So this is Christmas

[fluffy]

But is that not what the NDP has just done? They have taken personal choice out of fixed term leases even if both parties agreed to it. The NDP have in fact pretty much made a lease for tenancy impossible with regards to term. All a tenancy lease is now is a rule sheet on how often the lawn must be cut because everything else is in the RTA.

If you are correct, and the tenant at the Centre has legal grounds to stay, then yes, that is what the NDP has done. Once a landlord, always a landlord. They have legislated away the Centre's ability to change direction in the way they use their property, and to me that doesn't sit right.

Maybe that's the way of the future, where the "haves" are bound by law to support the "have nots" in greater and greater measure. I can't say we haven't asked for it, the issues of income disparity, precarious employment, homelessness and poverty show no sign of any relief if we stay on the current course.

[twobits]

[
If you are correct, and the tenant at the Centre has legal grounds to stay, then yes, that is what the NDP has done. Once a landlord, always a landlord. They have legislated away the Centre's ability to change direction in the way they use their property, and to me that doesn't sit right.
Maybe that's the way of the future, where the "haves" are bound by law to support the "have nots" in greater and greater measure. I can't say we haven't asked for it, the issues of income disparity, precarious employment, homelessness and poverty show no sign of any relief if we stay on the current course.

You get it now. Sort of. You admit that it is wrong for the Gov't to take away the ability for a property owner to change direction in the way they want to use their own property. But then you go on to say that this may be the way of the future where the "haves" are going to be bound by law to support the "have nots". Do you realize the significance of this? The owners and suppliers of rental accomodation did not create income disparity, precarious employment, or poverty. They just simply invested in land while others chose 60k trucks or other lifestyle income bleeding methods. They invested in their communities. And now they are "once a landlord, always a landlord" which I take as a rather derogatory slam for people that have just worked and invested to better their own situation and future.
But back to the significance. The best way I think is to just ask, "what will happen to the supply of rental accomodation when the gov't dictates what return that investment is going to be"? Does anyone think the supply will increase or will it become even less in which case what remains will never meet the demand for what is needed? Who in their right mind is going to invest say 500k for rental accomodation when the annual allowable rent increase is limited to 4% before expense increases and ignores the the return of capital invested elsewhere?
I'll answer that for the the finaciancilly challenged.....money will divert to something else that the Gov't does not control the rate of return on. And further to that, many rentals will now be sold to owner occupiers taking rental inventory even lower than it is now in an already under serviced market. The NDP didn't help the rental market at all....they just made it worse.

[fluffy]

Derogatory slam? Hardly. You tend to read a lot of crap into other people's posts that isn't in their intent, you might want to put some work into that. I was referring to the idea that once someone puts a property up for rent they are stuck in that format by rule of law, the same issue I've had problems with since I entered this thread.

The real estate market in BC has seen some action over the past three or four decades. It started in Vancouver but has spread from there and is now so widespread that it is having serious ramifications all over. it does come don to return on investment to be sure, and short of government regulating that return what other remedies are there for people that don't have the financial means to purchase? Are we headed for ever increasing supplies of government subsidized housing? I have a couple of children in their early thirties who are grappling with the reality that they have to have a $100K in their fist just to buy their way into a $1500/month mortgage payment. Luckily for them they have good jobs and some brains and may be able to pull it off without having to wait until their Dad is in the ground, but such is simply not the case for people trying to get by on low paying, zero-benefit jobs. Can we as a society simply leave these people on their own with a clean conscience? Sure, an investor is entitled to a decent rate of return, that's the way the system works. But what about when that rate gets excessive to the point where a whole segment of society gets left in the dust? Especially in situations where the product being supplied is sub-standard. Yes, that's when government needs to step in.

[twobits]

The real estate market in BC has seen some action over the past three or four decades. It started in Vancouver but has spread from there and is now so widespread that it is having serious ramifications all over. it does come don to return on investment to be sure, and short of government regulating that return what other remedies are there for people that don't have the financial means to purchase?

Shall we talk about gov't regulation? We can start with nanny state building codes. They have become huge costs to the cost of housing. There are countless example of this in the name of safety that stretch the limits of common sense. How about the requirement to place porous gravel and ventilating piping network under the concrete slab of any home that must be vented to the outdoors to protect against the buildup of radon gas in the living space? How many illnesses have been documented in the Okanagan? Adds 5 to 20 k depending on the building. A real beaut I like is no home in Vancouver can install a round doorknob anymore just in case someone that is handicapped might occupy that space in the future. Like they couldn't change their own doorknobs should they move in for a cpl hundred bucks. Instead, every building built must comply.
Snow loads where none exist except for once every 500 yrs. Restrictive zoning practices that prevent densification of a property without also having to build sidewalks where there were never any to having to replace the water and sewer line for an entire block complete with curb and gutter and new asphalt for the development of just one lot.
Or how about not just expanding the City Boundary to increase the land base to drive down the price of land in a land constrained geography such as Pentiction? I could go on but I have lost everyone that might want to know already as it seems most are just happy to sell water and sewer capacity outside of City boundary's and let those areas collect the property taxes.

[fluffy]

Yes, Government is just a fraction of the problem facing us, but the roots are always firmly set in money. Everybody wants more and they really don't care where it comes from. I realize that in free market capitalism one is free to charge what the market will bear but that does lead to greater and greater gaps between those who can afford it and those who can't. In regards to the original topic, just as a property owner should have the freedom to do with his property what he wishes, a line gets crossed when rent gets too high, especially so when the quality of the rental property is questionable. We end up with people running themselves into ruin just trying to keep a roof over their heads. But just who says where that line falls? Return on investment is a good measure in some aspects, it would tie rental rates more closely to the actual value of a property but the baseline there would be the purchase price of a property plus the value of any improvements. As purchase prices climb, so does rent. As prices in general climb, so does pressure on government support programs. Throw crime rates into the picture and it starts to look even worse.

I don't have the answers, but I do think that if things continue along the road we are traveling now something is gonna snap.

[twobits]

Yes, Government is just a fraction of the problem facing us, but the roots are always firmly set in money. Everybody wants more and they really don't care where it comes from. I realize that in free market capitalism one is free to charge what the market will bear but that does lead to greater and greater gaps between those who can afford it and those who can't. In regards to the original topic, just as a property owner should have the freedom to do with his property what he wishes, a line gets crossed when rent gets too high, especially so when the quality of the rental property is questionable. We end up with people running themselves into ruin just trying to keep a roof over their heads. But just who says where that line falls? Return on investment is a good measure in some aspects, it would tie rental rates more closely to the actual value of a property but the baseline there would be the purchase price of a property plus the value of any improvements. As purchase prices climb, so does rent. As prices in general climb, so does pressure on government support programs. Throw crime rates into the picture and it starts to look even worse.

I don't have the answers, but I do think that if things continue along the road we are traveling now something is gonna snap.

Ya, it's gonna snap unless the Gov't, both Provincial and Municipal don't wake up to the desperate situation that is evolving. Both ridiculous codes that drive up costs, caving to nimbies that don't wan't to see the character of the neighbourhood changed, and then approving secondary suites or carriage houses as a measure of relief only to tax and license the crap out of any incentive to do so don't help the situation.
Just last year we had the City of Penticton on a blitz to crack down on illegal secondary suites while the next press release says they are doing what they can to provide affordable housing. Rationalize those two conflicting actions and the end result is the City is just looking for tax revenue. And the spin is public safety.
The City of Vancouver has turned a blind eye to secondary suites for 40 yrs now. Can you imagine the housing crisis they would have today if they demanded their pound of flesh for every suite that provided housing. Personally, I don't think it is anyone's business except maybe CRA if I rent a room or two or the basement of my house to someone to have an affordable place to live without the City taking a cut. The City is acting like a mafia where they feel they have a right to a piece of the action.