Moonlight Graham Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 (edited) 10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: The thing I see from this is that they're aware that there's a big problem. To fix it, though, they have to impact the revenue of a significant part of the economy. People paying high unaffordable rents is far, far more important than the extra income for people who can afford investment properties they rent out. Imagine someone caring more about people who own 1, 2 or more properties vs someone who owns zero properties. The high rents and high housing prices are destroying the standard of living of Canadians. If incomes don't keep up with rent and mortgage increases then people are literally poorer. It means the vast majority of other industries in the country are going to suffer because working people have less money to spend because more of their paycheck is going to to their rents and mortgage. No matter what, one group is going to lose here, and it's either going to be new renters and new home owners or current property owners. The richer group should not win here over the poorer group. Edited March 28 by Moonlight Graham 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 33 minutes ago, Army Guy said: I agree IF this was the case, that being said investing into rental properties is still a very, very lucrative business opportunity, with people more than ever getting into the market, there is tons of room before it negatively impacts owners bottom dollar to where they are losing money...And now with government dollars and grants available to everyone it would be hard not to get into the market...even low income rental housing is making huge profits... Not sure exactly what justin new policies are, or how they will effect the owner, or renter, but i'm pretty sure it is like all the other liberal policies are not going to accomplish much, in solving the rental pricing issue or give voters a leg up...I'm hoping i'm wrong...but history shows other wise. A landlord does not get his house or apartment building built any cheaper than you or I. His mortgage on the house is the same as you and I. Someone has to pay for that and, it will be the renters. I am not so sure that more and more people are getting into the rental building market. If that was the case, there would be more being built and the politicians et al would be praising that. Being a landlord is not an easy thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 15 hours ago, CdnFox said: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/trudeau-housing-renters-bill-of-rights Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his plan for a new Canadian Renters’ Bill of Rights Wednesday to help young people get a foothold in the housing market. His proposed plan contains three main items: Renters would know a unit’s rental price history to bargain appropriately Creating a federal legal aid fund to help renters right bad-faith evictions Making credit bureaus take rent payments into account when calculating someone’s credit score, in an effort to help them qualify for a mortgage Trudeau made the announcement ahead of the 2024 federal budget from East Vancouver, the most expensive city in the country for renters. So. This is how desperate and useless he is. THis is a provincial matter and all provinces already have their own residential tenanacy boards and laws to protect renters, and they are extensive. knowing what the last guy paid is USELESS. Creating a legal aid fund that landlords KNOW will be abused to attack them just reduces the number of rental units out there. Only the largest cutthroat rental companies with big legal budgets will bother - more of the smaller investors which until recently made up the majority of renters will get out of that market and rents will go even higher. People are not failing to get a mortgage because their credit scores are bad - they can't get a mortgage because the cost of a downpayment and a mortgage is through the roof. And I would bet that making your rent report any late payments to the credit bureau will hurt far more than it helps. I hope the ndp realizes what a disaster this is and smartens them up. Canada has an housing crisis alright because the idi0tic dictator in Ottawa keeps bringing in millions more of new legal and illegal immigrants by the hundreds of thousands every year into Canada. What else can be expected to happen when the idi0t in Ottawa keeps bringing in more new immigrants with nowhere to house them? Common sense tells me that. Unfortunately for Canadians, the dictator in Ottawa has never shown that he has ever had any common sense since the day he was hatched into the world. I wish that we could be able to put him back into his shell and roll the shell down the road and into the river. Just saying. 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: A landlord does not get his house or apartment building built any cheaper than you or I. His mortgage on the house is the same as you and I. Someone has to pay for that and, it will be the renters. I am not so sure that more and more people are getting into the rental building market. If that was the case, there would be more being built and the politicians et al would be praising that. Being a landlord is not an easy thing. He does if they qualify for any government grants or loans, somehow i don't think they are worried about not making a payment to the bank.......Here in NB a lot of people are getting tax breaks for renting out basements etc, and for the most part the renters are paying the full mortgage amount in rent... hence why more and more people are doing it having granie suits put in the basements...rent pays the mortgage payment, owners put the same down on the mortgage doubling up the payment it is a win win... Here in Gagetown there must be atleast 4 major apartment buildings being built by 2 different companies...each with about 40 units each, for a small town that is a lot of construction, not counting the low income apartments which there is 2 of them being built with 20 apartments' each. Politicians don't even know were Gagetown is except when there is a military photo op... Nobody said being a land lord is easy, just that they are making a good dollar for their service...and rent would have to slide a huge amount for them not to cover their expenses...besides most of the rental units here are own by maybe 4 different people or companies...the rich get richer...as they say. Edited March 28 by Army Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuebecOverCanada Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 11 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Yup, more rights for renters = less rental units will be built. Bottom line is if landlords cannot recover costs then why bother building. That's when provincial governments come into play and build social housing, and make the Feds pay for it. The Feds forced the provinces to have unsustainable population growth. The Feds caused this housing crisis by not enforcing laws on immigration and to even favour those who cheat the system. Thus, the feds have to pay for the social housing through transfers to provinces who will have to handle the construction of all the units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 Totally ignoring that over 40% of rising construction is for rental units, ignoring that the market builds housing not the govt and ignoring the Libs are doing something instead of nothing at all. Just like for the climate change yap, do nothing, blame the other guys for everything and prey on the fact people don't "like" paying. Are any of you griping even renters, or landlords for that matter? You already own a place, hopefully with the mortgage paid off or at least locked in. So you either want to rent part of your house, or buy another place and rent the other to pay the mortgage of the 2nd one. If so you'll be in it to make money so get with the program. You're not gonna "like" more tenants rights, that's all there is too it. No matter who makes the laws. My kids have rented, one's been in the same place for 6 years and it's been flipped 4 times. Each with a rent increase. Don't give me the BS it's the fault of govt's fault when its the market that makes it that way. If you want the govt to supply housing then you're a leftist by definition as that's what they did with veterans housing after war when people weren't snivelling under the bed about lefties. And they sure as hell didn't blame immigrants then either. Not like the Syrian, Afghan and Ukranians are all coming loaded with cash and buying up $2 million homes. They're just as f*cked. My kids haven't even opened a tax free home savings account yet but they're better than most - have good jobs and drive a beater or hand me down instead new cars, boats, seadoos and snowmobiles, saw how fast DoorDash and Gig internet cost and cut back. Most of them won't. Want all, right now, all at once. As for the last bit about the credit rating, that makes common sense. For those smart enough not to incur even more debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 29 Author Report Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: somehow i don't think they are worried about not making a payment to the bank. They are. Most landlords in Canada are small investors who own 1 - 3 revenue homes. Until recently that was the biggest source of rentals. We don't build purpose built rentals anywhere remotely close to our needs - and the vast majority we do build are where the gov't lets developers build bigger bulidlings if they build a little rental with it. So those small investors for the most part have rather large mortgages. And when you look at the total costs (strata fees, property taxes etc) the vast majority will break even or SLIGHTLY LESS every year if there's no unusual damages and the tenant pays thier rent. Now - lets look at 2020. In parts of canada Condo insurance - the single largest expense for stratas and for strata fees - went up by 200 - 600 percent. Strata fees doubled in many cases. Without warning. This had nothing to do with covid btw. And because most provinces have rent control the landlords had to bear that extra cost - hundreds of dollars a month that they couldn't get from the tenants. And then covid - where most gov'ts said you couldn't kick someone out even if they didn't pay their rent. But the landlord still had to pay the mortgage. I know of many that got stuck with that and wiped out. The gov't just decided that they would make landlords responsible for the social safety net - "Here - YOU pay for this social benefit". No compensation, no forgiveness and it went on for years. then inflation hit - the cost of strata fees went up again and maintaning homes went up and interest rates shot throught the roof - but that's ok becase rent had always been tied to inflation right? The gov't held the rental increases to inflation - coudln't charge more than inflation. So - that always hurt them in the past but now landlords would be able to raise their rates based on inflation.' NOPE!!!!! Gov't banned that too. They decided it would be unfair for renters to have to pay increases based on inflation being that high!!!! SO they lowered the amount they could raise it. Again - gov't decides that hte landlords will pay for the gov'ts social agenda. Now landlords are fleeing the market and selling either to very wealthy people who can afford their home or investment companies who see the writing on the wall and know rents will just go up. And they're buying less and less - and developers have started buildling fewer homes in anticipation that sales will weaken. Which means fewer rentals. The landlords are VERY concerned. And if the tenants had any brains they'd be very concerned that the landlords are concerned 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 29 Author Report Share Posted March 29 1 minute ago, herbie said: Totally ignoring that over 40% of rising construction is for rental units, Nope. Not even close. Quote ignoring that the market builds housing not the govt and ignoring the Libs are doing something instead of nothing at all. The gov't's polcies affect inflation and interest rates and that directly impacts the number of homes built. And the gov't directly controls the number of people that are coming to canada - they know how many homes are being built - they bring in more than that knowing it will cause problems. Experts went to the liberals - their OWN PEOPLE did - and warned of this years ago. Sorry punkin - it's the liberals. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 19 hours ago, CdnFox said: So. This is how desperate and useless he is. THis is a provincial matter and all provinces already have their own residential tenanacy boards and laws to protect renters, and they are extensive. ... Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 (edited) 21 hours ago, CdnFox said: .... Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his plan for a new Canadian Renters’ Bill of Rights .... The US Bill of Rights restricts what the State can do. Our Charter of Rights restricts the State. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1.3593955 Edited March 29 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 Brian Mulroney (un pleutre) according to Pierre Elliot Trudeau: https://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/French/Arguments/trudeau-la-presse-87.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 13 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said: That's when provincial governments come into play and build social housing, and make the Feds pay for it. The Feds forced the provinces to have unsustainable population growth. The Feds caused this housing crisis by not enforcing laws on immigration and to even favour those who cheat the system. Thus, the feds have to pay for the social housing through transfers to provinces who will have to handle the construction of all the units. Oh, like in China or Russia or Cuba or North Korea?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venandi Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Oh, like in China or Russia or Cuba or North Korea?? Not my first choice, but if you support unhinged immigration levels that exceed (virtually) every measurable aspect of "minimum infrastructure required", then it may qualify as an alternative to shivering in a tent. As an exflyer, I suspect you know exactly what happens when "maximum thrust available" equals "minimum thrust required." If you consider things like housing, inflation, taxation, regulatory environment, policing, medical availability, etc as the rising ground in that scenario then I don't think anything we're seeing here qualifies as surprising. Personally, I would have jettisoned all armament and been dumping fuel long before this, no fuel dump checklist either, just radar, HF, transponder and TACAN off followed by the smell of freedom. Up next is that distinctive tink, tink, tink tink sound as all thrust levers hit the stops. Edited March 29 by Venandi 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Venandi said: Not my first choice, but if you support unhinged immigration levels that exceed (virtually) every measurable aspect of "minimum infrastructure required", then it may qualify as an alternative to shivering in a tent. As an exflyer, I suspect you know exactly what happens when "maximum thrust available" equals "minimum thrust required." If you consider things like inflation, taxation, regulatory environment, policing, medical availability, etc as the rising ground in that scenario then I don't think anything we're seeing here qualifies as surprising. Personally, I would have jettisoned all armament and been dumping fuel long before this, no fuel dump checklist either, just radar, HF, transponder and TACAN off followed by the smell of freedom. Up next is that distinctive tink, tink, tink tink sound as all thrust levers hit the stops. I was responding to quebecovercanada absurd comment "That's when provincial governments come into play and build social housing, and make the Feds pay for it." Asking him if Canada should become a communist country and provide everyone with free housing. Are you agreeing that the feds provide everyone with free housing?? I never said anything about immigration. Not sure what you are trying to convey with your flight analogy. Edited March 29 by ExFlyer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 And to add, failure to plan for growth is a separate problem. Stopping immigration is a response to that. As a public, we are starting to discuss immigration reduction without the usual knee jerk cries of racism. We're doing it because the governments are all inept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 Nobody knows this guy's name, nor does he even have a Wikipedia page His LinkedIn doesn't say much either https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielbrownuk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuebecOverCanada Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Oh, like in China or Russia or Cuba or North Korea?? Yeah and I've heard those Communists also have State funded roads just like Stalin wanted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said: Yeah and I've heard those Communists also have State funded roads just like Stalin wanted it. Duhhhh, who do you think funds the roads here??? Oh wait...the state?? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venandi Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Not sure what you are trying to convey with your flight analogy. Actually, I think flight analogies make perfect discussion points and apply to many of the issues under active consideration here. Assessing weather conditions, developing options in dynamic environment, maintaining control of a large beast with significant inertia whilst analyzing malfunctions, taking corrective action and followup action is exactly what we haven't been doing as a nation. It's a world with measurable consequences that tends to punish "strength of an idea" (dogma) on first contact. It's eating our lunch right now IMO. That said, your point is well taken. If you don't get it then no doubt my intent is lost in translation, I'll refrain from further aviation indulgences in future. I just found your screen name intriguing... sorry. Edited March 29 by Venandi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 8 minutes ago, Venandi said: Actually, I think flight analogies make perfect discussion points and apply to many of the issues under active consideration here. Assessing weather conditions, developing options in dynamic environment, maintaining control of a large beast with significant inertia whilst analyzing malfunctions, taking corrective action and followup action is exactly what we haven't been doing as a nation. It's a world with measurable consequences that tends to punish "strength of an idea" (dogma) on first contact. It's eating our lunch right now IMO. That said, your point is well taken. If you don't get it then no doubt my intent is lost in translation, I'll refrain from further aviation indulgences in future. I fully understand aviation but I do not get your analogy at all with regards to renters bill of rights. Yes, it did get lost in translation. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 29 Author Report Share Posted March 29 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: And to add, failure to plan for growth is a separate problem. Stopping immigration is a response to that. As a public, we are starting to discuss immigration reduction without the usual knee jerk cries of racism. We're doing it because the governments are all inept. That is not accurate in the slightest. That would be like saying how much you earn and paying the bills are seperate issues. They are 100 percent intrinsically linked. You can Only have as much immigration as you have planned for. If you have not planned for the growth in population that a given level of immigration will result in, then you simply cannot have that much immigration. There's nothing need jerk about it. Currently our immigration exceeds our planning. It must be scaled back, or the planning has to improve which will take years. Your comment is as silly as stabbing yourself in the leg with a fork and then claiming that removing it is a "Knee jerk" reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 31 Report Share Posted March 31 (edited) Son accent est faible. Edited March 31 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 2 Report Share Posted April 2 Housing prices and rent prices are determined by supply and demand. We either need to increase the supply or reduce the demand. Increasing supply is complicated, and probably not a lot the federal government can do. Regulations and red tape are probably more on the provincial/city level. On the demand side, the central bank has already fiddled with interest rates, which is outside the fed gov's control. Demand-wise you can also control the rate of population growth since much of it is based on immigration, foreign students/workers etc. Some level of gov also needs to reduce the incentive for housing speculation, i suggest taxes. We need to stop buying 2nd and 3rd homes etc as investments en masse. Invest in the markets, your own home, and your RRSP like people used to do. The people who buy homes should live in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted April 2 Report Share Posted April 2 He's doing this to get votes, we know he's bad because he's sending weapons to Israel to accelerate the genocide of the Palestinians 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venandi Posted April 2 Report Share Posted April 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gaétan said: he's sending weapons to Israel to accelerate the genocide of the Palestinians Talk about thread drift eh? But after two extended peacekeeping tours and a bunch of training with the IDF, I've come to the conclusion that Palestinians can have peace any time they want it. Imagine negotiating your property line (for that new fence) with a murderously hostile neighbour committed to burning your house down and poisoning your dog. In my experience, the word "genocide" (the crime of crimes) is often bandied about by people who can't get through a two hour "March Holiday" supper with their in-laws. But maybe that's just me. Your mileage on the Salah al din road may vary... it's one of those no win debates I usually avoid, unless it's too cold or too rainy to paint. The sun is out and the temperature is going up which means the final word goes to you. Edited April 2 by Venandi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.