New letter to the editor.... rentals

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby Anonymous123 » Dec 16th, 2017, 8:21 pm

kelofornia wrote:What exactly defines market value here in Kelowna?????

After viewing dozens of rental properties (mostly suites but some homes) I have concluded that home owners are wanting tenants to make a full mortgage payment. That is not the intended purpose of a rental suite.....they have been for generations a mortgage helper.

I believe many home owners fudged the numbers to get themselves into a property out of their income bracket and now expect a tenant to make a full mortgage payment in the form of rent. THAT FOLKS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. A suite was never meant to be a mortgage maker.....but a mortgage helper. Yes there is a difference.

When karma hits this valley in the form interest adjustments there's going to be some really nice foreclosures.


Is that when you will become a home owner?
We See
We Judge
User avatar
Anonymous123
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2305
Likes: 1681 posts
Liked in: 1157 posts
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 5:02 pm
Location: The fine line between reality and fantasy

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby vegas1500 » Dec 16th, 2017, 8:31 pm

kelofornia wrote:What exactly defines market value here in Kelowna?????

After viewing dozens of rental properties (mostly suites but some homes) I have concluded that home owners are wanting tenants to make a full mortgage payment. That is not the intended purpose of a rental suite.....they have been for generations a mortgage helper.

I believe many home owners fudged the numbers to get themselves into a property out of their income bracket and now expect a tenant to make a full mortgage payment in the form of rent. THAT FOLKS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. A suite was never meant to be a mortgage maker.....but a mortgage helper. Yes there is a difference.

When karma hits this valley in the form interest adjustments there's going to be some really nice foreclosures.


You clearly don’t understand the concept of owning rental properties. I DO expect the rent to cover my full mortgage payment, taxes, strata fee if applicable and some “extra” to cover unforeseen repairs, etc. each one needs to be cash flow positive or it’s pointless for me to pursue this type of investment. It is a business and I’m not sure how many businesses don’t want their costs covered,and to make a profit...... and it should be illegal??? So should nonsense posts...

6 people like this post.
User avatar
vegas1500
Übergod
 
Posts: 1142
Likes: 3384 posts
Liked in: 1472 posts
Joined: Aug 4th, 2013, 6:53 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby MalaPropina » Dec 16th, 2017, 9:12 pm

kelofornia wrote:What exactly defines market value here in Kelowna?????

After viewing dozens of rental properties (mostly suites but some homes) I have concluded that home owners are wanting tenants to make a full mortgage payment. That is not the intended purpose of a rental suite.....they have been for generations a mortgage helper.

I believe many home owners fudged the numbers to get themselves into a property out of their income bracket and now expect a tenant to make a full mortgage payment in the form of rent. THAT FOLKS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. A suite was never meant to be a mortgage maker.....but a mortgage helper. Yes there is a difference.

When karma hits this valley in the form interest adjustments there's going to be some really nice foreclosures.


Cleary many people are not familiar with the concept of income property. The entire purpose is to generate income through rentals or leases. Its not at "helper". Its an income generator. There is nothing illegal about it. You claim the income on your taxes and take deductions where applicable.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
MalaPropina
Fledgling
 
Posts: 165
Likes: 64 posts
Liked in: 122 posts
Joined: Jul 23rd, 2009, 2:56 pm
Location: West Kelowna

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby PocoGirl » Dec 16th, 2017, 9:34 pm

Completely agree Vegas. I literally laughed out loud at Kelofornia’s comment about rent shouldn’t cover the mortgage. Seriously? Lol I pretty sure I’m not in this to be in the red from mortgage and other expenses for the fun of it. It’s my way of security for the future now and it’s just business common sense.

3 people like this post.
PocoGirl
 
Posts: 40
Likes: 85 posts
Liked in: 59 posts
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2017, 7:25 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby jasond_71 » Dec 16th, 2017, 9:36 pm

Some rentals are "mortgage helpers" some are investment properties where landlords rent the entire house.
Why would anyone invest in a house unless they made a profit????
That's called a charity or government subsidized housing.
Housing is expensive to buy in the Okanagan so rents have to be high to afford a rental property. If no one bought rental property there would be way less rentals and rents would be even higher.

seewood likes this post.
jasond_71
Fledgling
 
Posts: 293
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 201 posts
Joined: Aug 25th, 2006, 9:22 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby pepecat » Dec 16th, 2017, 9:44 pm

kelofornia wrote:What exactly defines market value here in Kelowna?????

After viewing dozens of rental properties (mostly suites but some homes) I have concluded that home owners are wanting tenants to make a full mortgage payment. That is not the intended purpose of a rental suite.....they have been for generations a mortgage helper.

I believe many home owners fudged the numbers to get themselves into a property out of their income bracket and now expect a tenant to make a full mortgage payment in the form of rent. THAT FOLKS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. A suite was never meant to be a mortgage maker.....but a mortgage helper. Yes there is a difference.

When karma hits this valley in the form interest adjustments there's going to be some really nice foreclosures.


So if a person buys a house with the intention of renting a part of it out, he should have to ignore the going rental market rates and instead set the rent price based on a percentage of his homeownership costs? And if a homeowner has owned his house for many years and then decides to rent part of it out, he should ignore the going rental market rates and instead have to set the rent price based on a percentage of his homeownership costs?

And so it is should be illegal to rent out your property for the going market rate. To be legal, you should have to base the rental fee on your own personal financial standing. You can't rent out your property for more than a fair share of what it costs you to keep it. If you have no mortgage payments to make, then you should rent out your basement suite for almost free, because you have almost no costs.

3 people like this post.
pepecat
Fledgling
 
Posts: 342
Likes: 37 posts
Liked in: 281 posts
Joined: Jul 8th, 2009, 12:00 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby normaM » Dec 17th, 2017, 7:04 am

well except that if you rent out your basement as an illegal suite - any damages ( fire, etc) will not be covered by your insurance.
It is expensive to have a suite made legal so ppl opt for the latter.. not a wise decision imo.
Income properties are exactly that, to generate income. Cant expect to not have rent increases when everything including property tax continues to climb.
Don't think yourself as an ugly person... Think of yourself as a beautiful monkey
User avatar
normaM
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15458
Likes: 3869 posts
Liked in: 2381 posts
Joined: Sep 18th, 2007, 7:28 am

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby LANDM » Dec 17th, 2017, 8:58 am

kelofornia wrote:What exactly defines market value here in Kelowna?????

The same as for everywhere else: a price that a willing buyer pays a willing seller for a product or service.
Not much mystery there.



After viewing dozens of rental properties (mostly suites but some homes) I have concluded that home owners are wanting tenants to make a full mortgage payment. That is not the intended purpose of a rental suite.....they have been for generations a mortgage helper.

Interesting conclusion! But, you aren’t really "up" on these matters, are you?
If someone is renting, it is a business and they can run whatever numbers they wish on their business. If you don’t want to pay, you aren’t forced to. Move along to someone who is running their business as a charity.


I believe many home owners fudged the numbers to get themselves into a property out of their income bracket and now expect a tenant to make a full mortgage payment in the form of rent. THAT FOLKS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. A suite was never meant to be a mortgage maker.....but a mortgage helper. Yes there is a difference.

Once again, you don’t have a lot of insight or experience in this, do you? A business covering costs should be made illegal?
While the statement is laughable, the fact that someone actually said this and believes it is almost unbelievable.


When karma hits this valley in the form interest adjustments there's going to be some really nice foreclosures.

What you view as "karma" is simply normal changes which affect the market and it won’t be any different than any other time. Some people will be in trouble and most will be fine.
That you take joy in this is weird.


5 people like this post.
LANDM
Guru
 
Posts: 5954
Likes: 1551 posts
Liked in: 3027 posts
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 11:58 am

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby seewood » Dec 17th, 2017, 10:03 am

Regarding the OP and the letter in question: Yes, I agree, it is all about the money. Money the owner of the property requires to receive a fair return on their investment, to pay for the property taxes, to pay for the insurance on the structure, to pay for the inevitable upkeep and maintenance. Money the renter has to come up every month to have and keep a roof over their heads.
It is all about the money, no question.
Some here feel landlords are charging a rate that they feel is covering 100% of their mortgage, well that might be true if the landlord has a fair amount of principal in the property and the monthly mortgage amount is comparatively low. I have a difficult time if the landlord has a $600,000 mortgage and expects a renter to pay say $3500 month rent.. maybe they do.. Maybe the rental rate does not cover the mortgage and the landlord is ok with that as they will subsidize it to some extent but the value of the property is going up year on year.
As mentioned here, a private landlord is not in it for charity. I believe they are in it to make money or pay the structure off. They have money from somewhere to purchase a rental property or house with a "mortgage helper" suite to get ahead in life and have a bit more comfortable retirement when the time comes.
Want or need cheap rents....subsidized government rentals with...rules :up:

I hope schools will offer a mandatory class where the cost of living is clearly explained and what kind of incomes are needed to survive. What type of careers offer those incomes to live somewhat comfortably.
Hell, a private first class in todays Canadian army I found out receives $52,000 year and can live in the barracks till they get sorted.
I am not wealthy but I am rich

643dpb likes this post.
seewood
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 876
Likes: 1639 posts
Liked in: 929 posts
Joined: May 29th, 2013, 2:08 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby Bpeep » Dec 17th, 2017, 11:17 am

normaM wrote:well except that if you rent out your basement as an illegal suite - any damages ( fire, etc) will not be covered by your insurance.
It is expensive to have a suite made legal so ppl opt for the latter.. not a wise decision imo.


They'll insure it within certain provisions, separate from the other residence upstairs, separate entrance etc, and it's declared that its a rental and the policy is amended so.
The "legal" or " conforming" aspect is more regarding municipal bylaws or a provincial code.
If you are reading this, you are not Amish.
User avatar
Bpeep
Mindquad
 
Posts: 28265
Likes: 12030 posts
Liked in: 9581 posts
Joined: Mar 1st, 2008, 11:05 am
Location: Surrey-By-The-Lake

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby TMBOkanagan » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:01 pm

PocoGirl wrote:Hi everyone, I view these forums often and comment rarely. Usually because I forget my password lol. Please don’t hate or presume all Landlords are evil and doing it for a cash grab when raising rent. Here’s my story as a Landlord and no word of a lie. I bought a three bedroom townhouse in Vernon (well, the bank owns two thirds of it) in Feb 2016. On March 1, I have tenants (family with four young children, now five children believe it or not). Being a first time landlord, I hired a company to source and do credit checks etc to find quality tenants at a reasonable price and charging the going rental rate similar units. They moved in March 2016 and I did not raise the rent this year March 1/17, even though property taxes and strata fees went up yet again. Last summer, my tenants requested a fence be installed and I agreed with the understanding between us, if it was reasonable. Also, I was thinking this could be a win win as when I do plan to resell the unit or maybe rent out again (big maybe) the fence is a selling feature for people with kids and pets as well as being able to write it off. I also asked how long their intentions were and was told another 2 years due to upgrading in his career as a Geologist. With this in mind, I said, property taxes and strata fees have gone up and no doubt will go up over the next year, if I do this are you okay with an increase of $25 per month starting in March 2018) They were fine with this as in their words, it’s reasonable and agreed. Soooo, guess what? They’re happy, I’m happy. Win win :smt045 An added note, this landlord, takes in an extra $45 per month after expenses of mortgage, property taxes and strata fees. Don’t forget, I have to cover anything that might go wrong. Another thing, there’s also bad tenants and good tenants. Two sides to every experience. Cheers :130:


It may only be $45 a month right now - but how much has your property value increased over the last 2 years?
TMBOkanagan
Fledgling
 
Posts: 116
Likes: 444 posts
Liked in: 69 posts
Joined: Aug 8th, 2016, 2:02 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby Urban Cowboy » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:16 pm

Seems many are taking exception to kelofornia's post about rent not being there to cover a mortgage.

I took that post in a different way, in that I believed what was meant was, to give an example, if someone goes out and purchases a home, and has a mortgage of $2000 a month, it's not right to rent out a portion of the basement, and expect the rent to cover said mortgage.

On the other hand if the whole home is being rented out, then naturally the rent has to cover the mortgage plus some extra for incidentals.

Anyway that was my take on it, and in that regard I somewhat agree.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Urban Cowboy
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3795
Likes: 3654 posts
Liked in: 5535 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 3:47 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby JLives » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:18 pm

jasond_71 wrote:Some rentals are "mortgage helpers" some are investment properties where landlords rent the entire house.
Why would anyone invest in a house unless they made a profit????
That's called a charity or government subsidized housing.
Housing is expensive to buy in the Okanagan so rents have to be high to afford a rental property. If no one bought rental property there would be way less rentals and rents would be even higher.


Housing is expensive to buy now. It wasn't so bad 10 years ago when I bought. Or 20. I highly doubt the majority of rental properties were purchased recently. If noone bought rental property it would drive prices down. We'd have more owner occupied homes and less renters. That's a good thing.

Viewing rental properties as a business is a big problem in our society. It reminds me of health care in the US. Housing is a need, not a want, and we are gauging people for it. Prices are artificially inflated and people are working their butts off just to keep a roof over their family's heads. Nevermind taking some time and having an actual life. It drives down the quality of our communities.
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."

Urban Cowboy likes this post.
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15704
Likes: 3042 posts
Liked in: 5615 posts
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 11:53 am

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby Jhunter199 » Dec 17th, 2017, 1:00 pm

JLives wrote:
jasond_71 wrote:Some rentals are "mortgage helpers" some are investment properties where landlords rent the entire house.
Why would anyone invest in a house unless they made a profit????
That's called a charity or government subsidized housing.
Housing is expensive to buy in the Okanagan so rents have to be high to afford a rental property. If no one bought rental property there would be way less rentals and rents would be even higher.


Housing is expensive to buy now. It wasn't so bad 10 years ago when I bought. Or 20. I highly doubt the majority of rental properties were purchased recently. If noone bought rental property it would drive prices down. We'd have more owner occupied homes and less renters. That's a good thing.

Viewing rental properties as a business is a big problem in our society. It reminds me of health care in the US. Housing is a need, not a want, and we are gauging people for it. Prices are artificially inflated and people are working their butts off just to keep a roof over their family's heads. Nevermind taking some time and having an actual life. It drives down the quality of our communities.


Even if majority of rental properties were purchased 20 years ago and have very little overhead now, ie mortgage payments and are more than likely paid in full. You need to remember that they still have insurance, property tax, maintenance (as the home is now atleast 20 years old). Yes it was also mentioned how much the value has increased on this rental property in the last 20 years. Look at it this way in 1997 the house was purchased for $200,000 (just an estimate) now its worth $650,000 (also just an estimate) The owner has a nice increase of $450,000 and is making let's say $2200 a month on rent. Out of that $2200 they have to deduct insurance, property tax, maintenance, and risk of damage. Then the government gets their portion which will vary.
Now what if the owner decided that the NDP rules are too much to deal with and its not worth it decides i'm gonna sell this property for "Fair Market Value" $650,000 and take that $450,000 profit and simply invest it into an income trust and get 6.5% on it with no overhead. They're now getting $2347.50/ month and only have to pay the government and not worry about rental rules and regs, tenants, and government rules. Suddenly you have less and less rentals on the market.
Even if you bought your rental property 20 years ago your assuming more risk to rent it and making less profit than just selling it and investing the cash.

4 people like this post.
Jhunter199
Fledgling
 
Posts: 289
Likes: 257 posts
Liked in: 341 posts
Joined: Apr 18th, 2013, 10:11 pm

Re: New letter to the editor.... rentals

Postby JLives » Dec 17th, 2017, 1:09 pm

It doesn't matter how much your rental house is worth until you want to sell. It's a sell value not a rental value. Yes maintence, taxes, insurance etc. add up but not to the equivalent of a recently purchased property that also has those costs. If you'd rather not deal with people and invest then do that so someone who wants to can put a roof over someone's head. It's flat out gauging and greed. People need homes. That should be our priority as a decent society that gives a crap.
"Every dollar you spend is a vote for what you believe in."
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
User avatar
JLives
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15704
Likes: 3042 posts
Liked in: 5615 posts
Joined: Nov 27th, 2004, 11:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 9 guests