According to a new report from Rentals, In July, the Canadian rental market hit a record high with an average asking rent of $2,078, marking an 8.9 per cent annual increase.

  • phx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re supposed to fill the gap for people who can’t afford to buy, or for whom it doesn’t make sense to do so (i.e. people in town on a temporary job).

    The problem is that “landlords” these days are more towards the class of “investors” who expect rents to cover the cost of their mortgage plus additional profit

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Public housing in the Viennese style is the proper way to handle this.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are lots of ways that gap could be filled. Landlords exist to make profit by filling that gap. They have a financial incentive to maximize returns and minimize expenses, and have the leverage to do so to an exploitative degree.

      Another way to accomplish that would be through cooperatives, which are non-profit corporations that exist to provide housing. They have a mandate to maximize utility to their tenants, and have no profit incentive leading them to exploit their tenants.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t mind seeing more of those, but I do also remember a day when there were a lot more landlords who charged reasonable rates without becoming overpriced slumlords.

        There’s always incentive to “make a profit” but often enough it was just somebody who had extra space after the kids moved out etc and got a little extra pocket money or even just a slightly less “empty nest” feeling. Some lived in half the house (usually upstairs with a basement suite rented) and a smaller few did get another, smaller place while keeping the “family home” for their kids’ return after university or whatever.

        Then people started buying second, third, etc places as investments, and it became about “maximizing investment”. These kinds act like sharks, while serial bad-tenants similarly preyed on the more nieve “good” landlords causing more of them to get out of renting.

        Co-ops can definitely be part of the solution, but having better controls and adequate staffing at rental regulatory boards etc would be beneficial to both sides, as well as removing pure-profit incentives.

        I’ve got a house currently but I’d be ok with seeing the so-called “market values” drop to something people can afford. I’d welcome better regulation on both sides so that my kids don’t end up paying in gold for mold, but also so that I could potentially find somebody decent/trustworthy farther into the future that I could rent space to (in my home) even the kids move out - for a reasonable rate - without having to worry that they’ll destroy the place and steal the plumbing the moment they move in while I wait on 12mo for arbitration.

        Looking at the current rents people are asking, I’d say a “reasonable” rate would be ½ or even ⅓ of what most are asking, but at the same time advertising low rents seems to attract a lot of sketchy people. It’s crazy.

    • Papamousse@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Always has been.

      If you buy a 4plex for 2 million now, you have no choice to charge a high rent. But all the 8plex or 16plex from the 80s that are paid in full for years, there is no reason to go from 500$/month to 2000$/month just because

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        100% agree. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing somebody who bought at decades-old prices trying to justify charging thousands, while at the same time not having invested in maintaining the property (and triple that if they pushed out an existing renter or jacked up the rents on them to “keep up with rates”)

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are the reason why people cant afford to buy. Thats a looot of buildings going for sale if you get rid of landlords. Plummeted prices and mortgage payments. Then we should be focusing from the bottom up afterwards, make sure everyone has some place to live with public housing.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup, so take away the ability to grossly profit off the backs of others and allow the scales to balance. There’s no reason we can’t do both by disincentivizing gouging and slumlording while at the same time increasing the creation of more affordable housing.

        Hell, if a sliding-scale of fees against # of properties/profit were implemented they could use the revenue from that to help fund more affordable housing, while discouraging house-hoarding at the same time.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Outlawing landlords gets rid of price gouging and slumlords. You cannot own property you dont live in, period.