this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
42 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7417 readers
597 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Especially if the building is already paid off, it never made sense that rent needs to match market prices to cover costs. The tiny increase in property taxes and maintenance costs is more than covered by the allowed rent increases.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it never made sense that rent needs to match market prices to cover costs

Because you're not looking at it through the eyes of a greedy landlord that wants to make more money.

[–] apprehensively_human 2 points 1 year ago

You're right. We should be removing their eyes!

[–] errorgap 4 points 1 year ago

I could see maintenance costs increases being not insignificant over time. Parts/appliances had gone up notably, as has materials and the cost of people to do the work. There's also some issues with receivables which may end up needing to be written off, and deliberate damage over time. Generally, these do need to be accounted for on a going-forward basis.

That said, none of these should have increased nearly so much as the cost of property and overall rents. They should account for a reasonable increase over time, instead what we see is increased to cover the cost of the mortgage on additional rental properties etc

[–] Pxtl 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Buildings have costs beyond mortgage, especially ones that are old enough to be paid off.

I support rent control, but "no sudden shifts in rent" rent control, not "rent must be frozen in amber and can only be raised below inflation levels" rent control. The market changes over time. Otherwise we get the "f you I got mine" problems we have with homeowners, where nobody has to care about new people looking for housing because every existing owner or renter can ignore market reality.

If we want to eat the rich, just tax them more. I like Jagmeet's idea to increase cap gains inclusion to 3/4 instead of 1/2.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don’t worry, there isn’t a rent control anywhere in Canada that’s “frozen in amber”. I’m reminded of the economist Lawrence Summers who gave an example of worrying about the wrong thing in policy: “I’m overweight and I need to lose weight. It’s true that if I lose too much, I could starve to death and die, but that’s not my problem.”

Rent being too low is not our problem.

[–] Pxtl 2 points 1 year ago

Rent controlled apartments are still capped at 2.5% increase per year.

Yes, while anybody who is not in a rent controlled unit is facing a bloodbath, plenty of people are seeing their rents go down once you figure in inflation. It's just that "dog doesn't bite man" is even less of a news story than "dog bites man".

[–] Pxtl 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Want to really hurt these people? Build some competing buildings so they can't charge whatever they want for rent.

If it's so profitable, the public sector can pull it off and make a mint that can go to services.

It's win/win! Government gets more money to help people, and landlords face downward pressure on rent.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Great idea!

Just make sure it's not anywhere near me.

/s