Notley’s Bill 202 targets Alberta landlords: NDP busybodies trample private property rights

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3189763
http://www.630ched.com/2016/03/31/polic ... drug-bust/

And Bill 202 is a Private Members bill, not a government bill.

Yep. It's about control. ROFL Keep up with the tinfoil hat there Ezra. It's good for a laugh.

What, you think this is about drug houses I really don't see the connection. There's a Dippers name on the bill, that's all i need to fucking see.

Come to Vancouver, Ezra and explain your theory of market correction of high rents. We could use a laugh.

I so love how Vancouver and any city in Alberta are instant and equal comparables when wanted...

Yet, no city is in the same class as Vancouver any other time.

You are correct...it did induce a laugh.

That aside, if I have to cut rates any further, to maintain the occupancy rates I require, it will be time to start selling off or rebuilding into something else.

I guess this is the 'risk' part of the fun.

As for the bill...let's see if they actually take the input they claim to want, and work towards changes that benefits all, or at least don't destroy one side.

In that case the bill shouldn't affect you at all while Alberta is in a slump, should it? Does the bill actually set rents at all, especially lower than what you say you charge already?

This bill has the power to change how I would recover from the current slump. (Nothing in this bill will take any sort of effect for at least 9 months, if I read that properly)

When times get tough, rent goes down, I lose money. When times get good, rent goes back up, and I recover my loses from when times were tough. I maintain a level of occupancy because it helps mitigate building degradation, which keeps my maintenance costs in check.

If the government gets to dictate what rents I will be restricted too, that changes my recover strategy, possibly to the point of making it financially unviable.

If you own your buildings outright, or are a major property owner, you are probably going to see through this. If you are a single, or small number operator, with debt, you could be in some serious trouble.

I will with hold my final judgement on this bill until I see who ends up on the committee. If it is nothing but big players, I am going to start exiting residential rental ASAP.

I paid $1200 a month between 4th and Broadway in Kits yet a friend who lives near Kits beach pays $3000 a month. He could afford to buy but he said it's not worth it because when the bubble bursts he doesn't want to be holding the bag, point being when that bubble does burst it will impact the rental market in Vancouver.

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.

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.





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.

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.

OTOH, with a vacancy rate of .6% in Vancouver, landlords can also play silly buggers with tenants. Just find a reason to evict, raise the rent as much as you want for the next tenant. Many won't give back damage deposits. And so on.

It's a balancing act. Maybe the bill is a response to landlords having it all their own way for the last how many years, just comes at an unfortunate time.

Depends on when you bought the property. Property values aren't static, when times get good, initial buy in price goes up, higher rental rates are required to break even, tough times get ugly fast.

Call me when tenants can be held liable for damages they caused, past the security deposit.

Than we can start to discuss 'equality' in the arrangements.

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