Government announces rent increases for 2023

[Patron]

Out of curiosity, I've just run some simulations here. At the current gap in between market and actual rent at about 25%, and the allowed rent increase of 2%, after 35 months into tenancy it becomes cost effective for landlords to evict for personal use and lose 7 months (6+1) worth of rent, just to reset the rent to the market value. And this is entirely legal.

Now, in the lights of the high inflation rate, it's reasonable to expect this gap to widen significantly, as there will be a lot of hedging. Here are some numbers in respect to that ...

At 30% gap it takes 29 months,
at 35%, 24 months,
at 40%, 21 months
at 50%, 16 months ...

This is math, not some fantasy. Make no mistake, ... there will be a lot of moving people. I just hope, at some point they will ask their government some serious questions. The first one that comes to my mind is, what the heck had they in their minds when implementing such destructive policies? They are hurting everyone, but mostly renters.

again the 2% increase is only for ONE yr and why on earth did you buy rentals in a Province where there is rental caps if you dislike them so much ? And why did you buy here where the House prices are over inflated and the average wage isn't the greatest ? Anyways if it's not profitable here for you then sell, it's that simple and don't worry that you'll be hurting Renters for doing so because there will be someone else behind you who will buy whether it's a previous Renter or a Family who just wants a home, remember demand is high and supply is low so you won't be missed

[Patron]

I am seriously perplexed as to why anybody would believe that if a LL had no regulations that they would really think that all LL's would also of sudden lower their rents and wouldn't rent out slums for thousands of dollars per mth ? Now that is a true Fantasy.

[rustled]

Out of curiosity, I've just run some simulations here. At the current gap in between market and actual rent at about 25%, and the allowed rent increase of 2%, after 35 months into tenancy it becomes cost effective for landlords to evict for personal use and lose 7 months (6+1) worth of rent, just to reset the rent to the market value. And this is entirely legal.

You're right BC landlord. We're going to have to up the length to 2 years now.

Maybe, once a unit becomes a rental it is never allowed to return to not a rental. That will solve the problem.

[0g0p0g0]

Just curious. Doesnt anyone think posting here is going to change anything?

I see a lot of fear. Lots of personal opinion. Which is what a forums for but .... the same few people attack anthing and everything with the same rants as if its going to change policy or market conditions.

The tide is the tide. Market the market. You play it if you want and the consequences land where they land. Does anyone think shouting here will change outcome?

[BC Landlord]

again the 2% increase is only for ONE yr and why on earth did you buy rentals in a Province where there is rental caps if you dislike them so much ?

So 1.5% was "only" for the last year, and 0% was "only" for the year before ... How many "only's" are to come? Secondly, you shouldn't be questioning people's motivations for investing in this industry. You should be raising questions about people's motivations for NOT investing in it. You've got it all upside-down.

[Patron]

Out of curiosity, I've just run some simulations here. At the current gap in between market and actual rent at about 25%, and the allowed rent increase of 2%, after 35 months into tenancy it becomes cost effective for landlords to evict for personal use and lose 7 months (6+1) worth of rent, just to reset the rent to the market value. And this is entirely legal.

Now, in the lights of the high inflation rate, it's reasonable to expect this gap to widen significantly, as there will be a lot of hedging. Here are some numbers in respect to that ...

At 30% gap it takes 29 months,
at 35%, 24 months,
at 40%, 21 months
at 50%, 16 months ...

This is math, not some fantasy. Make no mistake, ... there will be a lot of moving people. I just hope, at some point they will ask their government some serious questions. The first one that comes to my mind is, what the heck had they in their minds when implementing such destructive policies? They are hurting everyone, but mostly renters.

btw, I hope you realize that high inflation is also affecting just plain old regular Homeowners , their taxes went up, and also their interest rates/bills etc and yet they are asking nobody to help pay for them , they are doing it themselves. Seriously it sounds like you over leveraged yourself by using equity and thinking that interest rates would never rise , you rolled the dice and took a risk just like every other investment that has risks

[DoDo1975]

Out of curiosity, I've just run some simulations here. At the current gap in between market and actual rent at about 25%, and the allowed rent increase of 2%, after 35 months into tenancy it becomes cost effective for landlords to evict for personal use and lose 7 months (6+1) worth of rent, just to reset the rent to the market value. And this is entirely legal.

Now, in the lights of the high inflation rate, it's reasonable to expect this gap to widen significantly, as there will be a lot of hedging. Here are some numbers in respect to that ...

At 30% gap it takes 29 months,
at 35%, 24 months,
at 40%, 21 months
at 50%, 16 months ...

This is math, not some fantasy. Make no mistake, ... there will be a lot of moving people. I just hope, at some point they will ask their government some serious questions. The first one that comes to my mind is, what the heck had they in their minds when implementing such destructive policies? They are hurting everyone, but mostly renters.

Actually this a fantasy. You are defining market rent as what some people have been paying lately with the critical flaw in the assumption that that would become the market rent if everyone were allowed to reset.

The problem is that market rent is strongly correlated with what people are able to pay and there are a large number of renters who would not be able to pay your fantasy market rent. If your assumption is you can remove all these low income people from the rental pool and just rent to rich people I think you might be fooling yourself.

[Patron]

again the 2% increase is only for ONE yr and why on earth did you buy rentals in a Province where there is rental caps if you dislike them so much ?

So 1.5% was "only" for the last year, and 0% was "only" for the year before ... How many "only's" are to come? Secondly, you shouldn't be questioning people's motivations for investing in this industry. You should be raising questions about people's motivations for NOT investing in it. You've got it all upside-down.

we were in the middle of a world wide pandemic where everything was shut down and people were using limited Government Funds to survive that was yr 0% the next yr 2021 was the recovery stage where businesses and people were just getting back to work.

And why didn't you buy Commercial properties instead ?? There's no Government intervention on them you can raise the rent to whatever you want.

[Patron]

Out of curiosity, I've just run some simulations here. At the current gap in between market and actual rent at about 25%, and the allowed rent increase of 2%, after 35 months into tenancy it becomes cost effective for landlords to evict for personal use and lose 7 months (6+1) worth of rent, just to reset the rent to the market value. And this is entirely legal.

Now, in the lights of the high inflation rate, it's reasonable to expect this gap to widen significantly, as there will be a lot of hedging. Here are some numbers in respect to that ...

At 30% gap it takes 29 months,
at 35%, 24 months,
at 40%, 21 months
at 50%, 16 months ...

This is math, not some fantasy. Make no mistake, ... there will be a lot of moving people. I just hope, at some point they will ask their government some serious questions. The first one that comes to my mind is, what the heck had they in their minds when implementing such destructive policies? They are hurting everyone, but mostly renters.

Actually this a fantasy. You are defining market rent as what some people have been paying lately with the critical flaw in the assumption that that would become the market rent if everyone were allowed to reset.

The problem is that market rent is strongly correlated with what people are able to pay and there are a large number of renters who would not be able to pay your fantasy market rent. If your assumption is you can remove all these low income people from the rental pool and just rent to rich people I think you might be fooling yourself.

no kidding why buy in an area where prices are high but wages are low and really expect to make huge profits ? And rich people don't rent they buy, your only clientele is those who make the average earnings

[rustled]

again the 2% increase is only for ONE yr and why on earth did you buy rentals in a Province where there is rental caps if you dislike them so much ?

So 1.5% was "only" for the last year, and 0% was "only" for the year before ... How many "only's" are to come? Secondly, you shouldn't be questioning people's motivations for investing in this industry. You should be raising questions about people's motivations for NOT investing in it. You've got it all upside-down.

That's certainly a better question.

Folk who believe the government can "solve" the "problem" of "unaffordable rent" by imposing more government intervention at the direct expense of the landlords seem unable to think beyond blaming the landlords for the "problem".

[Patron]

So 1.5% was "only" for the last year, and 0% was "only" for the year before ... How many "only's" are to come? Secondly, you shouldn't be questioning people's motivations for investing in this industry. You should be raising questions about people's motivations for NOT investing in it. You've got it all upside-down.

That's certainly a better question.

Folk who believe the government can "solve" the "problem" of "unaffordable rent" by imposing more government intervention at the direct expense of the landlords seem unable to think beyond blaming the landlords for the "problem".

Oh the Government could solve the unaffordable housing issues in an instant by building more rentals (and NEVER selling it to REITS like they have done) on some of that 95% of the land that we own and revamping the building codes and giving tax breaks to anybody who wants to build strictly affordable rentals. btw do you have any concern for Businesses Owners who are not protected by any government regulations on rents who have been hit with double digit increases, some have seen their rents double this yr, these are Business Owners who actually bring something to a city or town by employing people or is your concern just for over leveraged LL's who will now make smaller profits ? and I mean that respectfully as this is a discussion not a fight

[rustled]

That's certainly a better question.

Folk who believe the government can "solve" the "problem" of "unaffordable rent" by imposing more government intervention at the direct expense of the landlords seem unable to think beyond blaming the landlords for the "problem".

Oh the Government could solve the unaffordable housing issues in an instant by building more rentals (and NEVER selling it to REITS like they have done) on some of that 95% of the land that we own and revamping the building codes and giving tax breaks to anybody who wants to build strictly affordable rentals.

Flesh that first proposal out, please. (Where would the money for these builds come from? Who would decide where they are built? Who would decide tenant eligibility? Who would manage them?)

btw do you have any concern for Businesses Owners who are not protected by any government regulations on rents who have been hit with double digit increases, some have seen their rents double this yr, these are Business Owners who actually bring something to a city or town by employing people or is your concern just for over leveraged LL's who will now make smaller profits ? and I mean that respectfully as this is a discussion not a fight

If "that" was meant to ask respectfully, it would have ended before the "or" - i.e., before the accusatory innuendo. Of course, most of us likely understand people can be concerned about business owners and the short and long term consequences of this regulation (and other regulations) for landlords and their tenants. (It's also, I think, a question best suited to a separate thread.)

[Patron]

Oh the Government could solve the unaffordable housing issues in an instant by building more rentals (and NEVER selling it to REITS like they have done) on some of that 95% of the land that we own and revamping the building codes and giving tax breaks to anybody who wants to build strictly affordable rentals.

Flesh that first proposal out, please. (Where would the money for these builds come from? Who would decide where they are built? Who would decide tenant eligibility? Who would manage them?)

btw do you have any concern for Businesses Owners who are not protected by any government regulations on rents who have been hit with double digit increases, some have seen their rents double this yr, these are Business Owners who actually bring something to a city or town by employing people or is your concern just for over leveraged LL's who will now make smaller profits ? and I mean that respectfully as this is a discussion not a fight

If "that" was meant to ask respectfully, it would have ended before the "or" - before the accusatory innuendo. It's also, I think, a question best suited to a separate thread.

why can't Commercial buildings be brought into this convo ? they are a prime example of what happens when there is no regulation on rents which is what some really want in this thread.

as for the first comment about where would the money come from for these builds and who will build them and who will decide the tenant eligibility, simple BC Housing which has already built wet facilities all over BC we have 5 here at $10 million a pop and they were built quickly and were up for bid for any Contractor to bid on, just like every other development that our Government builds and yes those Contractors who built those 5 wet facilities all walked away with a profit , so it really can be done because it already has

[BC Landlord]

The problem is that market rent is strongly correlated with what people are able to pay and there are a large number of renters who would not be able to pay your fantasy market rent. If your assumption is you can remove all these low income people from the rental pool and just rent to rich people I think you might be fooling yourself.

The market rent here is strongly correlated with unrealistic rent increase allowances, especially in the light of high inflation rate lately. And that sits squarely with the government.

Let me give you an example ... I still have a couple of rentals in Alberta, where there are no rent controls, never been. The government just doesn't want to get involved in that. There is no automatic month-to-month switch after one year lease either. There is however a small gap in between market and current rent, but it's about 5-10% max. Not anywhere near 25%+ like here. And the market is doing just fine over there. But here, the government wants you to believe it is "protecting" you from "evils" that are not even real. It's fighting windmills.

[rustled]

Flesh that first proposal out, please. (Where would the money for these builds come from? Who would decide where they are built? Who would decide tenant eligibility? Who would manage them?)


If "that" was meant to ask respectfully, it would have ended before the "or" - before the accusatory innuendo. It's also, I think, a question best suited to a separate thread.

why can't Commercial buildings be brought into this convo ?

No one said they couldn't.

they are a prime example of what happens when there is no regulation on rents which is what some really want in this thread.

I don't recall anyone here saying they want no regulation on rents. Maybe you can link to it. TIA.

as for the first comment about where would the money come from for these builds and who will build them and who will decide the tenant eligibility, simple BC Housing which has already built wet facilities all over BC we have 5 here at $10 million a pop and they were built quickly and were up for bid for any Contractor to bid on, just like every other development that our Government builds and yes those Contractors who built those 5 wet facilities all walked away with a profit , so it really can be done because it already has

This is basically telling us the "solution" is already in place.

Maybe someone can explain, then, why the "solution" isn't "solving" the "problem".