1896 replies to this topic

[DavidL]

This isn't a price post, or I guess it is sort of, but there's a certain landlord in James Bay who has two buildings, each with 12 units, and he's busy evicting tenants under the "family use" clause, and so far we've found four of the units on AirBNB.  He gives tenants the option of a 25 percent rent increase for six months and then another 25 percent increase, or eviction.  That's the kind of landlord bullshit that puts people on the streets.  

 

If only there was something the city could do, like, I don't know, perhaps enforcing their land use bylaws with respect to short term rentals.  Maybe they're too busy drafting a new regulatory regime to put legitimate operators out of business to tend to such mundane zoning bylaw violations.  If we had the addresses we could quickly find out if in fact this is being done and see if the city is willing to do something about it. 

 

As has been mentioned above an RTB dispute over both the rental increase demand and the notice to end tenancy would be quite straightforward.

[spanky123]

Yikes, that might backfire. Forcing someone to maintain rent for a five year period is not much different than forcing someone out and turning the unit over to AirBnB. This landlord should introduce one-year leases if he wants to eventually turn units over to AirBnB.

 

Well you start at 5 years and then wind up wherever you want when you negotiate.

 

I don't know the two buildings being discussed nor obviously do I know the owner. I know several people who purchase and run these types of buildings though. They rely on their tenants either not knowing the rules, not having the means to fight the changes and/or being afraid that they will be evicted if they raise a stink. The only effective way to fight these bullies is to push back. The landlords don't really care if one person goes to the RTB as they have enough experience and legal backing to wiggle out of the complaint. Going public with a systemic issue as described (assuming it is true) risks broader attention that they don't want. 

[lanforod]

erm, so now you're saying going public is the way they should go, but not the way you yourself would go?

[peanutflower]

Well you start at 5 years and then wind up wherever you want when you negotiate.

 

I don't know the two buildings being discussed nor obviously do I know the owner. I know several people who purchase and run these types of buildings though. They rely on their tenants either not knowing the rules, not having the means to fight the changes and/or being afraid that they will be evicted if they raise a stink. The only effective way to fight these bullies is to push back. The landlords don't really care if one person goes to the RTB as they have enough experience and legal backing to wiggle out of the complaint. Going public with a systemic issue as described (assuming it is true) risks broader attention that they don't want. 

I don't mind revealing who the scumbag landlord is, or the addresses of the buildings.  You're right, people aren't aware of their rights.  This joker made an 81 year old woman move out and try and find a place in this rental market.  I am not a resident but someone I am related to is, and she told me that now the landlord changed the lock on the laundry room door and didn't give anyone keys to it.  He put a fictitious address on his eviction notice for a residence he was pulling down, hence his need for "family" tenancy, and he doesn't even own that building.  His residence is another building.  I have no issue with people who want to AirBNB out a room in their house or who build a garden suite and want to short term rent it.  Not a problem.  But evicting the tenants of two buildings under a flimsy "family occupancy" reason is just completely morally and ethically wrong.  We plan on public shaming.  

[VicHockeyFan]

Well, give us the address. You can start here.

[peanutflower]

Well, give us the address. You can start here.

What would you do if the address was provided?  Now the "deal" is a 30 percent rent increase to be able to stay.  Until May, and then another 30 percent increase.  

[VicHockeyFan]

What would you do if the address was provided?  Now the "deal" is a 30 percent rent increase to be able to stay.  Until May, and then another 30 percent increase.  

 

Somebody said shaming would help.  You post the address here, soon enough someone will see it, maybe even offer qualified help to tenants.  Like TAPS, for example.  Or another tenant rights advocacy group.  They are good at these types of issues.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 14 August 2017 - 06:54 AM.

[aastra]

Has this already been posted here?

https://renx.ca/vict...t-developments/

 

 

“Victoria has one of the older median populations in all of Canada,” he said. “These people are faced with a difficult situation. They’re relocating to the town, but the quality of the rental apartments doesn’t match the quality of their financial statements.

 

****

 

Has this already been posted here?
https://renx.ca/char...-wave-victoria/

 

 

He said that wave is being fuelled by a strong economy province-wide. “And we have a good economy in Victoria. The tech sector, the construction sector, ship-building — those are really fuelling the demand right now.”

Edited by aastra, 16 August 2017 - 11:24 AM.

[Mattjvd]

Has this already been posted here?
https://renx.ca/vict...t-developments/


****

Has this already been posted here?
https://renx.ca/char...-wave-victoria/

Wait, they move here without knowing what housing they can get with their income?

[Mike K.]

One incident I've heard recently is a couple retired to Victoria from the prairies. Their financial advisor advised them about 1.5-2 years ago not to buy real-estate because Victoria was in a bubble. And they just had to vacate their rental apartment because the owners needed to move back in.

 

Oops.

[sdwright.vic]

^which is why I would never rent from a private owner.

[Mike K.]

In this case the folks have money so they won't be negatively impacted in the grand scheme of things, but I guess they should consider finding some local investor talent if they intend to stay here. Mr. Regina led them a little bit astray.

[spanky123]

One incident I've heard recently is a couple retired to Victoria from the prairies. Their financial advisor advised them about 1.5-2 years ago not to buy real-estate because Victoria was in a bubble. And they just had to vacate their rental apartment because the owners needed to move back in.

 

Oops.

 

Why would retirees want to purchase property? Statistically they would never finish paying it off.

[lanforod]

Generally they pay it off with cash the first day...

[spanky123]

Generally they pay it off with cash the first day...

 

Ok then it just becomes a bad investment. Rent and spend the cash you have enjoying your golden years. 

[Sparky]

I was thinking earlier tonight that Mrs. Sparky and I should sell all of our assets and spend the rest of our lives just spending the money.

Luckily I am of the age that by the time I wake up in the morning I will have forgotten that stupid idea.

[lanforod]

Ok then it just becomes a bad investment. Rent and spend the cash you have enjoying your golden years. 

 

Yeah, we don't need to get into the whole 'own vs rent' argument. From a pure investment standpoint, Victoria is NOT the place to retire to.

[Mike K.]

Although folks are retiring younger and younger these days. I can't speak to the age of the couple I mentioned above, but they were definitely dealt a blow by failing to buy and ...realizing prices are way above where they were when they first arrived.

[LJ]

The trick is getting your money and your life to run out at the same time. If I die by next Tuesday I will have succeeded.

[Sparky]

The more I talk to people, the more I am convinced that Victoria will never again have affordable housing the same way we knew it in the past.

Single family houses are for people that already have an equity.

Entry level ownership for the most part will be as a part of a strata. Still not cheap.

The demand for rental accommodation is driving that product out of some people's reach.