Rent communists!

[spooker]

Why do you believe that my statements represent that point of view?

Just a wild speculation, I guess.

Sure, let the market decide, they will make sure profits continue to be pursued. Only people who will win in that scenario are the people who already have enough extra to make more with it.

Hate is a very simplistic way to look at things. I don't like the fact that we don't make it a priority that people have a basic quality of life. I don't like that we seem to have made a game of wealth hoarding. I don't like that we seem to focus on money and passing costs off to others that don't have the same opportunity.

I've watched friends come into some money and burn it away on things that give them momentary pleasure. I've seen relatives who had planned their retirement down to the penny end up getting an oil lease on their farm and increase their retirement funds by 10x still live the same way, banking the extra for their kids and tithing a lot to the church and charity.

We hold up those who make a profit as idols to aspire to while mocking Doctors Without Borders (not you but in general)

Hating an idea is useless, so no, I would disagree with your assumption that I "hate" people who make money. Plus, I don't have enough energy in my body to hate, the worst I feel is disregard at times.

[JLives]

Does rental properties truly not come down to demand??
Let's face it if the demand was not so high, the rent would not be either as the property owners would be competing to occupy or rent out their property.

Demand is one thing, and profitability is a different one. Read on below ...

When you double the tax on the second house, the investor has to invest more money when he is not sure about returns as he has compete with other owners ...

Why would anyone HAVE TO invest their money into something deprived of profit? It would be far better to invest that money into a sluggish mutual fund, than operating a business at zero, or negative return. Nobody can MAKE people invest in RE, and such investment is someone's roof over their head. I have to remind you again, small landlords (aka "investors") account to about 40% of the entire rental stock. Do you really want them out?

It would be more profitable to invest elsewhere. More landlords should do that. Rent was never supposed to be short term profitable. It was a subsidy to ones investment that the owner also contributed to. I have no sympathy for those putting profits over people. Homes are a need. Landlords don't need a break, they need a job.

[rustled]

And once the landlords are all investing elsewhere, those who've eliminated landlords will demand governments provide housing for those who need rental homes. Not a good scenario, and certainly not a solution!

[spooker]

And once the landlords are all investing elsewhere, those who've eliminated landlords will demand governments provide housing for those who need rental homes. Not a good scenario, and certainly not a solution!

And hopefully without investment monies driving up housing prices then more people will be able to afford a home thus lowering the demand for rental.

[The Green Barbarian]

And once the landlords are all investing elsewhere, those who've eliminated landlords will demand governments provide housing for those who need rental homes. Not a good scenario, and certainly not a solution!

And hopefully without investment monies driving up housing prices then more people will be able to afford a home thus lowering the demand for rental.

No, what is going to happen is this:

1. Current rentals will fall into dis-repair
2. No new housing will be built.

This is always the case when "investment monies" are decreased due to stupid government policy (usually policy that is Marxist based) and the result is mass human suffering. Hoping for "investment monies" to go away is by far the dumbest and worst case scenario. SO DUMB.

[rustled]

And hopefully without investment monies driving up housing prices then more people will be able to afford a home thus lowering the demand for rental.

No, what is going to happen is this:

1. Current rentals will fall into dis-repair
2. No new housing will be built.

This is always the case when "investment monies" are decreased due to stupid government policy (usually policy that is Marxist based) and the result is mass human suffering. Hoping for "investment monies" to go away is by far the dumbest and worst case scenario. SO DUMB.

And with the BC NDP's new top-down "you can't block higher density in any neighbourhood" rules, it seems likely the properties a family could have afforded - with the little fixer-upper and the potential for a mortgage helper carriage house - will now be more attractive for developers for four-plexes. Not more affordable, though, just more crowded with no yard space. Bit of a wild west just now, with all these ideologically driven policies with predictable negative outcomes disrupting the market. Disruption seems to be the primary objective. Serves those intent on ideological change, serves big government, serves opportunists. Doesn't serve the long-term best interests of ordinary people, though.

[Ken7]

And once the landlords are all investing elsewhere, those who've eliminated landlords will demand governments provide housing for those who need rental homes. Not a good scenario, and certainly not a solution!

And hopefully without investment monies driving up housing prices then more people will be able to afford a home thus lowering the demand for rental.

I can bet that if Government owned 50% of the rental properties in this City, they wouldn't be renting at 20% less then the current standard. It's all talk by Trudeau in a effort to purchase the Gen X votes.

[Catsumi]

Rusty said

And with the BC NDP's new top-down "you can't block higher density in any neighbourhood" rules, it seems likely the properties a family could have afforded - with the little fixer-upper and the potential for a mortgage helper carriage house - will now be more attractive for developers for four-plexes. Not more affordable, though, just more crowded with no yard space. Bit of a wild west just now, with all these ideologically driven policies with predictable negative outcomes disrupting the market. Disruption seems to be the primary objective. Serves those intent on ideological change, serves big government, serves opportunists. Doesn't serve the long-term best interests of ordinary people, though.

Yes, agreed. It seems like the 15 min city is taking on a new cloak to weasel its way forward

[nicholas p]

Does rental properties truly not come down to demand??
Let's face it if the demand was not so high, the rent would not be either as the property owners would be competing to occupy or rent out their property.

Demand is one thing, and profitability is a different one. Read on below ...

When you double the tax on the second house, the investor has to invest more money when he is not sure about returns as he has compete with other owners ...

Why would anyone HAVE TO invest their money into something deprived of profit? It would be far better to invest that money into a sluggish mutual fund, than operating a business at zero, or negative return. Nobody can MAKE people invest in RE, and such investment is someone's roof over their head. I have to remind you again, small landlords (aka "investors") account to about 40% of the entire rental stock. Do you really want them out?

Exactly, that is the goal depriving the investors of profit in real estate as it is some one's roof over head. Yes even if 20% of these investors exit the market then the available stock will increase by 20% which will decrease the market competition a bit which increases the first time buyers chance even by 1% makes a huge difference. I have seen some houses were sold higher than listed price and when i checked with the buyer I found it is his nth home which he rented it out.

[Babba_not_Gump]

And once the landlords are all investing elsewhere, those who've eliminated landlords will demand governments provide housing for those who need rental homes. Not a good scenario, and certainly not a solution!

And hopefully without investment monies driving up housing prices then more people will be able to afford a home thus lowering the demand for rental.

I always thought investment money is what built rentals and homes, and that in turn keeps prices stable.
Oh, but demand immigration keeps driving prices up.
Hmm, there's got to be a solution in there somewhere, but where?

[GordonH]

As long as immigration exceeds the availability of rentals, absolutely nothing will change with prices being charged.

[Gone_Fishin]

And hopefully without investment monies driving up housing prices then more people will be able to afford a home thus lowering the demand for rental.

Did you actually just say that???

Surely, you were thinking something else but mis-typed your message.

No one is that ridiculously misinformed.

[The Green Barbarian]

And hopefully without investment monies driving up housing prices then more people will be able to afford a home thus lowering the demand for rental.

Did you actually just say that???

Surely, you were thinking something else but mis-typed your message.

No one is that ridiculously misinformed.

Except this complete hole...

[The Green Barbarian]

As long as immigration exceeds the availability of rentals, absolutely nothing will change with prices being charged.

where are all of these immigrants? I was at Shoppers on Sunday and the poor kid running the front and all the tills, who claimed to be the manager (even though he looked like he just started shaving two weeks ago) was running the entire store almost single-handed, as his cashiers decided "they didn't feel like working" that day. So this kid was all on his own, running the entire store, except for the make-up lady who stayed in her chair on the other side of the store, staring at the wall. Where are all of these "new-comers"? Are they all just flocking to Vancouver and Toronto? We need workers, so where are they??

[Ken7]

As long as immigration exceeds the availability of rentals, absolutely nothing will change with prices being charged.

You are right, and negotiating will have no value. If I have a suite, I want $2,000.00 a month, that's the going rate!