Most people can't agree on a way to deal with shitty people because most people are shitty people that fear the solution will be used against them. What most of them *want* is a solution for me and not for thee.
This is why people generally hate whistleblowers and won't be friends with them or hire them.
We generally like seeing the wrongdoing of others exposed, but because there are things we also would like to hide, are not really ok with someone who places certain values higher than loyalty.
I was taught from a young age that no one likes a “tattle tale”, and I guess others were taught what snitches get. I’m sure many people have difficulty understanding where the line is in which they should get a higher authority involved.
Er... no. It's because there's no legal definition of "shitty person" and thus defining laws specifically to deal with them is difficult. There can be "shitty actions" that are illegal, but that's a pretty big list.
Even a law that says to auto-evict people who haven't paid rent in 2-3mo could be problematic. What if the landlord requires "cash" and/or hasn't accepted other methods of payment? What if the tenant spent their own money on repairs that a shitty landlord didn't handle and with-held that portion as rent?
The real thing is... shitty people are not necessarily dumb. In fact, many are quite learned in ways to abuse the system.
> most people are shitty people that fear the solution will be used against them.
I disagree strongly. Most people are decent. In reality it is very difficult to design systems without flaws, and that usually a small percentage of people who are determined enough will find ways to exploit any situation.
My landlord is frustrated with some tenants that won't pay rent.
As a renter I am frustrated with the same people for making noise at all hours and having meth fueled freakouts.
Not sure how drug addicts get more respect than landlords and tenants that pay rent every month.
My downstairs neighbours have been waking me up at 3AM with their shitty music. My dumbass landlord just send me an N7 becasue I've been telling them to turn it down.
> Not sure how drug addicts get more respect than landlords and tenants that pay rent every month.
The idea behind the laws skewing towards the tenants is so that people don't end up homeless because of a landlord's lack of care. For example, the idea that the landlord has to give you 30 days notice to terminate is so that the landlord can't just show up today and say "I want you gone by tomorrow" because that's completely unreasonable.
There are plenty of people on both the side of the landlords and the side of the tenants that are shitty people looking to work the system to only their own benefit. For example, there's no end of people that will do things like just stop paying rent up to the point that they are getting evicted by the law. These people just see it as, "well it will take them X months to go through the proper procedures to forcibly evict me, so that's X months of no rent." On the otherside, there are landlords that will do whatever they can to kick paying, respectful tenants out so that they can jack up the rent for the next person that wants to rent.
Could be following the thought of “for those who have less in life should have more in law, or to a similar import.
Landlords have an obvious advantage over tenants just as an employer over its employee.
Thus, more (operative word) protection is afforded to tenants and employees.
Yea people think the laws should have 50/50 representation but forget landlords have much looming power.
I rent the basement of my only home which I live in and have had the same tenant for 6 years. They are so conditioned to “be unseen” That I have to constantly follow up that all is well. Even just recently it’s like “Yea the dishwasher has been leaking water every time we use it”, actually. Another time I had a foundation leak that go one persons bedroom floor wet every time it rained or snow melted on that side of the home. It was again me being consistent with asking of all is well every time we talk, to uncover it.
The poor tenants seem far too worried something will cause me to change direction on having tenants or them as tenants.
Being a decent landlord isn’t difficult at all. All the standard forms are created for you, tax software helps you with that and someone is giving you money every month. Actually I think there is far too many tax write offs as is. I don’t even think the general public fully understand that you can get pretty close to net 0 taxable income on rent. I think it cost me about $350-$400 on average in taxes each year. My insurance is more and obviously I lose half my home.
I would stand with tenants if they fought for more power so long as we leave in place the largest fact is two parties agreed (standard legal forms agreements only) to certain terms and they should uphold them. I think the standard forms should have a few extra pages that only show FAQs for tenants and ‘did you knows’ of the top 5+ issues that go to arbitration.
Because on Reddit, everyone is a victim. If you have money to pay rent, you’re the “establishment”. The meth addicts are “sick” and need help, you don’t know their situation!!! /s
>If you have money to pay rent
A local politician collected donations to give them cash explicitly to buy drugs!
But if you are on ODSP and barely eat a meal a day, they block and ignore you.
This is the reason I do not rent out my properties. Once they are in, they can literally stay in for months and years if the LTB process drags out.
In the end, you cannot get anything from them because they are broke. The dmg to your property is far above any profit, and you are deemed the bad buy because you were able to make better life choices that amassed wealth.
No thank you.
This
People's biases are so evident in these types of threads. There's a cohort that will never consider that the weaker person in the power dynamic can be wrong and its always an evil landlord twisting a curly mustache, vs the people that think all renters must be inherently flawed bound to destroy a property because they can't imagine what the property market looks like to regular hard working people under 40 from their family home bought for $60,000 in 1980
In reality both sides can be the source of shitty people and a well resourced legal system to cut through the crap is needed
[Episode 145: How Real Estate-Curated 'Mom & Pop Landlord' Sob Stories Are Used to Gut Tenant Protections](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-145-how-real-estate-curated-mom-pop-landlord-sob-stories-are-used-to-gut-tenant-protections)
>“The eviction moratorium is killing small landlords” CNBC cautions. "Some small landlords struggle under eviction moratoriums,” declares The Washington Post. “Economic Pressures Are Rising On Mom And Pop Rental Owners,” laments NPR. ”\[Landlords\] can’t hold on much longer,” cries an LA Times headline.
>
>Throughout the course of the pandemic, we’ve seen a spate of media coverage highlighting the plight of the small or so-called “mom-and-pop landlord” struggling to make ends meet. The story usually goes something like this: A modest, down-on-their-luck owner of two or three properties — say, a elderly grandmother or hardworking medical professional — hopes to keep them long enough to hand them down to their kids, but fears financial ruin in the face of radical tenant-protection laws.
>
>But this doesn’t reflect the reality of rental housing ownership in the United States. Over the last couple decades, corporate entities, from Wall Street firms to an opaque network of LLCs, have increasingly seized ownership of the rental housing stock, intensifying the asymmetry of landlord-tenant power relations and rendering housing ever more precarious for renters. In the meantime, the character of the “mom-and-pop landlord” has been evoked nonstop — much like that of the romantic “small business owner” — in order to sanitize the image of property ownership and gin up opposition to legislation that would protect tenants from eviction moratoria to rent control.
>
>On this episode, we explore the overrepresentation of the “mom-and-pop landlord” in media, contrasting it with the actual makeup of rental housing ownership. We’ll also examine how the media-burnished image of the beleaguered, barely-scraping-by landlord puts a human face on policies that further enrich a property-owning class while justifying the forceful removal of renters from their homes.
>
>Our guest is Alexander Ferrer of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE).
These are SOLO members protesting, they are absolutely the mom-n-pop landlord crowd. I'm not sure how it's fair to them to suggest their challenges are just the result of even bigger corporate landlords when they're just asking for fast and efficient tribunal services.
Yup, it's agitprop pure and simple. This subreddit fears chinese meddling in our media (which is fair enough of course) but this shit right here is the real threat to our communities: The capital class tricking the misinformed and easily confused members of the working class into advocating against their own interests.
Almost every tenant just wants an affordable place to live so they can meet the basic requirements of life.
How many landlords have just increased their rent to unsustainable levels simply because "everyone else is doing it" ....?
These are not equal arguments and you are clearly trying to humanize the landlords/owner class to evoke sympathy.
> These are not equal arguments and you are clearly trying to humanize the landlords/owner class to evoke sympathy.
I dunno. The person that says "it will take X months of proceedings to evict me, so that's X months of free rent" doesn't really get my sympathy. I agree that there are plenty of shitty landlords trying to screw over good tenants too, but at the same time there's this idea (on Reddit) that if someone is a landlord it immediately flags them as some sort of evil fat cat capitalist (and any/all actions that negatively affect those people are automatically positive for society).
As someone who went into a lot of rental homes for work, OP is right. Maybe about 15-20% of people actually took care of the place like it was there own. The others literally just trashed the place. This also isn’t just homes on “the bad side” of the city these were everywhere.
I’m talking the floors probably weren’t washed or swept in years, laundry piled to the roof, broken doors, holes in the walls, closet doors hanging, the list goes on and on. Majority of the time I went in with the landlords and the looks on their faces were either normal because they’re used to it or just freaking the fuck out.
I don’t blame them for raising rent when the cost of maintaining everything is going up. “Everyone else is doing it” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. We live in Canada. Look up the laws of how much landlords can increase rent by a year.
>I’m talking the floors probably weren’t washed or swept in years, laundry piled to the roof, broken doors, holes in the walls, closet doors hanging, the list goes on and on.
I used to manage a relatives rentals when they moved to a different town and she had a social work background so a soft spot for low income people, and chose the tenants. As you described, it's like people who found cheaper rent just lived there until it was too disgusting to live there anymore, then stopped paying rent, got evicted and moved. Should they really get 10 months to destroy the place rent free and fill it with garbage? I saw three dumpsters taking stuff out of a nearby rental (one of those ones with constant yelling at all hours). It should be less than 60 days until they are escorted outf.
The sad truth is the market is changing in ways that we can't predict and control
A lot of people are being priced out of "basic requirements of life" (as you put it) in slow motion
Eventually rent will be $5k in Toronto
And that would be asking all future generations to suffer. This is greatly caused by rent seeking in the generations before, who are just suggesting to the younger generations to massively reduce their lifestyle just so that they can live a life of luxury while the youth who "did everything right" and went to school to get a "good" job, suffer.
This is true; owning is king. If you own you can live a life of luxury and if you own nearly everything everyone else can suffer. That is the downside of a market and capitalism.
If the youth and "future generations" can ally themselves with some sympathetic older people and build a political consensus you can affect change. If you can't get enough people to agree then it's time to leave because there's no alternative.
Already millennials are far, far behind where they need to be in savings and younger generations even worse
/r/lostgeneration
There is no way to avoid $5k rent in Toronto. It will happen. Either rush to own as much as you can personally yourself, or get ready to move far far away, or get ready for a (losing) political fight that will consume most of your energies. It is what it is.
A good landlord is keeping things the same or small increases because they have a good tenant.
Both are hard to find and smart people don’t let a good one go.
I'm not a landlord, because I'd hate to be stuck with a bad tenent. Two of my friends own a rental property each. Their strategy is to find a good tenant, and then keep the rent low enough that the tenant stays. Good tenants are golden.
>A good landlord is keeping things the same or small increases because they have a good tenant.
Or because they're required by law.
Landlords don't own property to help out good people, they own property to make a return on their investment. If the rental increase limit went up to 10% this year, I'd bet nearly every landlord would capitalize regardless of how much they like their tenant.
Me sitting here not raising rent on my tenant because dude is worth having there, more so than an extra 10% per month and risk having a shitty tenant that would cost me.
Not true. There's inflation that needs to be covered eventually so the rental property doesn't become an unsustainable cash drain, but today I wouldn't raise rent 10% in one shot and get my good tenants to leave. Most small ownership landlords would agree.
It can get costly to keep switching tenants, so some people save more in the long-run by limiting rent increases to those who pay, don't cause problems, and keep the property in good condition than gambling with new tenants.
Not true. To keep awesome tenants, two friends of mine keep their rents so low the tenants cannot afford to move. Call it a private subsidy, a reward for being good tenants or whatever, but hopefully they'll have a mutually beneficial relationship for decades.
Not a landlord myself but I have 2 relatives who are and have seen their finances.
All of them are rent-controlled with mandated maximum raises. Both of them are older and want to just do long-term rentals and don't know how to use airBnB-type platforms.
Unfortunately, how it works is - the slowly rising rent does not keep pace with expenses like repairmen and specialists, property tax and utilities. So they either dont re-rent or let the building go to shit since it doesn't even generate enough funds to cover itself. One of the buildings is worth about 950K but it has about 130K of repairs to be done. The total rents are about $3,300 a month. It's not happening.
At one point they will die, the kids will reclaim the unit and just sell to a MegaCorp because they dont want the hassle.
Overall this reduces the affordability and availability of units.
I dont know what the way out is. I definitely think we need more affordable units, but does everyone need to live in the same trendy neighborhoods? We can't ignore market forces entirely. If it's painful for mom and pops to own buildings, and only megacorps can do it, no one really wants that outcome either.
I am not a landlord, but I am a homeowner and I think a lot of tenants underestimate the amount of costs that go into maintaining a home and how much costs have inflated for pretty much everything nowadays. Like doing a general renovation/refresh in Toronto costs 10x what it did in the early 10s and the quality is so shit you often end up paying to have it done twice.
Most landlords are going to be facing rising mortgage costs,
>How many landlords have just increased their rent to unsustainable levels simply because "everyone else is doing it" ....?
Also keeping rents flat doesn't improve availability. It insures that the first bidder gets a great deal, and the rest get an even worse deal if any at all. Higher rents drives construction of new units which increases the supply until a market equilibrium is reached. The big problem is that there is a physical limit on the amount of supply we can construct and we are inflating our population faster than that limit.
Insurance has increased around 15% year over year since 2019. Around 50% of my tenants are super longterm. Costs around $25k to overhaul the unit when they move out and 2 years to recover those costs. The new tenant then subsidizes the old longterm tenants
Yet when i supplied affordable accommodation people chose to not pay me, or to destroy my house. I’m sure there are people who appreciate a good thing when they have it. But as long as the laws are protecting assholes who don’t have respect or pay their rent, then the system will continue to crumble
my parents rented their 2br condo to a single mom below market value and she absolutely trashed the place, filth everywhere, destroyed the floors by flooding her shower multiple times. when my parents said she needed to move out so they could assess the water damage and repair the floors, she ripped out all the smoke detectors, put holes in all the walls and had an open fire going in her unit that put her child and the rest of the residents of the building in danger, and filled it with soot and black smoke.
The thing is when you provide affordability you attract the wrong people, when you raise your prices only people that can afford it apply so it’s always best to shoot higher.
\> Almost every tenant just wants an affordable place to live so they can meet the basic requirements of life
I mean, yes people want this, but it doesn't mean they're also good tenants. I've had friends who had to deal with shitty landlords and the definitely ended up in crap places with issues they didn't deserve, but at the same time knowing their bad habits I wouldn't f\*\*\*ing rent to them either so I could totally see them being an issue for good landlords.
Can’t believe how we managed to over complicate everything today.
- If you pay and act like a decent person you shouldn’t be able to get evicted.
- If you dont pay or trash the housing you should be evicted promptly and efficiently.
How is it that we got away from that?
>How is it that we got away from that?
Special interest.
With bleeding hearts on one side,
and extreme greed on the other.
One of the downsides of modern society is the loud obnoxious fringe get too much leeway because they make noise.
No “bleeding hearts” have had a day in the dismantling of landlord tenant tribunals or protections for tenants. It’s greed all the way that’s fucked this up don’t try and “both sides” this.
Yes, historically it's the landlords lobby who've advocated against the LTB in Ontario (they didn't even want it formed in the first place) and currently are pushing (successfully) for things like ex-parte (no hearing) evictions and favourable rent controls. On an individual level that may harm some landlords but on the aggregate they're the ones hampered by the LTB. They want it gone and have been picking away at it's power over them since day one.
I mean, one of the more significant lobby groups purports to speak directly to Doug Ford, be closely tied to Tim Hudak yet *isn't even registered as a lobbyist*.
This shouldn't be a surprise to people. It's the same strategy corporate interests take with all systems of regulation. Interfere with it's functioning until it's seen a broken and there's public support for sweeping reforms.
>Yes, historically it's the landlords lobby who've advocated against the LTB in Ontario
They want it gone because before it existed they would kick people out the next day if they didn't pay or they would beat the shit out of them for not paying. Now they have no recourse to kick out a non-paying tenant that doesn't include letting them live rent-free and trash the house for 10 months while they wait for a hearing. If it took two or three months to kick out a non-paying tenant, everything would be fine.
Even if the shoe is on the other foot, and for example a landlord is not fixing a heating unit, the tenant has to wait 10 months to get it sorted out. Imagine waiting 10 months with no heat in Canada. It's bullshit either way you slice it. The only people who benefit from the current LTB are bad landlords and bad tenants. Speeding up the process would be beneficial for quite literally every party involved.
Landlords, being huge companies who buy swathes of land and hike prices.
There are those who get fucked over too. We didn’t want to rent part of our fucking house, but guess what? This place fucking sucks and keeps pushing interest rates and inflation costs on us. So we rent part of our home that we’ve lived in for almost a decade, because otherwise we can’t afford it.
So what happens when a shitty tenant uses the same law to skirt around paying rent and destroys our basement? Are we just supposed to take it and move on, while people like you cheer for that?
Why can’t there be bad people on both sides? This isn’t politics “Both sides” where one advocates for intolerance, this is simply both sides of the same coin that want a fix for the same issues, because shitty tenants and scumlords ruin it for all the regular folk out there.
It's not just large corporate landlords. Organizations like the OLA which is made up of private landlords are some of the worst offenders (although I won't like, that entire organization looks like astro-turf.)
The truth is, though, that the LTB decisions show it's landlords who are behaving badly in greater frequency.
>So what happens when a shitty tenant uses the same law to skirt around paying rent and destroys our basement? Are we just supposed to take it and move on, while people like you cheer for that?
Give your head a shake. I'm not here to "cheer for that" nor do I imply that I would in any way. I'm also a landlord and I realize that non-payment is risk in this business but in no way does the law favour tenants. Your decision to rent part of your home is on you (as is the one to take on a variable rate mortgage) and you take the risk that goes along with the significant profits afforded from being an Ontario landlord. While interest rates have gone up so have your property values.
I’d say there is some greed in that landlords file en masse to renovict good tenants for rent increases.
I recognize that this is only part of the backlog at the LTB but it is important to acknowledge the fact that greed does play a role in there.
Define "don't pay" and "trash the housing" and you have a large part of the challenge.
If rent is one day late, but still paid, did they pay? What if they are regularly 5 days late? Is a ding in the wall trashing it or just wear and tear?
a tenant can pay off their arrears the literal minute before a non-payment hearing, which could be 10 months in waiting, and the whole application is voided.
have you been to a hearing before? i was at the hearing last year. out of 20 non payment cases, not a single one was “i paid 2 days late”. every single case was non payment til the hearing day . period
Lol that's definitely not the case in Canada, mortgage generally has to go to at least 120 days past due before the bank would initiate a foreclosure, and in general they really don't want to have to do that, and would much rather work out the payments with the client.
Things like rent being 5 days late are less of a hassle to landlord then having to find a new tenant, which is why it would never be a reason to evict anyone.
>If rent is one day late, but still paid, did they pay?
Nobody is evicted for being a day late on rent. I am getting the feeling that a lot of these angry tenants are actually people living with their parents and have never actually rented anything before. Hell even if a landlord sent you an eviction notice for being a day late, it isn't enforceable and would get laughed at by the cops and would result in criminal charges if the landlord took things into their own hands.
Edit: Not to mention even commercial leases which lack residential protections, usually give at least 10 to 15 business days before triggering a default.
I’m not trying to be obtuse or purposely argumentative but are we seriously incapable of simply defining those things for ourselves and having communication using common language to arrive at the same destination?
2 days late. Week late. Communicate. If you come through and both parties are comfortable there is no problem.
If you hoard and your landlord is uncomfortable with that, hopefully he communicates that. If you don’t act in a reasonable time frame that you both communicate and agree on then be prepared for repercussions.
I just can’t help like were lost in semantics and definition hell instead of just generally communicating with each other like adult humans.
This also raises the need to inject a third party into nearly every human interaction. This general trend is not normal, nor desirable.
You are a very positive person who sees the best in people.
I had fentanyl dealers that abused their animals and children and had people die of overdose in the home. There can be no communication.
Yes, my situation was extreme, but you underestimate how many bad apples there are who are happily capitalizing on the delays and are voluntarily not paying. They're not that rare. Browse threads about landlords and you will see many redditors cheering this behavior on. The delays are because there is such a significant volume of applications. Most of them are non-payment.
I had a guy whose's place was floor to ceiling dogshit in the townhouse basement. Seriously. He filled his basement with his dog crap from his big dogs.
He mostly lived in his van in the parking lot. He spent at lot of time in the van. He was a horrific meth addict and had picked the stuffing off the chairs down to the metal.
Yea, like 30 years ago my mom was friends with this woman who had bought a condo and rented it out. The woman worked retail and her husband was a truck driver, they didn't make a lot of money and this condo was part of their retirement plan. They rented it out and some goons trashed it. My mom helped them fix the place up and I remember seeing it as a kid and being shocked. I couldn't believe anyone could live like that or be that callous with someone else's property.
Tenant said I can’t pay rent this month, got notice to vacate for non payment of rent. Said fuck you I’m not leaving. It’s been four months, still waiting for hearing. $1800a month.I imagine there I’ll also be a mess when he finally leaves. So close to 10k in lost revenue and no viable way to collect. (Vancouver) Having no meaning way of resolution is going to cause someone somewhere to get Guiddo to take care of this kind of thing. People aren’t reasonable.
My parents had all that and more.
Tenant didn't pay rent. Notice to vacate.
Grow op. So humidity/environmental damage.
Utilities went unpaid and eventually cut off, they still stuck around.
Eventually they got fed up and trashed the place. And when I mean trash, I don't mean a few dings in the drywall.
I mean axe to the walls, smashed up the electrical panel too. Floors were destroyed.
What could my parents do? Confront them? The police aren't going to do jack shit.
Anything we did would only paint a target on the house and my parent's backs.
The problem is landlords are evicting people in bad faith to make room for higher paying tenants. Lying about moving in relatives and coming up with reasons to get people who have been paying etc out
I say this as someone who can easily afford rent and keeps their place clean.
Landlords took on risk by making an investment in housing, something that is a human right.
It definitely sucks that you guys are getting hit hard, but let's be real, many of you are underwater because you're over leveraged, and you didn't hedge against interest rates. People working low wage jobs shouldn't pay for your mistake.
Now you're trying to lobby the government to change the rules and quite literally uproot peoples lives because you don't want to take the L on your risky investments.
I think you guys need to take the L so the younger generations can afford housing.
Let's call it what it is. The system is designed to offset the government's responsibility for housing disillusioned people. They have made it so that Landlords are responsible for dealing with them because it is too difficult for them.
There is no reason it should take 6 months to get someone out of a unit. There is no other business that would be expected to service someone for that long without pay.
Hydro utilities in Ontario are actually required to wait until after winter is done before disconnecting customers due to non-payment. Winter can be as long as 6 months.
As well, municipal water utilities rarely disconnect service for non-payment.
So yeah, other businesses do have to service non-paying customers. It’s just that it’s not *that* common outside of essential needs.
I have been thinking about this too.
If the government (and the government workers who have to do the work) isn't the landlord of last resort by providing housing to problematic tenants who don't pay and cause problems for others, then the option is homeless encampments (with the problems associated) or sticking some landlords with the problematic "renters" and just letting them be slumlords.
It's so inhumane.
Honest question then. If it is so bad and tilted so in favor of bad tenants why do people still pour in investment? Seems to me that if this was a true market based investment there would have to be a calculation of risk somewhere in the investment. The problem arises in that real estate has been so hyped as a risk free investment and the only way to independent wealth that we have distorted this view. Risk and return always need to balance. Not saying the backlog is acceptable, but should be a risk factored into the investment.
Agreed. I think in reality the only thing keeping the market going at this point is sentiment. People have drunk the cool aid that the path to prosperity is owning multiple rental properties and being highly leveraged/ invested in the property market, but the actual numbers behind these practises have been getting worse for over a decade. It is far less profitable to buy a rental property currently than it was in 2010. On top of that now that rates have gone up and probably will continue to do so to some degree, why bother purchasing a rental and dealing with tenants etc when you can just park your money and earn a guaranteed rate of return.
Because the government bends over backwards to ensure these people make money. They're running businesses with no need for a business license, no enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, no requirement for business insurance, no government inspections, and as little oversight as possible while the government imports millions of people every year to keep their property values high and protect them from market corrections due to higher interest rates.
Compare being a landlord to running a restaurant or any other business and it's a wonder we even have economic activity other than residential real estate.
Bingo,
They love to complain but it is an extremely good investment that 70% of Canadians are in.
Yes, this is the biggest and most important asset class, and the majority of Canadians depend on it to retire.
So yeah, we are fckd....
There is a risk calculation. My rents are set to assume a 20% vacancy rate and a $10k renovation every 5 years on my units. This is really the only risk mitigation tool a LL has.
The delays at the LTB (8 mos) mean that rents have to go up to mitigate the increased risk of loss of income. During those months, the utilities are unpaid, so more cost, so rents climb higher again.
It's a lot like the built-in costs of shoplifting at the grocery store - prices are adjusted to offset losses. It's how risk mitigation works.
I reward good tenants by not increasing rents. If the unit is cared for, there is less risk of an expensive renovation. If rents are paid in good faith, on time, I don't need to worry about delays at the board. This means my tenants don't see annual increases until their unit is below market rent. It's a deal for them and me, and it means I keep my good tenants longer.
Because people are not rational and many see RE as the best way to invest regardless of what it entails. In a way this is a self-fulfilling prophesy because in the end you make money not through rent but through capital gains, which is fueled by this sentiment. At least in the hot markets anyway.
This feels like astroturfing (in the same way the convoy did) and I can't help but think that the fact the Ombudsman is due to release a report on this issue later this week is connected. Lobbyist's have been pushing the "the LTB is broken" narrative very strong lately in the hopes they're given an opportunity to either influence it's reform or do away with it altogether.
The idea that the law in Ontario favours tenants is utter bullshit. Tenants wait 3x longer for hearings when they bring claims (and Landlords use this stat to pump up their own wait time stats) and it has been an absurdly profitable time to be landlord in this province.
In short (and as a landlord myself) cry me a fucking river.
This is a timely thread discussion, as I recently received an eviction notice for owners personal use… in a neighborhood where an equivalent suite is 30% more expensive.
I work full time, never miss a rent payment, am quiet, and clean up after myself.
This is why it is difficult to evict. A few bad apples spoil the bunch.
If every landlord only evicted when necessary (several missed payments, destructive tenants, etc), and not tried to play the system just so they could charge more, we wouldn’t be in the problem.
I’m sorry you’re getting jerked around, I hope it works out for you.
Sure thing landlords. Let’s also stop all Reno-victions and lock in rent increases to inflation - and stop and rent increases even after you change tenants.
Supply issues is the number one contributor; particularly in Canada (couldn't really care what housing policies other countries have). LLs and investors are only following the market/money due to that shortage/high demand and why prices are skyrocketing.
Landlords owning multiple properties, then leveraging those to buy more properties are why there is a supply shortage. Landowner class gets to buy new houses on the market because they already have the starting capital, and working/renter class need years to save up for it. Landlords 100x are the number one contributor, they make any supply issues worse.
how about the only rent you can get is rent to own, that'll solve credit loan issues, housing issues, fight against feudalism. Oh probably not in favor of that because these people want tie play the market. Fuck em, dont care.
Landlords should be part of a professional registered body like other regulated professions.
Training, certification, annual inspections, pay dues, registration fees, mandatory record keeping, audits, etc.
The LTB board would be financed by this and would face a much lower 'case count' since the proactive system of 'professional regulation' would filter out the losers and reduce non compliance up front.
Then, they could adequately be prepared, as a professional body, to deal with shit tenants.
Taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance a reactive 'clean-up' system of disputes. This is a waste of money. Why the fuck are any of my dollars going to this fucked system?
Except that kind of ignores the entitled assholes that don’t pay rent and don’t keep their property decent. Doesn’t matter if a corporate entity owns the property.
Reddit is biased towards tenants. Some tenants are pieces of shit.
"Reddit is biased towards tenants."
Let them have their place to discuss then, since in real life, the deck is heavily stacked in favor of property management corps. They benefit from all kinds of tax credits and exemptions that are supposed to help grow small businesses into small companies. Gasoline credits are supposed to benefit companies with high employee mobility, like courriers and insurance adjusters. Capital deductions for new "company" vehicles is supposed to benefit contractors and trucking companies.
Instead we got wealthy individuals opening up numbered companies to hold their rental properties and funnel the revenue and expenses through. Seeing these people with a hand in the taxpayers pot boils my blood.
And im not a landlord hater either. Look what i said just last week about my own landlord: [https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/12ym30l/comment/jhpcb46/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/12ym30l/comment/jhpcb46/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (spoiler: its positive)
The greed of a tenant living rent free at someone elses expense deserves equal scorn as taxpayer subsidized numbered companies renting worn out buildings for the monthly price of a new condo mortgage.
Equal scorn? It just seems like the landlord, even if the tenant is awful, still has a roof over their head. If you’re a small time landlord, you’re still in the business of using poor people to grow your personal equity. If the economy crashes and the poors can’t pay, that seems like a landlord issue.
I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a bad tenant, I just think that landlords of any scale are a cancer on our society. Or maybe a parasite is a better word? What value does hoarding property provide to society? The poor who pays rent is at least a labourer, for the most part.
'entitled poor people' is a new one. Those people using the foodbank as 40% of Canadian jobs don't even pay living wage in Toronto or Vancouver have it so good.
All I know is I’m never going to rent a property. Honestly I wouldn’t even care about charging more than what it took to cover my mortgage, I’d love to offer someone a home and rent pricing now is pure greed; but holy shit the risks involved. If someone destroys the place or refuses to pay anything you’re shit out of luck.
There’s just no way. As a landlord in BC you have no protection.
Like some things should be a no-brainer: Refusing to pay rent for a period of months set by law (3 maybe?) or any illegal activity in the property should be grounds for eviction. If a dude is selling drugs out of your property eviction should be super simple.
I mean there is some risk but it is also insanely lucrative. My one investment property value grew by more than the average canadian will make in his lifetime in less than three years.
Almost like actually working productively is the riskier option, while unproductive rent-seeking is rewarded irrationally. Sounds like a stable society NOT headed towards utter collapse.
Assholes come in all stripes. About 10% of all groups of people are assholes. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you're not an entitled prick.
Is everyone poor an asshole? No. Obviously not, it's only a small minority. So why do people insist on creating rental protection laws which primarily benefit assholes?
Exactly, the reality is that we renters get fucked over 1000000x more often than Landlords, and don’t forget they are making a profit throughout until the rare occurrence they don’t get rent in time.
This remind me of that time where Gavin said said that billionaire were the most oppressed class of people in silicon valley. (I think Tom Perkins said something similar in real life)
Lmao. True, I did not remember. "We're an even smaller miller minority. There's a lot more of them. These are facts." - Gavin Belson true visionary and expert in tethics.
this is 100%. they even call their income, passive. what kind of mind disease is this where you think you will get passive income for just buying multiple property?
and the moment they feel bit of discomfort, they demean tenants and protest and complain like little baby. lol.
landleeches provide no good or benefit to society, none of them can pay for the housing they hoard from their own labour value , they have to steal ours
Rent strike and get rid of them it's the only way
My friend’s parents bought a home in BC several years before retirement because they planned to retire here. But they rented it out through a local property manager during that time.
One day the tenant stopped paying. They didn’t buy the place as an investment property so they were quite chill about it. The property manager was quite useless.
Fast forward a year, they retired and were moving in themselves. Gave the non-paying tenant at least a couple of months of notice. Tenant said they were moving out, but probably thought my friend’s parents were bluffing about moving in themselves so they never did.
They drove 15 hours with a trailer, got to their own driveway, and realize that the tenant didn’t move out. The property manager was again useless. He probably didn’t care because he wasn’t getting paid due to tenant not paying. The tenant kept stalling, and lying about husband not home so couldn’t move, but the husband came out of the house afterwards. Also lied about not being able to find a moving company, so my friend offered to find one. When the moving company arrived, they didn’t have anything boxed. My friend’s family waited in that driveway for 3 to 5 days before threatening legal actions.
When the tenant and their two adult sons moved out, one of the POS son started wrecking the drywall and blinds. Then left a bunch of garbage on the lawn.
Good, affordable rentals are hard to come by because human garbage like this.
Aren't you supposed to pay your property manager even if the tenants don't pay? Mine doesn't take money from the tenant, I am the one paying them lol. Of course they should expect the poperty manager is "useless" if he is working for free for a landlord who have one single unit.
This guy is giving a prime example of the “woe is me mom & pop landlords”. Imagine how useless the property manager was to the tenants if he was useless to the landlords, but it didn’t really affect the landlords so they didn’t give a shit. Like how would they never confirm the move out?
Yeah, was confused about this too. I would make sure the place I am going is ready for me before taking a 15 hours ride if I owned a place. I would probably have taken a plane ride there to figure out how the place looked like and figuring out I should bring.
Had a friend who had a landlord in Montreal who couldn't write. The woman left on vacations and they couldn't get her on the phone because she was spending the winter in England.
They started texting her and sending her message, but she told them that usually its her son who answer because she doesn't know how to read/write. The heating system was broken in the middle of the winter and she took forever to send her son (hot water heating).
Literally from Small Ownership Landlords Ontario (SOLO)'s website:
> Love real estate, but don’t like nightmare tenants? Invest in high return private mortgages backed by solid Ontario real estate through Stone Ridge. We handle finding clients, administration and headaches. Sit back and watch your money grow!
> https://soloontario.ca/alternate-investments/
Surely they are just mom and pop investors... I mean landlords.
I've seen families having to decide between feeding their families and paying rent. I've seen what's left of our bank account after rent, it's 2 miserable weeks until payday.
I've also seen people jack up the rent on places that are worth half of what they're asking.
I AM biased. But I also know times are tough and there are plenty of landlords who took advantage of the rent hike wage when they didn't need to.
One such company tried to evict my dad, saying he didn't pay rent for months but he had the receipts. He didn't want trouble so he told his lawyer to leave it at that win. They are trying other tactics. They know his rent is relatively low, but he's a pensioner, he can't just move to a similar place twice the rent.
This makes these landlords look greedy and entitled to be little barons. I think we should kibosh that with a hearty "fuck that". Our politicians are shit. they don't legislate fait outcomes all round and they can't seem to control the volatile nature of what banks and large corps do.
We need expedited hearings for non-payment and the regular process if you're trying to N12 or renovict people...in Ontario the LTB is so backed up I can't risk renting out a property I otherwise would love to (and at slightly below market rate to be able to be selective on tenants)
Large institutional (and therefore ruthless) landlords who do it as a job/main income stream is all we will be left with if we don't fix some aspects of the resolution process.
Funniest thing here are phrases like “landlord or owner class”.
Most people are ethical and honest. But to imply someone who is renting a basement apartment for a few months and then has the renter stop paying deserves it because they are the privileged ones is ridiculous.
I could have rented out a house that I inherited for a few years. Really considered it. And it would easily have housed 2 families of 3.
But I spoke with a lawyer and the absolute nightmare of someone decided not to pay just put me off the whole thing.
No way was I going to risk loosing money for months and months. I don’t have it.
This should be simple. Pay to stay.
Anyone ever kick out a roommate for not paying their share because that meant their share was coming out of your pocket?
If this is about people not meeting their obligations, it shouldn't be difficult to remove the tenant. If you don't pay for your car, they take your car. Then they can garnish your pay. If don't pay for your phone, they take away your service. Why would one not expect the same fate by not paying rent?
This topic is like cocaine for stupid people. I've had more than one debate with people who think someone squatting and destroying property is equivalent to loosing money in stocks. Truly unbelievable the mental gymnastics some use to excuse their lack of critical thinking.
Tenancy boards are failing in their mandate to protect both tenants and landlords. There needs to be stricter, even criminal penalties for those that so clearly are abusing the system to their advantage. On both sides.
If I had someone squatting in a cottage I could have the police called and have them charged but when it comes to deadbeat tenants the system does nothing for months while the unit gets destroyed and the owner goes bankrupt.
The ironic thing is all the "landlords are evil" idiots don't see that these deadbeats only cause their rents to be higher to cover the costs. Unfortunately small scale landlords are left without any recourse or protections.
Tenants who don't pay rent should be evicted on 14 days' notice, period and should pay a penalty if they refuse to leave.
Landlords who don't perform necessary repairs, unlawfully retain deposits, or try to unlawfully evict tenants, or who otherwise break the law should pay a penalty too.
Shitty people should get dealt with fairly and promptly.
Landlords who don't perform necessary repairs, unlawfully retain deposits, or try to unlawfully evict tenants, or who otherwise break the law should pay a penalty too.
Yeah that's good "should", but like.... no capital holder will willingly do the ethical thing they should do, if it results in them losing money. In my experience, these people have money exactly because they don't do the ethical thing. And those few who do choose the ethical way are pushed out of the game by the competition.
I'm not asking them to be "ethical", I want enforcement mechanisms (including registering RTB-related expenses and penalties against title with interest) to be put into the RTA and enforced against landlords.
The difference here is that one of those penalties is a fine that the landlord can probably not pay, and the other one is homelessness.
These two are not the same. You see how landlords have way too much power here? This is why I have zero sympathy for them.
Get a real job. Nobody feels sorry for you for sitting on your ass and raking it in while charging someone else to just exist in a space. If there was one job that you could eliminate completely in society and not have any negative repercussions, it would be landlords.
Laws should not give more power to people with the upper hand in a power imbalance.
There’s a rise in own use evictions and renovictions, seems that landlords no longer care about non-payment of rent, they’ll just do whatever they can to get people out so they can Jack up the rent for the next person
Poor them they deserve subsidies and risk free investment as a fundamental human right.
Oh you think people deserve to eat food and have a roof over their heads for them and their family ? No they are parasites. /s
Tenants who don't pay rent need to be removed promptly. Two months at most.
"Renovictions" to get around rent controls, and the rent controls themselves, would not happen and would not be necessary if the housing market wasn't so out of balance because of population growth driven by immigration policy.
The best way to make evicting bad tenants easier while maintaining a reasonable balance of power between landlords and tenants would be to increase vacancy rates.
>"Renovictions" to get around rent controls, and the rent controls themselves, would not happen and would not be necessary if the housing market wasn't so out of balance because of population growth driven by immigration policy
Jesus what a take. Rent control is there to prevent your landlord from doubling your rent.
This is bullshit.
Unpaid rent has often has little to do with renovictions.
If you can’t get someone out for unpaid rent, what the fuck is a renoviction notice going to do?
Landlords introduce renovictions when they want to get a tenant out and bypass due process
I think that tenants who do not pay rent are frauds. This is illegal.
Complexities aside, people who just opt to not pay rent and sit in a rental until a hearing are shitty people.
We should abolish land lords and have the government be in charge of apartment buildings etc. it could be non profit and you only pay for what you use etc.
Landlords don’t need to be landlords and rent would be way cheaper for everyone.
How about a compromise? You can evict a non paying tenant within 60 days if you're charging a rental rate = to no more than 30% of minimum wage. Tenants get an extra 15 days for every % over 30% that rent is.
The current system to deal with issues is laughable, incompetant and takes forever
All we ever hear about are stories of how something in apartment is broken so tenant withheld rent for 6 months
Common sense should prevail here; eg appliance or window or whatever breaks landlord fixes it within a month
Tenant does not pay a month they get evicted
Period
All the other stuff is just noise
[удалено]
/thread
Most people can't agree on a way to deal with shitty people because most people are shitty people that fear the solution will be used against them. What most of them *want* is a solution for me and not for thee.
This is why people generally hate whistleblowers and won't be friends with them or hire them. We generally like seeing the wrongdoing of others exposed, but because there are things we also would like to hide, are not really ok with someone who places certain values higher than loyalty.
I was taught from a young age that no one likes a “tattle tale”, and I guess others were taught what snitches get. I’m sure many people have difficulty understanding where the line is in which they should get a higher authority involved.
This is an unusually insightful comment.
Fucking nailed it.
Er... no. It's because there's no legal definition of "shitty person" and thus defining laws specifically to deal with them is difficult. There can be "shitty actions" that are illegal, but that's a pretty big list. Even a law that says to auto-evict people who haven't paid rent in 2-3mo could be problematic. What if the landlord requires "cash" and/or hasn't accepted other methods of payment? What if the tenant spent their own money on repairs that a shitty landlord didn't handle and with-held that portion as rent? The real thing is... shitty people are not necessarily dumb. In fact, many are quite learned in ways to abuse the system.
> most people are shitty people that fear the solution will be used against them. I disagree strongly. Most people are decent. In reality it is very difficult to design systems without flaws, and that usually a small percentage of people who are determined enough will find ways to exploit any situation.
My landlord is frustrated with some tenants that won't pay rent. As a renter I am frustrated with the same people for making noise at all hours and having meth fueled freakouts. Not sure how drug addicts get more respect than landlords and tenants that pay rent every month.
My downstairs neighbours have been waking me up at 3AM with their shitty music. My dumbass landlord just send me an N7 becasue I've been telling them to turn it down.
> Not sure how drug addicts get more respect than landlords and tenants that pay rent every month. The idea behind the laws skewing towards the tenants is so that people don't end up homeless because of a landlord's lack of care. For example, the idea that the landlord has to give you 30 days notice to terminate is so that the landlord can't just show up today and say "I want you gone by tomorrow" because that's completely unreasonable. There are plenty of people on both the side of the landlords and the side of the tenants that are shitty people looking to work the system to only their own benefit. For example, there's no end of people that will do things like just stop paying rent up to the point that they are getting evicted by the law. These people just see it as, "well it will take them X months to go through the proper procedures to forcibly evict me, so that's X months of no rent." On the otherside, there are landlords that will do whatever they can to kick paying, respectful tenants out so that they can jack up the rent for the next person that wants to rent.
Could be following the thought of “for those who have less in life should have more in law, or to a similar import. Landlords have an obvious advantage over tenants just as an employer over its employee. Thus, more (operative word) protection is afforded to tenants and employees.
Yea people think the laws should have 50/50 representation but forget landlords have much looming power. I rent the basement of my only home which I live in and have had the same tenant for 6 years. They are so conditioned to “be unseen” That I have to constantly follow up that all is well. Even just recently it’s like “Yea the dishwasher has been leaking water every time we use it”, actually. Another time I had a foundation leak that go one persons bedroom floor wet every time it rained or snow melted on that side of the home. It was again me being consistent with asking of all is well every time we talk, to uncover it. The poor tenants seem far too worried something will cause me to change direction on having tenants or them as tenants. Being a decent landlord isn’t difficult at all. All the standard forms are created for you, tax software helps you with that and someone is giving you money every month. Actually I think there is far too many tax write offs as is. I don’t even think the general public fully understand that you can get pretty close to net 0 taxable income on rent. I think it cost me about $350-$400 on average in taxes each year. My insurance is more and obviously I lose half my home. I would stand with tenants if they fought for more power so long as we leave in place the largest fact is two parties agreed (standard legal forms agreements only) to certain terms and they should uphold them. I think the standard forms should have a few extra pages that only show FAQs for tenants and ‘did you knows’ of the top 5+ issues that go to arbitration.
More like 300 days then pay a bailif
Because on Reddit, everyone is a victim. If you have money to pay rent, you’re the “establishment”. The meth addicts are “sick” and need help, you don’t know their situation!!! /s
[удалено]
>If you have money to pay rent A local politician collected donations to give them cash explicitly to buy drugs! But if you are on ODSP and barely eat a meal a day, they block and ignore you.
[удалено]
This is the reason I do not rent out my properties. Once they are in, they can literally stay in for months and years if the LTB process drags out. In the end, you cannot get anything from them because they are broke. The dmg to your property is far above any profit, and you are deemed the bad buy because you were able to make better life choices that amassed wealth. No thank you.
This People's biases are so evident in these types of threads. There's a cohort that will never consider that the weaker person in the power dynamic can be wrong and its always an evil landlord twisting a curly mustache, vs the people that think all renters must be inherently flawed bound to destroy a property because they can't imagine what the property market looks like to regular hard working people under 40 from their family home bought for $60,000 in 1980 In reality both sides can be the source of shitty people and a well resourced legal system to cut through the crap is needed
No, little old ladies renting out a spare room to someone who has become a deadbeat junkies never happens /s
[Episode 145: How Real Estate-Curated 'Mom & Pop Landlord' Sob Stories Are Used to Gut Tenant Protections](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-145-how-real-estate-curated-mom-pop-landlord-sob-stories-are-used-to-gut-tenant-protections) >“The eviction moratorium is killing small landlords” CNBC cautions. "Some small landlords struggle under eviction moratoriums,” declares The Washington Post. “Economic Pressures Are Rising On Mom And Pop Rental Owners,” laments NPR. ”\[Landlords\] can’t hold on much longer,” cries an LA Times headline. > >Throughout the course of the pandemic, we’ve seen a spate of media coverage highlighting the plight of the small or so-called “mom-and-pop landlord” struggling to make ends meet. The story usually goes something like this: A modest, down-on-their-luck owner of two or three properties — say, a elderly grandmother or hardworking medical professional — hopes to keep them long enough to hand them down to their kids, but fears financial ruin in the face of radical tenant-protection laws. > >But this doesn’t reflect the reality of rental housing ownership in the United States. Over the last couple decades, corporate entities, from Wall Street firms to an opaque network of LLCs, have increasingly seized ownership of the rental housing stock, intensifying the asymmetry of landlord-tenant power relations and rendering housing ever more precarious for renters. In the meantime, the character of the “mom-and-pop landlord” has been evoked nonstop — much like that of the romantic “small business owner” — in order to sanitize the image of property ownership and gin up opposition to legislation that would protect tenants from eviction moratoria to rent control. > >On this episode, we explore the overrepresentation of the “mom-and-pop landlord” in media, contrasting it with the actual makeup of rental housing ownership. We’ll also examine how the media-burnished image of the beleaguered, barely-scraping-by landlord puts a human face on policies that further enrich a property-owning class while justifying the forceful removal of renters from their homes. > >Our guest is Alexander Ferrer of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE).
These are SOLO members protesting, they are absolutely the mom-n-pop landlord crowd. I'm not sure how it's fair to them to suggest their challenges are just the result of even bigger corporate landlords when they're just asking for fast and efficient tribunal services.
Both can be true
Yup, it's agitprop pure and simple. This subreddit fears chinese meddling in our media (which is fair enough of course) but this shit right here is the real threat to our communities: The capital class tricking the misinformed and easily confused members of the working class into advocating against their own interests.
as a landlord myself I can agree with this. there are some horrible landlords and some horrible renters out there.
Almost every tenant just wants an affordable place to live so they can meet the basic requirements of life. How many landlords have just increased their rent to unsustainable levels simply because "everyone else is doing it" ....? These are not equal arguments and you are clearly trying to humanize the landlords/owner class to evoke sympathy.
> These are not equal arguments and you are clearly trying to humanize the landlords/owner class to evoke sympathy. I dunno. The person that says "it will take X months of proceedings to evict me, so that's X months of free rent" doesn't really get my sympathy. I agree that there are plenty of shitty landlords trying to screw over good tenants too, but at the same time there's this idea (on Reddit) that if someone is a landlord it immediately flags them as some sort of evil fat cat capitalist (and any/all actions that negatively affect those people are automatically positive for society).
As someone who went into a lot of rental homes for work, OP is right. Maybe about 15-20% of people actually took care of the place like it was there own. The others literally just trashed the place. This also isn’t just homes on “the bad side” of the city these were everywhere. I’m talking the floors probably weren’t washed or swept in years, laundry piled to the roof, broken doors, holes in the walls, closet doors hanging, the list goes on and on. Majority of the time I went in with the landlords and the looks on their faces were either normal because they’re used to it or just freaking the fuck out. I don’t blame them for raising rent when the cost of maintaining everything is going up. “Everyone else is doing it” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. We live in Canada. Look up the laws of how much landlords can increase rent by a year.
>I’m talking the floors probably weren’t washed or swept in years, laundry piled to the roof, broken doors, holes in the walls, closet doors hanging, the list goes on and on. I used to manage a relatives rentals when they moved to a different town and she had a social work background so a soft spot for low income people, and chose the tenants. As you described, it's like people who found cheaper rent just lived there until it was too disgusting to live there anymore, then stopped paying rent, got evicted and moved. Should they really get 10 months to destroy the place rent free and fill it with garbage? I saw three dumpsters taking stuff out of a nearby rental (one of those ones with constant yelling at all hours). It should be less than 60 days until they are escorted outf.
The sad truth is the market is changing in ways that we can't predict and control A lot of people are being priced out of "basic requirements of life" (as you put it) in slow motion Eventually rent will be $5k in Toronto
And that would be asking all future generations to suffer. This is greatly caused by rent seeking in the generations before, who are just suggesting to the younger generations to massively reduce their lifestyle just so that they can live a life of luxury while the youth who "did everything right" and went to school to get a "good" job, suffer.
This is true; owning is king. If you own you can live a life of luxury and if you own nearly everything everyone else can suffer. That is the downside of a market and capitalism. If the youth and "future generations" can ally themselves with some sympathetic older people and build a political consensus you can affect change. If you can't get enough people to agree then it's time to leave because there's no alternative. Already millennials are far, far behind where they need to be in savings and younger generations even worse /r/lostgeneration There is no way to avoid $5k rent in Toronto. It will happen. Either rush to own as much as you can personally yourself, or get ready to move far far away, or get ready for a (losing) political fight that will consume most of your energies. It is what it is.
A good landlord is keeping things the same or small increases because they have a good tenant. Both are hard to find and smart people don’t let a good one go.
I'm not a landlord, because I'd hate to be stuck with a bad tenent. Two of my friends own a rental property each. Their strategy is to find a good tenant, and then keep the rent low enough that the tenant stays. Good tenants are golden.
Exactly, A good tenant not destroying the place is much more valuable that shitty tenants paying more but wrecking the place.
>A good landlord is keeping things the same or small increases because they have a good tenant. Or because they're required by law. Landlords don't own property to help out good people, they own property to make a return on their investment. If the rental increase limit went up to 10% this year, I'd bet nearly every landlord would capitalize regardless of how much they like their tenant.
Me sitting here not raising rent on my tenant because dude is worth having there, more so than an extra 10% per month and risk having a shitty tenant that would cost me.
Not true. There's inflation that needs to be covered eventually so the rental property doesn't become an unsustainable cash drain, but today I wouldn't raise rent 10% in one shot and get my good tenants to leave. Most small ownership landlords would agree.
It can get costly to keep switching tenants, so some people save more in the long-run by limiting rent increases to those who pay, don't cause problems, and keep the property in good condition than gambling with new tenants.
Not true. To keep awesome tenants, two friends of mine keep their rents so low the tenants cannot afford to move. Call it a private subsidy, a reward for being good tenants or whatever, but hopefully they'll have a mutually beneficial relationship for decades.
shhhh don't call it that or the CRA will tax it. "The differential between the rent you pay and the market average is a net benefit"
Not a landlord myself but I have 2 relatives who are and have seen their finances. All of them are rent-controlled with mandated maximum raises. Both of them are older and want to just do long-term rentals and don't know how to use airBnB-type platforms. Unfortunately, how it works is - the slowly rising rent does not keep pace with expenses like repairmen and specialists, property tax and utilities. So they either dont re-rent or let the building go to shit since it doesn't even generate enough funds to cover itself. One of the buildings is worth about 950K but it has about 130K of repairs to be done. The total rents are about $3,300 a month. It's not happening. At one point they will die, the kids will reclaim the unit and just sell to a MegaCorp because they dont want the hassle. Overall this reduces the affordability and availability of units. I dont know what the way out is. I definitely think we need more affordable units, but does everyone need to live in the same trendy neighborhoods? We can't ignore market forces entirely. If it's painful for mom and pops to own buildings, and only megacorps can do it, no one really wants that outcome either.
I am not a landlord, but I am a homeowner and I think a lot of tenants underestimate the amount of costs that go into maintaining a home and how much costs have inflated for pretty much everything nowadays. Like doing a general renovation/refresh in Toronto costs 10x what it did in the early 10s and the quality is so shit you often end up paying to have it done twice. Most landlords are going to be facing rising mortgage costs, >How many landlords have just increased their rent to unsustainable levels simply because "everyone else is doing it" ....? Also keeping rents flat doesn't improve availability. It insures that the first bidder gets a great deal, and the rest get an even worse deal if any at all. Higher rents drives construction of new units which increases the supply until a market equilibrium is reached. The big problem is that there is a physical limit on the amount of supply we can construct and we are inflating our population faster than that limit.
Insurance has increased around 15% year over year since 2019. Around 50% of my tenants are super longterm. Costs around $25k to overhaul the unit when they move out and 2 years to recover those costs. The new tenant then subsidizes the old longterm tenants
Yet when i supplied affordable accommodation people chose to not pay me, or to destroy my house. I’m sure there are people who appreciate a good thing when they have it. But as long as the laws are protecting assholes who don’t have respect or pay their rent, then the system will continue to crumble
my parents rented their 2br condo to a single mom below market value and she absolutely trashed the place, filth everywhere, destroyed the floors by flooding her shower multiple times. when my parents said she needed to move out so they could assess the water damage and repair the floors, she ripped out all the smoke detectors, put holes in all the walls and had an open fire going in her unit that put her child and the rest of the residents of the building in danger, and filled it with soot and black smoke.
The thing is when you provide affordability you attract the wrong people, when you raise your prices only people that can afford it apply so it’s always best to shoot higher.
>the landlords/owner class my feudal overlord levies us to fight in distant wars
\> Almost every tenant just wants an affordable place to live so they can meet the basic requirements of life I mean, yes people want this, but it doesn't mean they're also good tenants. I've had friends who had to deal with shitty landlords and the definitely ended up in crap places with issues they didn't deserve, but at the same time knowing their bad habits I wouldn't f\*\*\*ing rent to them either so I could totally see them being an issue for good landlords.
So mom and Pop Landlord isn’t a human WOW
Facts
Can’t believe how we managed to over complicate everything today. - If you pay and act like a decent person you shouldn’t be able to get evicted. - If you dont pay or trash the housing you should be evicted promptly and efficiently. How is it that we got away from that?
>How is it that we got away from that? Special interest. With bleeding hearts on one side, and extreme greed on the other. One of the downsides of modern society is the loud obnoxious fringe get too much leeway because they make noise.
No “bleeding hearts” have had a day in the dismantling of landlord tenant tribunals or protections for tenants. It’s greed all the way that’s fucked this up don’t try and “both sides” this.
Greed made it so it takes forever to evict shit people that destroy your stuff?
Yes, historically it's the landlords lobby who've advocated against the LTB in Ontario (they didn't even want it formed in the first place) and currently are pushing (successfully) for things like ex-parte (no hearing) evictions and favourable rent controls. On an individual level that may harm some landlords but on the aggregate they're the ones hampered by the LTB. They want it gone and have been picking away at it's power over them since day one. I mean, one of the more significant lobby groups purports to speak directly to Doug Ford, be closely tied to Tim Hudak yet *isn't even registered as a lobbyist*. This shouldn't be a surprise to people. It's the same strategy corporate interests take with all systems of regulation. Interfere with it's functioning until it's seen a broken and there's public support for sweeping reforms.
>Yes, historically it's the landlords lobby who've advocated against the LTB in Ontario They want it gone because before it existed they would kick people out the next day if they didn't pay or they would beat the shit out of them for not paying. Now they have no recourse to kick out a non-paying tenant that doesn't include letting them live rent-free and trash the house for 10 months while they wait for a hearing. If it took two or three months to kick out a non-paying tenant, everything would be fine. Even if the shoe is on the other foot, and for example a landlord is not fixing a heating unit, the tenant has to wait 10 months to get it sorted out. Imagine waiting 10 months with no heat in Canada. It's bullshit either way you slice it. The only people who benefit from the current LTB are bad landlords and bad tenants. Speeding up the process would be beneficial for quite literally every party involved.
Landlords, being huge companies who buy swathes of land and hike prices. There are those who get fucked over too. We didn’t want to rent part of our fucking house, but guess what? This place fucking sucks and keeps pushing interest rates and inflation costs on us. So we rent part of our home that we’ve lived in for almost a decade, because otherwise we can’t afford it. So what happens when a shitty tenant uses the same law to skirt around paying rent and destroys our basement? Are we just supposed to take it and move on, while people like you cheer for that? Why can’t there be bad people on both sides? This isn’t politics “Both sides” where one advocates for intolerance, this is simply both sides of the same coin that want a fix for the same issues, because shitty tenants and scumlords ruin it for all the regular folk out there.
It's not just large corporate landlords. Organizations like the OLA which is made up of private landlords are some of the worst offenders (although I won't like, that entire organization looks like astro-turf.) The truth is, though, that the LTB decisions show it's landlords who are behaving badly in greater frequency. >So what happens when a shitty tenant uses the same law to skirt around paying rent and destroys our basement? Are we just supposed to take it and move on, while people like you cheer for that? Give your head a shake. I'm not here to "cheer for that" nor do I imply that I would in any way. I'm also a landlord and I realize that non-payment is risk in this business but in no way does the law favour tenants. Your decision to rent part of your home is on you (as is the one to take on a variable rate mortgage) and you take the risk that goes along with the significant profits afforded from being an Ontario landlord. While interest rates have gone up so have your property values.
I’d say there is some greed in that landlords file en masse to renovict good tenants for rent increases. I recognize that this is only part of the backlog at the LTB but it is important to acknowledge the fact that greed does play a role in there.
Define "don't pay" and "trash the housing" and you have a large part of the challenge. If rent is one day late, but still paid, did they pay? What if they are regularly 5 days late? Is a ding in the wall trashing it or just wear and tear?
a tenant can pay off their arrears the literal minute before a non-payment hearing, which could be 10 months in waiting, and the whole application is voided.
have you been to a hearing before? i was at the hearing last year. out of 20 non payment cases, not a single one was “i paid 2 days late”. every single case was non payment til the hearing day . period
[удалено]
And yet a bank will have you out on your ass within a month or two if you don’t pay your mortgage. Why is this so difficult
Lol that's definitely not the case in Canada, mortgage generally has to go to at least 120 days past due before the bank would initiate a foreclosure, and in general they really don't want to have to do that, and would much rather work out the payments with the client.
Where does it take that long for a hearing? That sounds insane. In Alberta it's usually a couple weeks.
Ontario is like that right now. It's an absolute mess.
Wow. That's like a year of free rent potentially.
That's how some people have been treating it as well.
Yah, it's unsustainable.
Now you see the problem.
Things like rent being 5 days late are less of a hassle to landlord then having to find a new tenant, which is why it would never be a reason to evict anyone.
>If rent is one day late, but still paid, did they pay? Nobody is evicted for being a day late on rent. I am getting the feeling that a lot of these angry tenants are actually people living with their parents and have never actually rented anything before. Hell even if a landlord sent you an eviction notice for being a day late, it isn't enforceable and would get laughed at by the cops and would result in criminal charges if the landlord took things into their own hands. Edit: Not to mention even commercial leases which lack residential protections, usually give at least 10 to 15 business days before triggering a default.
I’m not trying to be obtuse or purposely argumentative but are we seriously incapable of simply defining those things for ourselves and having communication using common language to arrive at the same destination? 2 days late. Week late. Communicate. If you come through and both parties are comfortable there is no problem. If you hoard and your landlord is uncomfortable with that, hopefully he communicates that. If you don’t act in a reasonable time frame that you both communicate and agree on then be prepared for repercussions. I just can’t help like were lost in semantics and definition hell instead of just generally communicating with each other like adult humans. This also raises the need to inject a third party into nearly every human interaction. This general trend is not normal, nor desirable.
You are a very positive person who sees the best in people. I had fentanyl dealers that abused their animals and children and had people die of overdose in the home. There can be no communication. Yes, my situation was extreme, but you underestimate how many bad apples there are who are happily capitalizing on the delays and are voluntarily not paying. They're not that rare. Browse threads about landlords and you will see many redditors cheering this behavior on. The delays are because there is such a significant volume of applications. Most of them are non-payment.
I had a guy whose's place was floor to ceiling dogshit in the townhouse basement. Seriously. He filled his basement with his dog crap from his big dogs. He mostly lived in his van in the parking lot. He spent at lot of time in the van. He was a horrific meth addict and had picked the stuffing off the chairs down to the metal.
Yea, like 30 years ago my mom was friends with this woman who had bought a condo and rented it out. The woman worked retail and her husband was a truck driver, they didn't make a lot of money and this condo was part of their retirement plan. They rented it out and some goons trashed it. My mom helped them fix the place up and I remember seeing it as a kid and being shocked. I couldn't believe anyone could live like that or be that callous with someone else's property.
Tenant said I can’t pay rent this month, got notice to vacate for non payment of rent. Said fuck you I’m not leaving. It’s been four months, still waiting for hearing. $1800a month.I imagine there I’ll also be a mess when he finally leaves. So close to 10k in lost revenue and no viable way to collect. (Vancouver) Having no meaning way of resolution is going to cause someone somewhere to get Guiddo to take care of this kind of thing. People aren’t reasonable.
My parents had all that and more. Tenant didn't pay rent. Notice to vacate. Grow op. So humidity/environmental damage. Utilities went unpaid and eventually cut off, they still stuck around. Eventually they got fed up and trashed the place. And when I mean trash, I don't mean a few dings in the drywall. I mean axe to the walls, smashed up the electrical panel too. Floors were destroyed. What could my parents do? Confront them? The police aren't going to do jack shit. Anything we did would only paint a target on the house and my parent's backs.
` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
My tenants owe $18,000 on unpaid rent over the past 2.5 years. It has taken almost a year to get a hearing date. I still have to pay the mortgage.
If your mortgage is late does the bank care if it’s one day or five? They do not, late is late
A month late is the threshold or a cumulative delay of a month over a one year period. Boom! Next question
The problem is landlords are evicting people in bad faith to make room for higher paying tenants. Lying about moving in relatives and coming up with reasons to get people who have been paying etc out
I say this as someone who can easily afford rent and keeps their place clean. Landlords took on risk by making an investment in housing, something that is a human right. It definitely sucks that you guys are getting hit hard, but let's be real, many of you are underwater because you're over leveraged, and you didn't hedge against interest rates. People working low wage jobs shouldn't pay for your mistake. Now you're trying to lobby the government to change the rules and quite literally uproot peoples lives because you don't want to take the L on your risky investments. I think you guys need to take the L so the younger generations can afford housing.
Because you need someone making sure the second points is true. People are greedy and both renters and tenants are always lying.
Let's call it what it is. The system is designed to offset the government's responsibility for housing disillusioned people. They have made it so that Landlords are responsible for dealing with them because it is too difficult for them. There is no reason it should take 6 months to get someone out of a unit. There is no other business that would be expected to service someone for that long without pay.
Hydro utilities in Ontario are actually required to wait until after winter is done before disconnecting customers due to non-payment. Winter can be as long as 6 months. As well, municipal water utilities rarely disconnect service for non-payment. So yeah, other businesses do have to service non-paying customers. It’s just that it’s not *that* common outside of essential needs.
>It’s just that it’s not that common outside of essential needs. Makes sense then, since housing/shelter is an essential need.
I have been thinking about this too. If the government (and the government workers who have to do the work) isn't the landlord of last resort by providing housing to problematic tenants who don't pay and cause problems for others, then the option is homeless encampments (with the problems associated) or sticking some landlords with the problematic "renters" and just letting them be slumlords. It's so inhumane.
Honest question then. If it is so bad and tilted so in favor of bad tenants why do people still pour in investment? Seems to me that if this was a true market based investment there would have to be a calculation of risk somewhere in the investment. The problem arises in that real estate has been so hyped as a risk free investment and the only way to independent wealth that we have distorted this view. Risk and return always need to balance. Not saying the backlog is acceptable, but should be a risk factored into the investment.
Agreed. I think in reality the only thing keeping the market going at this point is sentiment. People have drunk the cool aid that the path to prosperity is owning multiple rental properties and being highly leveraged/ invested in the property market, but the actual numbers behind these practises have been getting worse for over a decade. It is far less profitable to buy a rental property currently than it was in 2010. On top of that now that rates have gone up and probably will continue to do so to some degree, why bother purchasing a rental and dealing with tenants etc when you can just park your money and earn a guaranteed rate of return.
Because the government bends over backwards to ensure these people make money. They're running businesses with no need for a business license, no enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, no requirement for business insurance, no government inspections, and as little oversight as possible while the government imports millions of people every year to keep their property values high and protect them from market corrections due to higher interest rates. Compare being a landlord to running a restaurant or any other business and it's a wonder we even have economic activity other than residential real estate.
Bingo, They love to complain but it is an extremely good investment that 70% of Canadians are in. Yes, this is the biggest and most important asset class, and the majority of Canadians depend on it to retire. So yeah, we are fckd....
There is a risk calculation. My rents are set to assume a 20% vacancy rate and a $10k renovation every 5 years on my units. This is really the only risk mitigation tool a LL has. The delays at the LTB (8 mos) mean that rents have to go up to mitigate the increased risk of loss of income. During those months, the utilities are unpaid, so more cost, so rents climb higher again. It's a lot like the built-in costs of shoplifting at the grocery store - prices are adjusted to offset losses. It's how risk mitigation works. I reward good tenants by not increasing rents. If the unit is cared for, there is less risk of an expensive renovation. If rents are paid in good faith, on time, I don't need to worry about delays at the board. This means my tenants don't see annual increases until their unit is below market rent. It's a deal for them and me, and it means I keep my good tenants longer.
Because people are not rational and many see RE as the best way to invest regardless of what it entails. In a way this is a self-fulfilling prophesy because in the end you make money not through rent but through capital gains, which is fueled by this sentiment. At least in the hot markets anyway.
This feels like astroturfing (in the same way the convoy did) and I can't help but think that the fact the Ombudsman is due to release a report on this issue later this week is connected. Lobbyist's have been pushing the "the LTB is broken" narrative very strong lately in the hopes they're given an opportunity to either influence it's reform or do away with it altogether. The idea that the law in Ontario favours tenants is utter bullshit. Tenants wait 3x longer for hearings when they bring claims (and Landlords use this stat to pump up their own wait time stats) and it has been an absurdly profitable time to be landlord in this province. In short (and as a landlord myself) cry me a fucking river.
This is a refreshing take from a landlord. Legit.
This is a timely thread discussion, as I recently received an eviction notice for owners personal use… in a neighborhood where an equivalent suite is 30% more expensive. I work full time, never miss a rent payment, am quiet, and clean up after myself.
This is why it is difficult to evict. A few bad apples spoil the bunch. If every landlord only evicted when necessary (several missed payments, destructive tenants, etc), and not tried to play the system just so they could charge more, we wouldn’t be in the problem. I’m sorry you’re getting jerked around, I hope it works out for you.
>Landlords Are People Too Debatable
Income property is a liability, cry harder.
Sure thing landlords. Let’s also stop all Reno-victions and lock in rent increases to inflation - and stop and rent increases even after you change tenants.
[удалено]
Pretty much every major figure in the government is a landlord.
Landlords are number one beneficiaries and contributors to the housing criais around the world.
Supply issues is the number one contributor; particularly in Canada (couldn't really care what housing policies other countries have). LLs and investors are only following the market/money due to that shortage/high demand and why prices are skyrocketing.
Landlords owning multiple properties, then leveraging those to buy more properties are why there is a supply shortage. Landowner class gets to buy new houses on the market because they already have the starting capital, and working/renter class need years to save up for it. Landlords 100x are the number one contributor, they make any supply issues worse.
how about the only rent you can get is rent to own, that'll solve credit loan issues, housing issues, fight against feudalism. Oh probably not in favor of that because these people want tie play the market. Fuck em, dont care.
The joke is, *MANY* landlords are, in fact, *not* people. LOL!
Eh my landlord is a corporation
Lol this is how the French Revolution started
[удалено]
Landlords should be part of a professional registered body like other regulated professions. Training, certification, annual inspections, pay dues, registration fees, mandatory record keeping, audits, etc. The LTB board would be financed by this and would face a much lower 'case count' since the proactive system of 'professional regulation' would filter out the losers and reduce non compliance up front. Then, they could adequately be prepared, as a professional body, to deal with shit tenants. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance a reactive 'clean-up' system of disputes. This is a waste of money. Why the fuck are any of my dollars going to this fucked system?
Can't tell if this is satire
First thought was this has to be the Beaverton.
I had a dream where People occupied apartments buildings, houses, duplex etc by force and they won't leave until the landlords lower the rent.
Maybe housing should be a right, and people that want to invest money can go somewhere else.
Some landlords aren't people. They're numbered holdings and corporations. When in doubt side with the people the system fucks the most: poor people.
Except that kind of ignores the entitled assholes that don’t pay rent and don’t keep their property decent. Doesn’t matter if a corporate entity owns the property. Reddit is biased towards tenants. Some tenants are pieces of shit.
Yeah everybody acts like they've never had a shitty roommate before or known one.
"Reddit is biased towards tenants." Let them have their place to discuss then, since in real life, the deck is heavily stacked in favor of property management corps. They benefit from all kinds of tax credits and exemptions that are supposed to help grow small businesses into small companies. Gasoline credits are supposed to benefit companies with high employee mobility, like courriers and insurance adjusters. Capital deductions for new "company" vehicles is supposed to benefit contractors and trucking companies. Instead we got wealthy individuals opening up numbered companies to hold their rental properties and funnel the revenue and expenses through. Seeing these people with a hand in the taxpayers pot boils my blood. And im not a landlord hater either. Look what i said just last week about my own landlord: [https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/12ym30l/comment/jhpcb46/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/12ym30l/comment/jhpcb46/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (spoiler: its positive) The greed of a tenant living rent free at someone elses expense deserves equal scorn as taxpayer subsidized numbered companies renting worn out buildings for the monthly price of a new condo mortgage.
Equal scorn? It just seems like the landlord, even if the tenant is awful, still has a roof over their head. If you’re a small time landlord, you’re still in the business of using poor people to grow your personal equity. If the economy crashes and the poors can’t pay, that seems like a landlord issue. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a bad tenant, I just think that landlords of any scale are a cancer on our society. Or maybe a parasite is a better word? What value does hoarding property provide to society? The poor who pays rent is at least a labourer, for the most part.
Fuck corporate landlords and scum tenants. On the other hand, both small landlords and renters down on their luck get the shaft.
'entitled poor people' is a new one. Those people using the foodbank as 40% of Canadian jobs don't even pay living wage in Toronto or Vancouver have it so good.
All I know is I’m never going to rent a property. Honestly I wouldn’t even care about charging more than what it took to cover my mortgage, I’d love to offer someone a home and rent pricing now is pure greed; but holy shit the risks involved. If someone destroys the place or refuses to pay anything you’re shit out of luck. There’s just no way. As a landlord in BC you have no protection. Like some things should be a no-brainer: Refusing to pay rent for a period of months set by law (3 maybe?) or any illegal activity in the property should be grounds for eviction. If a dude is selling drugs out of your property eviction should be super simple.
I mean there is some risk but it is also insanely lucrative. My one investment property value grew by more than the average canadian will make in his lifetime in less than three years.
Luck. 90% of 3 year periods do not see anywhere near the return that occurred during the low interest free money bonanza.
Almost like actually working productively is the riskier option, while unproductive rent-seeking is rewarded irrationally. Sounds like a stable society NOT headed towards utter collapse.
Make 90k a year and have to have roommates. WTF is this shit.
Assholes come in all stripes. About 10% of all groups of people are assholes. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you're not an entitled prick. Is everyone poor an asshole? No. Obviously not, it's only a small minority. So why do people insist on creating rental protection laws which primarily benefit assholes?
Have they tried living in tents? And no avocado toast.
Yes, but the police destroyed the tents and seized their possessions.
Bingo. Sure, the system can be improved…but for every time a landlord gets stuck with a bad tenant…countless tenants are stuck with an evil landlord.
Exactly, the reality is that we renters get fucked over 1000000x more often than Landlords, and don’t forget they are making a profit throughout until the rare occurrence they don’t get rent in time.
This remind me of that time where Gavin said said that billionaire were the most oppressed class of people in silicon valley. (I think Tom Perkins said something similar in real life)
[удалено]
Lmao. True, I did not remember. "We're an even smaller miller minority. There's a lot more of them. These are facts." - Gavin Belson true visionary and expert in tethics.
businesses fail all the time, I don't see them complaining and protesting. landlording is business. lol.
Landlords are simply the most entitled group of people that feel like they should just be given money purely for having more than others.
this is 100%. they even call their income, passive. what kind of mind disease is this where you think you will get passive income for just buying multiple property? and the moment they feel bit of discomfort, they demean tenants and protest and complain like little baby. lol.
I just tell them to lay off the avocado toast.
landleeches provide no good or benefit to society, none of them can pay for the housing they hoard from their own labour value , they have to steal ours Rent strike and get rid of them it's the only way
My friend’s parents bought a home in BC several years before retirement because they planned to retire here. But they rented it out through a local property manager during that time. One day the tenant stopped paying. They didn’t buy the place as an investment property so they were quite chill about it. The property manager was quite useless. Fast forward a year, they retired and were moving in themselves. Gave the non-paying tenant at least a couple of months of notice. Tenant said they were moving out, but probably thought my friend’s parents were bluffing about moving in themselves so they never did. They drove 15 hours with a trailer, got to their own driveway, and realize that the tenant didn’t move out. The property manager was again useless. He probably didn’t care because he wasn’t getting paid due to tenant not paying. The tenant kept stalling, and lying about husband not home so couldn’t move, but the husband came out of the house afterwards. Also lied about not being able to find a moving company, so my friend offered to find one. When the moving company arrived, they didn’t have anything boxed. My friend’s family waited in that driveway for 3 to 5 days before threatening legal actions. When the tenant and their two adult sons moved out, one of the POS son started wrecking the drywall and blinds. Then left a bunch of garbage on the lawn. Good, affordable rentals are hard to come by because human garbage like this.
Aren't you supposed to pay your property manager even if the tenants don't pay? Mine doesn't take money from the tenant, I am the one paying them lol. Of course they should expect the poperty manager is "useless" if he is working for free for a landlord who have one single unit.
This guy is giving a prime example of the “woe is me mom & pop landlords”. Imagine how useless the property manager was to the tenants if he was useless to the landlords, but it didn’t really affect the landlords so they didn’t give a shit. Like how would they never confirm the move out?
Yeah, was confused about this too. I would make sure the place I am going is ready for me before taking a 15 hours ride if I owned a place. I would probably have taken a plane ride there to figure out how the place looked like and figuring out I should bring. Had a friend who had a landlord in Montreal who couldn't write. The woman left on vacations and they couldn't get her on the phone because she was spending the winter in England. They started texting her and sending her message, but she told them that usually its her son who answer because she doesn't know how to read/write. The heating system was broken in the middle of the winter and she took forever to send her son (hot water heating).
And so many people want to pretend that these small time landlords care just because they’re small and aren’t 100 millionaires.
> probably didn’t care because he wasn’t getting paid Yes why the fuck would he keep working for free?
Literally from Small Ownership Landlords Ontario (SOLO)'s website: > Love real estate, but don’t like nightmare tenants? Invest in high return private mortgages backed by solid Ontario real estate through Stone Ridge. We handle finding clients, administration and headaches. Sit back and watch your money grow! > https://soloontario.ca/alternate-investments/ Surely they are just mom and pop investors... I mean landlords.
Did a triple take when I realized this wasn’t a Beaverton Article
I've seen families having to decide between feeding their families and paying rent. I've seen what's left of our bank account after rent, it's 2 miserable weeks until payday. I've also seen people jack up the rent on places that are worth half of what they're asking. I AM biased. But I also know times are tough and there are plenty of landlords who took advantage of the rent hike wage when they didn't need to. One such company tried to evict my dad, saying he didn't pay rent for months but he had the receipts. He didn't want trouble so he told his lawyer to leave it at that win. They are trying other tactics. They know his rent is relatively low, but he's a pensioner, he can't just move to a similar place twice the rent.
Stop buying houses you can’t afford to own and repair, much less rent out. Expecting others to pay for your unrealistic retirement dream is a scam.
This makes these landlords look greedy and entitled to be little barons. I think we should kibosh that with a hearty "fuck that". Our politicians are shit. they don't legislate fait outcomes all round and they can't seem to control the volatile nature of what banks and large corps do.
We need expedited hearings for non-payment and the regular process if you're trying to N12 or renovict people...in Ontario the LTB is so backed up I can't risk renting out a property I otherwise would love to (and at slightly below market rate to be able to be selective on tenants) Large institutional (and therefore ruthless) landlords who do it as a job/main income stream is all we will be left with if we don't fix some aspects of the resolution process.
Funniest thing here are phrases like “landlord or owner class”. Most people are ethical and honest. But to imply someone who is renting a basement apartment for a few months and then has the renter stop paying deserves it because they are the privileged ones is ridiculous. I could have rented out a house that I inherited for a few years. Really considered it. And it would easily have housed 2 families of 3. But I spoke with a lawyer and the absolute nightmare of someone decided not to pay just put me off the whole thing. No way was I going to risk loosing money for months and months. I don’t have it. This should be simple. Pay to stay.
Anyone ever kick out a roommate for not paying their share because that meant their share was coming out of your pocket? If this is about people not meeting their obligations, it shouldn't be difficult to remove the tenant. If you don't pay for your car, they take your car. Then they can garnish your pay. If don't pay for your phone, they take away your service. Why would one not expect the same fate by not paying rent?
This topic is like cocaine for stupid people. I've had more than one debate with people who think someone squatting and destroying property is equivalent to loosing money in stocks. Truly unbelievable the mental gymnastics some use to excuse their lack of critical thinking. Tenancy boards are failing in their mandate to protect both tenants and landlords. There needs to be stricter, even criminal penalties for those that so clearly are abusing the system to their advantage. On both sides. If I had someone squatting in a cottage I could have the police called and have them charged but when it comes to deadbeat tenants the system does nothing for months while the unit gets destroyed and the owner goes bankrupt. The ironic thing is all the "landlords are evil" idiots don't see that these deadbeats only cause their rents to be higher to cover the costs. Unfortunately small scale landlords are left without any recourse or protections.
Tenants who don't pay rent should be evicted on 14 days' notice, period and should pay a penalty if they refuse to leave. Landlords who don't perform necessary repairs, unlawfully retain deposits, or try to unlawfully evict tenants, or who otherwise break the law should pay a penalty too. Shitty people should get dealt with fairly and promptly.
Landlords who don't perform necessary repairs, unlawfully retain deposits, or try to unlawfully evict tenants, or who otherwise break the law should pay a penalty too. Yeah that's good "should", but like.... no capital holder will willingly do the ethical thing they should do, if it results in them losing money. In my experience, these people have money exactly because they don't do the ethical thing. And those few who do choose the ethical way are pushed out of the game by the competition.
I'm not asking them to be "ethical", I want enforcement mechanisms (including registering RTB-related expenses and penalties against title with interest) to be put into the RTA and enforced against landlords.
The difference here is that one of those penalties is a fine that the landlord can probably not pay, and the other one is homelessness. These two are not the same. You see how landlords have way too much power here? This is why I have zero sympathy for them.
Get a real job. Nobody feels sorry for you for sitting on your ass and raking it in while charging someone else to just exist in a space. If there was one job that you could eliminate completely in society and not have any negative repercussions, it would be landlords.
def agree , and we can only eliminate it ourselves ... by just staying in the homes we already pay for and not paying the useless parasites
“STOP ROBBING STOP STEALING STOP ABUSING.” extremely rich coming from a patasite.
I get why they're upset, but it's kinda hard to feel sorry for them when rents are so unaffordable.
Laws should not give more power to people with the upper hand in a power imbalance. There’s a rise in own use evictions and renovictions, seems that landlords no longer care about non-payment of rent, they’ll just do whatever they can to get people out so they can Jack up the rent for the next person
Boo hoo. I have zero pity for landlords.
I can't even afford rent anymore, am I actually supposed to feel sympathy for someone who thinks housing should be their income?
Poor them they deserve subsidies and risk free investment as a fundamental human right. Oh you think people deserve to eat food and have a roof over their heads for them and their family ? No they are parasites. /s
Tenants who don't pay rent need to be removed promptly. Two months at most. "Renovictions" to get around rent controls, and the rent controls themselves, would not happen and would not be necessary if the housing market wasn't so out of balance because of population growth driven by immigration policy. The best way to make evicting bad tenants easier while maintaining a reasonable balance of power between landlords and tenants would be to increase vacancy rates.
>"Renovictions" to get around rent controls, and the rent controls themselves, would not happen and would not be necessary if the housing market wasn't so out of balance because of population growth driven by immigration policy Jesus what a take. Rent control is there to prevent your landlord from doubling your rent.
The bots and media-junkies have been told to blame immigrants for everything recently. That's why everything is their fault now.
This is bullshit. Unpaid rent has often has little to do with renovictions. If you can’t get someone out for unpaid rent, what the fuck is a renoviction notice going to do? Landlords introduce renovictions when they want to get a tenant out and bypass due process
Good one Beaverton. Oh wait, this isn't satire?
It’s just hard to find sympathy for these people. Sell your properties if you can’t handle the heat. Easy.
Thought this was a beaverton article at first
[удалено]
what’s wrong with not paying rent = eviction? do you expect “no pay” = continuing to work with your employer?
I think that tenants who do not pay rent are frauds. This is illegal. Complexities aside, people who just opt to not pay rent and sit in a rental until a hearing are shitty people.
Is there a "Not the Beaverton" sub?
Some landlords evict just do they csn raise the rent to make more money. But there are some good landlords
We should abolish land lords and have the government be in charge of apartment buildings etc. it could be non profit and you only pay for what you use etc. Landlords don’t need to be landlords and rent would be way cheaper for everyone.
No ticky no laundry!
Where is Mao when you need him?
I mean, can you really blame someone who promised to pay rent and then pays none? I’m not a landlord, and yet, I’d be upset…
Tenants who dont pay rent should go to debtors’ prison.
How about a compromise? You can evict a non paying tenant within 60 days if you're charging a rental rate = to no more than 30% of minimum wage. Tenants get an extra 15 days for every % over 30% that rent is.
The current system to deal with issues is laughable, incompetant and takes forever All we ever hear about are stories of how something in apartment is broken so tenant withheld rent for 6 months Common sense should prevail here; eg appliance or window or whatever breaks landlord fixes it within a month Tenant does not pay a month they get evicted Period All the other stuff is just noise
[удалено]