1890 replies to this topic

[tjv]

Not if you are currently searching.  But there are thousands of current units renting for under $1000, and under the province's rent controls.

 

I think if you looked at a big building's rent roll, perhaps a 60's or 70's building, you'd be amazed by the different rent amounts all over the building.

But there are a lot of new building rentals for 1700 and up so I think it balances it out.  I think 1000 is a fair average

[tjv]

Interesting comment in the Times Colonist:  No Protection for landlords

 

http://www.timescolo...elated_articles

 

I see his point, if the value of his rental unit goes up by 47% why is he limited to only a 4% rental increase.  Maybe if he can only get a small increase maybe its worth selling the unit and taking it out of the rental stream to a buyer who will live in it.

 

On the alternative, salaries aren't increasing that much either overall, but the demand for rental is there so free market economics could easily justify say a 25% increase in rent

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm not sure it's interesting, or just odd.

 

I’m a landlord, and my property assessment went up 47 per cent. Tenants’ rent can be raised only four per cent in 2018.

 

Tenants are protected. Where is my protection? For the record, I haven’t raised rents in more than four years. I will be raising them this year. If it is determined that my property is, in fact, under-assessed, fair enough.

 

But there should be a yearly limit. Perhaps five per cent above the average for however many years it takes to bring the property in line with fair market value.

 

Paul Martin

 

 

He wants "protection" from the increasing value of his real estate?  And he admits he has not raised rents for 4 years.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 17 January 2018 - 08:04 AM.

[rjag]

I'm not sure it's interesting, or just odd.

 

 

He wants "protection" from the increasing value of his real estate?  And he admits he has not raised rents for 4 years.

 

Doesnt make sense, the equity in his property is one thing. Its what he paid for it and his costs that reflect the rent as well as current rental market conditions.

 

Just because you buy a house say 20 years ago for $200k and its now worth $1million is no reason rents should have increased 5x to reflect the new value. The rent should reflect current market conditions.   

[Mike K.]

I bet this landlord thinks that rising value correlates with rising tax. It does if his is the only property to increases in value but it doesn’t if the whole market moved up.

[VicHockeyFan]

And we all know the rental market says a $150,000 condo cash-flows better than a $1M house, from rental income alone.  That's just the way it is. 

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 17 January 2018 - 08:17 AM.

[tjv]

I agree its odd he didn't raise rents for 4 years, maybe he had a fantastic tenant?  who knows

 

Regardless if he bought the unit for 100k or not, and its now worth 350k (yes, I am just making up numbers), he can still get 350k right now TODAY and reinvest that money in other investments and demand 10%+ return on that new investment.  If he does then there is a strong possibility that another rental unit just disappeared from the housing stock.  That's my argument

[tjv]

I bet this landlord thinks that rising value correlates with rising tax. It does if his is the only property to increases in value but it doesn’t if the whole market moved up.

possible, but last year I think educated people that was not the case.  although overall taxes in Oak Bay skyrocketed last year

[lanforod]

^ He could also just take a loan out against the property and do that anyways. Why not just do that, and you'll be more diversified?

[jonny]

I agree its odd he didn't raise rents for 4 years, maybe he had a fantastic tenant?  who knows

 

Regardless if he bought the unit for 100k or not, and its now worth 350k (yes, I am just making up numbers), he can still get 350k right now TODAY and reinvest that money in other investments and demand 10%+ return on that new investment.  If he does then there is a strong possibility that another rental unit just disappeared from the housing stock.  That's my argument

 

I agree that these new "rent controls" will result in fewer people owning investment properties, overall. 

[Mike K.]

The investor market is already struggling to make ends meet with 1BR condos purchased for $400k but which can only rent for an absolute max of $1,800, and it better have a view or other perks at that rate.

 

$1,800 just barely covers the mortgage, insurance, strata fee, taxes and incidental costs if the unit was purchased with 20% down, and that's at a 30 year amortization. In fact you might literally be in the black by only a few dollars.

 

So the investor market right now is limited largely to those who can still snap up a below $300k studio or have the ability to drop $200k as a down payment on costlier units.

[jonny]

Yup. The cap on rent increases along with other changes just introduce further obstacles. People like me will probably just sell rather than hold onto a unit and deal with BC tenancy BS. 

[Mike K.]

The latest push is to force landlords to accept pets. This is going to get real ugly, real fast.

 

Did you know that if a tenant's dog bites someone, the landlord/property are named in any legal action? And if the tenant leaves a pet behind once they vacate the landlord must care for the animal at his own expense for a minimum period (approximately 30 days)?

[sdwright.vic]

Buildings can mandate you have renters insurance. Mine does as part of my lease and they must have a renewed copy for their file yearly.

My insurance covers my dog.

There, problem solved.

[Mike K.]

Your insurance does not nullify someone's legal claim against a landlord, and whether right or wrong, the landlord has to engage in legal proceedings on their dime.

 

Your insurance also does not protect the landlord if you choose to split and leave your pet behind.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

I'm not sure that a landlord does have to take care of a pet abandoned by a tenan. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act states:

 

Abandoned animals

10.1  (1) In this section, "abandoned animal" includes an animal that

(a) is apparently ownerless,

(b) is found straying,

© is found in a rental unit after expiry of the tenancy agreement in respect of the rental unit, or

(d) if a person agreed to care for the animal, is not retrieved from that person within 4 days following the end of that agreement.

(2) If an authorized agent is of the opinion that an animal is an abandoned animal, the authorized agent may take custody of the animal and arrange for food, water, shelter, care and veterinary treatment for it.

 

 

 

Sounds to me like the SPCA is authorized to take custody of an abandoned pet as soon as the tenancy agreement ends.

[Mike K.]

The issue is not what happens after the rental commitment ends, but what happens if a tenant skips out with X-number of months remaining on their lease. The landlord is then stuck caring for the animal for a 30-day period, maybe even more.

[VicHockeyFan]

The issue is not what happens after the rental commitment ends, but what happens if a tenant skips out with X-number of months remaining on their lease. The landlord is then stuck caring for the animal for a 30-day period, maybe even more.

 

I think they just have to keep it safe, and can't throw it away.  Not sure they have to feed and water it etc.

[Mike K.]

The Atkins diet?

[tjv]

Yup. The cap on rent increases along with other changes just introduce further obstacles. People like me will probably just sell rather than hold onto a unit and deal with BC tenancy BS. 

Frankly the government has made it difficult to be a landlord, yet there are screaming for more affordable housing.  They can't have their cake and eat it too.  At minimum the cap on rent increases has to go.  I can see landlords saying 20% rent increase to the tenant, oh don't want to pay?  fine the for sale sign goes up tomorrow and here is your eviction notice

 

The latest push is to force landlords to accept pets. This is going to get real ugly, real fast.

 

Did you know that if a tenant's dog bites someone, the landlord/property are named in any legal action? And if the tenant leaves a pet behind once they vacate the landlord must care for the animal at his own expense for a minimum period (approximately 30 days)?

Pets?  Really?  friggin hell, if I was a landlord I would want a $10,000 pet deposit minimum.  they can do some serious damage to flooring, etc.

 

In legal matters, its easy to name extra people in your lawsuit and doesn't cost any more money so I can easily add landlords, property managers, etc, etc being named in the suit.  I agree the tenant should indemnify and hold harmless the landlord, property manager and everyone else you can think of in writing.  Is there tenant insurance for damage the dog can do to floors, etc?