[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

In BC we have the Residential Tenancy Branch. They administer disputes between landlords and tenants. Rent increases (unless you've fixed up the place) are limited to I believe 2% a year. Damage deposits (unless you have pets) can only be 1/2 month's rent.

Landlords complain that the Branch gives tenants too much power, and we do hear of horror stories where landlords can't get tenants that cause problems out. For instance a landlord was cited for tenants having a grow op in their unit, but the RTB wouldn't let the landlord evict them.

We have something similar, but the exact opposite. It's nearly impossible to get any matter resolved through them. It's usually easier to go through small claims court.

But that does nothing for renters who can't get their sink fixed, but still have their rent autowithdrawn on time. That's what this legislation seems to leading up to - some return to balance. Or, we can go full Ezra and assume the NDP are trampling property rights that we don't actually have.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

They are. It's called small claims court. You couldn't charge enough damage deposit just in case a tenant really goes on a wrecking spree anyway, and still have a full building.

Call me when you have figured out how to collect Canadian small claims court winnings from a foreign citizen. Or from a Canadian citizen that doesn't have a pot to piss in.

$1:

And if you try to recover your overall damage costs from tenants that didn't do any damage, that would be wrong.

That would be called business. My costs are covered by my clients, or I am not in business.

I wonder where everybody stays if I have to liquidate the place? At current, I will lose far less moving an empty lot than I will holding an aged building, that loses money, indefinitely.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

Well, you should have built up quite a piggy bank by now, since times have been good for a long, long time. So if the downturn is short, you should be doing great anyway, by your strategy, if it's a long downturn, rent increase controls shouldn't really be the worry since raising your rents too much will just give you empty buildings.

I got lucky the garden suite is in a house that's owned, mortgage paid off. Other renters might not be so lucky if the home they're renting in gets foreclosed leaving them technically homeless with building vacancies full.

A friend lives in Beaumont and has been renting a house for years, all the repairs she pays for herself because she's scared if she calls the landlord he will use it as a reason to evict her, that's no way to live because renters do have rights.

[andyt]

peck420 peck420:

andyt andyt:

They are. It's called small claims court. You couldn't charge enough damage deposit just in case a tenant really goes on a wrecking spree anyway, and still have a full building.

Call me when you have figured out how to collect Canadian small claims court winnings from a foreign citizen. Or from a Canadian citizen that doesn't have a pot to piss in.

If they don't have a pot to piss in, how do you expect to recover your damages up front anyway? As I say, trying to charge enough damage deposit for the potential damage a tenant can cause is a mugs game. You just have to do a better job of selecting your tenants. If you're taking anybody and everybody just to fill the building, that may not go so well for you.

peck420 peck420:

$1:

And if you try to recover your overall damage costs from tenants that didn't do any damage, that would be wrong.

That would be called business. My costs are covered by my clients, or I am not in business.

It's not business to charge damages to someone's damage deposit that didn't do the damage. That's called fraud. Of course your rents overall have to cover your expenses plus profit, so unfortunately people pay higher rents than they would otherwise have to. Just as we all pay higher prices at the store to pay for theft loss.

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Of course you don't, because already Ezra told you what to think.

That ^

The surest way to destroy a city, short of dropping an A-bomb on it, is to enact rent control measures.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

If they don't have a pot to piss in, how do you expect to recover your damages up front anyway? As I say, trying to charge enough damage deposit for the potential damage a tenant can cause is a mugs game. You just have to do a better job of selecting your tenants. If you're taking anybody and everybody just to fill the building, that may not go so well for you.

Next time I will defer to your omnipotence. The person that doesn't have a pot to piss in today was making just under 6 figures a couple months ago.

$1:

It's not business to charge damages to someone's damage deposit that didn't do the damage. That's called fraud. Of course your rents overall have to cover your expenses plus profit, so unfortunately people pay higher rents than they would otherwise have to. Just as we all pay higher prices at the store to pay for theft loss.

When you have owned more than the space in your mother's basement, come back.

Of course I don't directly charge one tenant for another tenants damages. The fact that you need that spelled out says an surprising amount about you.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Of course you don't, because already Ezra told you what to think.

That ^

The surest way to destroy a city, short of dropping an A-bomb on it, is to enact rent control measures.

Well, if that's such a bad idea, maybe the gumbymint should take better care that neither landlords nor tenants are getting fucked by the other.

For example, my wife's nephew lives in a "co-op" complex but they don't do fuck all about problems. The light at the top of his stairs has been dead for over a year. It's not that the light bulb is burnt out or there's a problem with the light fixture, it's a problem with the goddam wiring going to the fixture. At one point they told him that they won't fix it because he doesn't have enough "cop-op participation points" or some shit. That, despite the fact that a light at the either the top or bottom of a stairway is actually part of the building code. But the "co-op" doesn't care. Some of the units are townhouses, many of which have rather sizable cracks in their foundations. There's been no effort to fix that either.
I rather suspect they went the co-op route to do an end run around part of the landlord-tenant act.

OH, and the rent he pays is $890/mo for what is essentially a ghetto apartment. Hell, the entire south end of Oshawa is just one big ghetto and you'd be hard pressed to find a two bedroom for less than $900/mo.

There's a high-rise dump right by the beer store in South Oshawa. And I mean it's a dump. I wouldn't live there if you gave me an apartment for free, for life! And yet they're charging over $1000/mo for a 2 bedroom, although the cockroach and rodent infestation comes with no charge.

[andyt]

He's not a tenant if he lives in a co-op. It's essentially like living in a strata condo - if the majority of owners vote against what you want, you're farked. You relative should have realized this when he went for it - he's not a tenant but a co-owner. If it's a legitimate co-op, nobody's doing an end run around anything, because there's nobody to profit by that. Coops I know about usually charge by the someones earnings, there's no one fixed rent price. They take in some people that pay market rent (due to their income) to help with the bills. Sounds like your relative is one of them, if he's paying a high price. His only hope is to quit seeing himself as a tenant, but a co-owner and get involved in the coop and see if he can persuade people to his pov. But many may consider themselves lucky to have the place they do, be willing to put up with some problems. "Every form of refuge has it's price."

[andyt]

peck420 peck420:

andyt andyt:

If they don't have a pot to piss in, how do you expect to recover your damages up front anyway? As I say, trying to charge enough damage deposit for the potential damage a tenant can cause is a mugs game. You just have to do a better job of selecting your tenants. If you're taking anybody and everybody just to fill the building, that may not go so well for you.

Next time I will defer to your omnipotence. The person that doesn't have a pot to piss in today was making just under 6 figures a couple months ago.

$1:

It's not business to charge damages to someone's damage deposit that didn't do the damage. That's called fraud. Of course your rents overall have to cover your expenses plus profit, so unfortunately people pay higher rents than they would otherwise have to. Just as we all pay higher prices at the store to pay for theft loss.

When you have owned more than the space in your mother's basement, come back.

Of course I don't directly charge one tenant for another tenants damages. The fact that you need that spelled out says an surprising amount about you.

And the insults start when we were doing so well. Guess I hit a nerve, will leave it at that.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

And the insults start when we were doing so well. Guess I hit a nerve, will leave it at that.

The insults started when you insinuated that I operate illegally.

[andyt]

Nope, you inferred it. Since we were talking about damage deposits, I inferred you'd understand that I was talking about those deposits, not rent when I made that statement.

[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

For example, my wife's nephew lives in a "co-op" complex but they don't do fuck all about problems. The light at the top of his stairs has been dead for over a year. It's not that the light bulb is burnt out or there's a problem with the light fixture, it's a problem with the goddam wiring going to the fixture. At one point they told him that they won't fix it because he doesn't have enough "cop-op participation points" or some shit. That, despite the fact that a light at the either the top or bottom of a stairway is actually part of the building code. But the "co-op" doesn't care. Some of the units are townhouses, many of which have rather sizable cracks in their foundations. There's been no effort to fix that either.
I rather suspect they went the co-op route to do an end run around part of the landlord-tenant act.

OH, and the rent he pays is $890/mo for what is essentially a ghetto apartment. Hell, the entire south end of Oshawa is just one big ghetto and you'd be hard pressed to find a two bedroom for less than $900/mo.

There's a high-rise dump right by the beer store in South Oshawa. And I mean it's a dump. I wouldn't live there if you gave me an apartment for free, for life! And yet they're charging over $1000/mo for a 2 bedroom, although the cockroach and rodent infestation comes with no charge.

You're illustrating exactly what I meant in my statement. When the landlord can't get market value for his units, of course he's going to let them fall into disrepair. That's how we get ghettos. If the landlord got fair market value, instead of the government-imposed price ceiling, then he'd likely do the repairs. But if he has a property he knows is worth $1500 a month and he's only allowed to charge $1000 for it, he's going to refuse to do repairs and let the unit fall to the point where it really is worth what he's allowed to charge for it.

And we haven't even talked about the homelessness, the reduced number of units on the market or the nasty schemes like "key money" or the "points" scam that your nephew is subjected to.

This is what rent control gets you. This is New York City, not Beirut:

[Alta_redneck]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

What, you think this is about drug houses I really don't see the connection.

Of course you don't, because already Ezra told you what to think. The bill is to start the process to find out why renters pay so much for such crappy accommodations.

That particular landlord is famous for being a 'slum' landlord, and half the reason the legislation was proposed.

$1:

3(1)
Within 9 months of the date on which all members of the Committee are appointed, the Committee shall prepare and submit to the Minister a report on the accessibility and affordability of housing in Alberta, which must include any recommendations of the Committee for improving the access of all Albertans to safe, appropriate and affordable housing.
(2)
The report must include, but is not limited to, a review of the following subject areas and any related recommendations of the Committee:
(a) rent regulation;
(b) rent subsidies;
(c) security deposits;
(d) affordability of rental rates including rates for the rental of
mobile home sites;
(e) affordability of home ownership and mechanisms to support affordability.

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

There's a Dippers name on the bill, that's all i need to fucking see.

Heaven forbid that an elected member of the Legislature actually propose legislation. And just ignore, again, that Ezra is calling this a 'Government' bill by 'Notely' - both of which are intentionally incorrect.

Your really choking the chicken on this one you dog fucker

You can post as many stories about drug houses and slum lords as you want, this bill is the start to rent controls for Alberta. I have 5 rental properties all in good shape and at least $200 below market value right now. Anytime I see shit like this i'm pretty sure the comminust party of Alberta is about to fuck me over and I don't need Ezra to tell me that.

Private members bills when they are part of the government, the rest of the dog fuckers that don't have a cabinet post go into a caucus meeting and pass around a jar of Rachel's pet projects. This one got Rent Controls, yeah it's a private members bill alright..

[DrCaleb]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Your really choking the chicken on this one you dog fucker

Insults? Why is it when your argument crumbles, you always turn there?

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

You can post as many stories about drug houses and slum lords as you want, this bill is the start to rent controls for Alberta.

No, it's not. I posted the bill. Second post in this thread, if you'd like to review. No where in it does it discuss that.

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

I have 5 rental properties all in good shape and at least $200 below market value right now. Anytime I see shit like this i'm pretty sure the comminust party of Alberta is about to fuck me over and I don't need Ezra to tell me that.

"Anytime"? When has anything like this been proposed before? Never.

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Private members bills when they are part of the government, the rest of the dog fuckers that don't have a cabinet post go into a caucus meeting and pass around a jar of Rachel's pet projects. This one got Rent Controls, yeah it's a private members bill alright..

You might want to look into the difference between the "Party" and the "Parliamentary Government". And there are still no rent controls.

Lets review shall we?

Ezra says: Ezra says::

NDP busybodies trample private property rights

What rights?

Ezra says: Ezra says::

Rachel Notley has a new bill that attacks property owners.

The bill is sponsored by Ms. Luff. And what, in this small bill, attacks property owners?

Ezra says: Ezra says::

Bill 202 can make drastic changes to how Alberta landlords manage their rental properties

Which section of the bill is that? Please quote it.

Ezra says: Ezra says::

Officially, the law mandates that a committee review five areas the NDP find concerning. They include rent regulation, rent subsidies, security deposits, affordability of rental rates for the rental of mobile home sites and affordability of homeownership and mechanisms to support affordability.

Oh, look! Some truth! {claps hands}

Ezra says: Ezra says::

Landlords come in many forms beyond the capitalist pig slumlords that exist in the NDP nightmares. Landlords can be our grandparents using a second home as a retirement investment. Landlords can be our struggling neighbour who built a basement suite to help pay his mortgage while he’s laid off from their oil patch job.

Appealing to the emotion in people, while saying nothing important. ". . . Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Why is it that every time I tear down Ezras bullshit, you will just go on posting more of it A_R? Is your cognitive bias so hard wired that you really can't see past this man's shtick?

[peck420]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Anytime"? When has anything like this been proposed before? Never.

These topics have come up in Alberta Legislature a couple of times. The most recent being 2007.

They have always (as far as I can recollect) caused dissent to one party (landlords, tenants, and the sub categories inside those) or another.

Doesn't seem to matter which government does it, they all make the same mistakes. Consult the public first, than the pertaining industry, than draft the preliminary bill. When it starts with the drafting, too many find it far too convenient to put negotiation points in right off the bat, which makes the damn things appear much worse than they usually end up being.