenever, anyone of their needs arises. Now tell me does your employer get to increase your salary anytime you have a pressing need of changing your car, or paying your children’s tuition fee in Harvard University. NO
    The landlords line of thought is that rent controls are a disincentive to build new units or maintain existing units, I disagree because it is shown that the landlords and developers built many of the high rise apartments with the major government incentives both in taxation, with accelerated capital cost allowance write offs and other necessary programs. Evidence shows that they stopped building immediately government allowances was withdrawn, in my opinion the landlords and developers claim of not building apartments is a threat of a toothless bulldog, because the landlords were not able to build after the government withdraw all the incentives and subsidies of taxpayer’s which include the taxes of the tenants.
    This is to say that the landlords never built one single apartment, the apartments that was built then was built with government assistance, can you imagine? With the government assistance, landlords were increasing rents by huge amounts. People let us reason together, what do you think will happen to tenants if apartments are built without the government assistance. Food for thought
    I want to point out at this point, that there is a need to institute rent control; it will be a relief on the tenants, Angela, I agree with you it is important in order not to pay more than necessary for living accommodation. Reasonable fee I suggest, if it is ok for the government to assist the landlords, by breaking down the landlords taxes, and capital cost allowance written off, I see no reason why the government cannot participate by way of rent control.
    Furthermore, if the government can control the cost of living by the taxes we pay, rent should not be an exception.
    On the issue of vacancy, decontrol in my opinion is a compensation for the landlords for evicting the tenants unlawfully. I agree with Adrea that they should be a law to check and balance inappropriate conduct. Why vacancy decontrol this can never generate rent affordability for tenants, this will rather augment the pockets of the landlords. There should be a balance for both landlords and tenants.
    I conclude by calling on the government to focus on the issue of addressing
    affordable housing
    fc

    By Blogger Fc Royal, at 7:55 p.m.  

  • I am not one with experience in the rentin industry but I do not think that rent increases should increase for no reason.Tenants have the need to know why they are paying extra money and where that money is going towards. Most likely if someone is renting a facility, they do not have the money to purchase a home for their selves. Rent increases hurt tenants and is probably one of the reasons why there are such high poverty rates

    By Blogger Jessica ditrapani*, at 9:06 p.m.  

  • Yes Michael I do agree its landlord bashing day. I am fine and taking it well…after all like Gail “the good thing about opinions is that they are just that”. I have experienced both worlds: tenant and landlord, thus I can talk openly as I have been doing.
    It seems that everyone is lashing out at landlord and forgetting that the government is the one who is responsible for having enacted these rules/laws etc. so why lash out at landlords? A protest at Queens Park would probably send a stronger message.
    I am in support of your arguments Quelch. Even if the government placed a freeze on rent increases for the next 5 years things would pretty much remain the same. Why? Because the root causes have to be addressed. There are underlying issues that needs to be addressed on an individual basis. For example perhaps the need for more affordable housing needs to be examined.
    Like Quelch said “We need a solution that allow these people to have a home so they can live in dignity, and not to worry about if they will be able to afford next month's rent.”
    Clearly, then the rights of landlords and tenants must be fair in order to balance the interests of both parties.

    By Blogger Adrea - Jamaican Queen, at 9:53 p.m.  

  • Richey no disrespect as we say in JA: but mi caan agree wid whey yuh jus write.
    If you made an investment would you not expect to get a profit? I will reiterate landlords are business people just like any other business people. Does the government justify increases to us? NO! Inflation rate and expenses increase and it passes down to us. We whine and go on and on, but ultimately we make the choice of what to do. If our tuition was to be increased tomorrow do you think we would be given a thorough explanation? We would have to make choices? Right? You see where I’ heading.
    When a business imposes an increase does the government investigate? No they don’t, so what should a landlord be treated differently. Don’t get me wrong I’m trying to play devils advocate and look at it from all angles.
    You stated that “There shouldn't be waiting lists of ten plus years to get into an income geared apartment”. This supports my theory in my previous blog – MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NEEDED. PERIOD - BAM BAM!!!!
    Like I said the root cause of the problems needs to be addressed and only then will we be closer to resolving all the this upheaval about rent control, landlords etc..

    By Blogger Adrea - Jamaican Queen, at 10:17 p.m.  

  • I believe that rent control does both,hurt and help, tenants to this day whom rent units from landlords.
    The help towards the tenants are that the key to rent control is to maintain when and how much of money should be paid towards
    monthly payments such as rent and other bills.This should be a big help for tenants.
    However, I have to agree with Greg on this one when he says, "business is business."
    I mean, Landlord will go through there fights and complaints towards and from tenants because to the business side of things,
    they need to maintain certain requirements. When landlords expect more money from rent payments, but they try to remove controls for renting units
    what are they really going to expect out of tenants who cannot support themselves enough to stay living under a roof.Of course this will create
    reason for greedy Landlord to evict their tenants and get exactly what they want.
    I would say that landlord should only raise renting prices, when it is to maintain the health and cleanliness of the building or property itself.
    IF money is to be raised it should be for the benefit for the landlord and their tenants.

    By Blogger *Sweetz*, at 12:02 a.m.  

  • Michael, I think you have hit the nail on the head when you put the issue in the lap of the government. It should be their baby to get this whole thing correct and fair to both the Landlord and the Tenant. Landlords are in this to make money and they should be. They are the ones that’s taking the risk in investing their money. Tenants should be treated fairly and not be taken advantage of. Let the government figure this out. Having said that,

    1. Rent control harm the most vulnerable tenants far more than they help It benefit the better-off, those who stay in price controlled units longer than they need to, making low priced units unavailable for those who really need them, and limiting the freedom of all citizens.

    2. Vacancy decontrol does not provide a balance protection for tenants. Tenants have faced unfair and excessive rent increases creating an incentive for landlords to evict tenants.

    3. Landlords should be required to give a new tenant information on the previous rent. They are to be held accountable for any increase. Fairness is the name of the game.

    By Blogger rickettc, at 3:20 a.m.  

  • I found the articles informative. The history of "rent control" was interesting. In my opinion rent controls help tenants in certain aspects. We do need to have certain guidelines, regulations and procedures in place to protect the tenants and landlords. The regulations that have been put in place are not perfect and problems, as we are aware of exist. Horrendous problems have been documented in the media. I do not believe that we will ever have a firm grip on the problems that occur; slum landlords, unliveable rental properties, undercutting maintenance problems...but at least there are avenues to pursue certain compensation. As with the landlord website to look up so called "bad tenants", there should be a website for so called "bad landlords". Individual companies that have invested money in many rental properties are the ones that are profiting from the renters. After observing at the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal a few times; the key problem was communication whether verbal or written, an understanding of a lease and the components that make up the lease, the committment of a lease, from both sides; tenant and landlord. Any changes in a lease agreement should be justified. Rental increases need to be controlled. After reading the articles I have a better perspective of understanding the larger concerns of renting in Ontario, we are slowing changing, certainly not by leaps and bounds to address each issue such as vacancy decontrol, more income supplements but at least the problems are being looked at.

    By Blogger Linda, at 9:12 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home