5833 replies to this topic

[VIResident]

all landlords can go apply for special rent increases above the annual limit.  and they will usually get it if they can show documentation.

There is only so much 'more' a tenant or tenants will/can pay - rents are already high in Victoria and Van. etc.

[Victoria Watcher]

i don't believe that.  spending priorities might have to change and going out to dinner 3x less per month seems like a lousy trade-off for just paying more rent/insurance.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 February 2020 - 10:29 AM.

[LeoVictoria]

All fine and good when you are the occupier but when you've 'rented' out the unit, well all know rental increases are limited.  Think about that for a second.  Rent is high here right? and Vancouver, landlords can't raise the rents enough to cover the insurance costs and the equity at the end-of-the-line not so good.  Also the number of seniors on limited income.  Initially I was of the same thinking as you Mike, suck it up etc. however since I've done some research, experts in the industry and others who are more knowledgeable than I are gravely concerned.  

 

The landlords are free to sell.  Isn't that what we should be supporting here?  Free market at work.

[sebberry]

More fear mongering.

Tens of thousands of people pay $150-$250 for a two hour concert. We underestimate just how flexible people can be when it comes to expenses like this. 

 

Sure, but for many of those, that $200 concert is a budgeted expense that they've saved for.  Being hit with that every month can be crushing for some.  

 

My workplace is expanding benefits, but at a mandatory monthly cost to employees.  'People will adapt' can only be stretched so far.

[Matt R.]

Surely employees can opt out?

Matt.

[VIResident]

The landlords are free to sell.  Isn't that what we should be supporting here?  Free market at work.

Condo's come onto the market, list for far below what they were purchased for because the monthly condo fees are high, i.e. 450-600/m for a one bedroom, higher for 2 etc.

On the face of this it looks good, prices come down and people able to purchase a home, who cares if the condo fees are high. 

Then condo's come onto market because of foreclosure due to owners getting behind on their condo fees and; owners who purchased for rental purposes not able to keep their condo's rented due to high rents due to new insurance costs, no rental income for the mortgage payment. 

The other scene is those condo buildings that cannot obtain any insurance, no matter what.  Then what?  Bulldoze?

Speculators can jump in, waiting for the insurance industry to level out....but that risk is huge. 

 

Today, at a networking event, 2 different people, one whose daughter was going to purchase a condo, was going to sign on Saturday - walking away and looking to move out-of-province, somewhere less expensive. 

Another who was looking to downsize, about to purchase a lovely, rather expensive IMHO, condo downtown - 7 years old - not buying and is weighing options.

 

Perhaps there are far to many people who would be negatively impacted for a 'free' market approach; financial institutions, real estate rep's., owners to provincial coffers - land transfer taxes will plummet. 

[Victoria Watcher]

or it might just all work out like any market adjustment.

[LeoVictoria]

Condo's come onto the market, list for far below what they were purchased for because the monthly condo fees are high, i.e. 450-600/m for a one bedroom, higher for 2 etc.

On the face of this it looks good, prices come down and people able to purchase a home, who cares if the condo fees are high. 

Then condo's come onto market because of foreclosure due to owners getting behind on their condo fees and; owners who purchased for rental purposes not able to keep their condo's rented due to high rents due to new insurance costs, no rental income for the mortgage payment. 

The other scene is those condo buildings that cannot obtain any insurance, no matter what.  Then what?  Bulldoze?

Speculators can jump in, waiting for the insurance industry to level out....but that risk is huge. 

 

The only issue I see in that is if stratas become effectively uninsurable.  If they cannot get insurance, it's unclear what  the banks will do when many require insurance to be in place to extend a mortgage.   Perhaps there is a regulatory solution to that part.   The rest, I think the market will figure it out and yes some buildings will lose value due to higher monthly costs.  

[Victoria Watcher]

presumably rental apartment building face the same right? they will have to apply en masse to raise rents above the normal rate.  which they can apply for.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 February 2020 - 05:17 PM.

[Mike K.]

Yes, absolutely. We spoke about this years ago, but in the case of rentals, age appears to be the factor.

We’re in trouble. When the overwhelming amount of rental housing in our region is at least 40-years-old and supply is barely able to grow rental rates are going to face significant upwards pressure in the coming years. We really haven’t seen anything yet.

I would not be surprised to see a minimum of $3.15 per foot at newer and well maintained/desirable inventory in a couple of years. Right now the new stuff is hovering at plus/minus $3.

$3.25 is not out of the question by 2025, a full $1 increase over the span of a decade.

[Victoria Watcher]

here is the cheapest house listed in the 4-core today:

 

https://www.realtor....ctoria-tillicum

 

$499k

 

This home has been in the same family for decades and entering is like taking a step back in time. All the charm of the 50's era is here with honey oak hardwood, coved ceilings, big spacious living room with feature fireplace, corner windows, eat in family kitchen, and two bedrooms one bath on main level. The lower level offers a 6' basement but dry and usable with a roughed in hobby room. The feature of this property is the south facing level back yard situated on a 5600 sq ft lot located near the end of a cul-de-sac near schools and parks, minutes to Tillicum and Uptown Malls and a short commute to downtown. Offered for sale at over $100,000 under the assessed value. Roof replaced 10 years ago, windows updated as well. But sweat equity is required on this one being an estate sale with the property being sold "as is, where is". Now only subject to probate.

 

built in 1956 and still nobody has got around to finishing the basement.  maybe next century.

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 15 February 2020 - 10:56 AM.

[Rob Randall]

Here is the correct link for that cheapest house. It's just off Tillicum near the highway:

 

https://www.realtor....ctoria-tillicum

[Victoria Watcher]

whoops.  the next least expensive is $600k on tattersall.

 

https://www.realtor....victoria-quadra

 

 

1939.  same issue.  

 

 

Full undeveloped basement provides loads of storage for those seasonal activities.

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 15 February 2020 - 11:03 AM.

[Rob Randall]

Dude, you can't just be blindly posting whatever link happens to be on the clipboard. This is a family forum.

[Rob Randall]

So both properties have zero tenant revenue unless big $ are invested in suiting them out. Half a million for dated two bedrooms and one bath is a tough sell.

Edited by Rob Randall, 15 February 2020 - 11:03 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Dude, you can't just be blindly posting whatever link happens to be on the clipboard. This is a family forum.

 

yes.  lucky for me it was just another listing.

[VIResident]

Letter to the Editor:

Impact of rental units in a condo complex

 

I live in a bare land strata whose insurance premiums have increased almost 20 per cent even though we haven’t had a claim in 30 years. This apparently is a very modest increase compared to some highrise buildings.

We insure our own homes but common property, which includes wall, sewers, clubhouse and gate are insured through strata fees.

And no, I do not think the government, as it seems some have suggested, should use taxes to cover our premiums.

We have “a no rental bylaw” — all homes are occupied by the owners. In the history of the complex we have not had a request for repairs and annual maintenance refused by owners. We also have the required depreciation reports and follow their direction in maintenance and keeping an adequate contingency fund.

Last year, the government considered not allowing a “no rental bylaw” in our type of strata in order to increase the number of units available for rentals. This would have made an undesirable change in our administration, maintenance, fees and possibly insurance.

I believe much of the cause of skyrocketing premiums in multi-unit condominiums is building deterioration and damage to infrastructure. Owners of rental units often do not approve repairs, in order to keep fees low. The tenants living in those units do not have any input and the owners may not take an interest — it is just an investment.

Builders and buyers need to take the responsibility for their buildings. Tenants often do not have much choice but should be required to carry insurance against damage to building and other units.

Trudy Thorgeirson
Duncan https://www.timescol...ance-1.24078217

Edited by VIResident, 18 February 2020 - 02:14 PM.

[Mike K.]

And the blame game begins.

[VIResident]

And the blame game begins.

"Renting" "Rentals" "Renters" = increase in insurance full stop. 

You know this. 

Not new news. 

The point the letter writer is making - they have bylaw "no renters/renting" With the government forcing a change on those bylaws "allow renting" it inherently increases costs on 'insurance' by 20%.  The writer feels the gov. should pay up the difference - my take?  The people who own units that are 'renting' they should make up the difference - not the 'owner' occupied

That cost then is passed onto the tenant.  Yes, increases rents by a fair bit and surely a reduction on the return for the investor over time but thats the price of owning rental investment property. 

Putting aside the aspirations on 'investors' versus 'owners' etc. etc. facts are facts.  A building that suddenly accommodates 'renters' sees an insurance increase of 20%.

No blame, simple fact.

Edited by VIResident, 19 February 2020 - 05:28 AM.

[Mike K.]

We don't actually know if it's the change in status that caused the insurance premium to change; it could be any number of factors completely unrelated to the status change.

 

Considering the premiums rose as other buildings are seeing an identical or higher increase (where there haven't been changes to rental status) I'm leaning towards the letter writer's building simply being re-assessed irrespective of the owner/renter split.

 

Furthermore, the impact of rental suites is in general building wear and tear, like carpeting, dings in the drywall, etc. None of that is covered by strata insurance.

 

Now on the flip-side, I can guarantee you that the letter writer wont' be complaining to the TC when his assessment shows a jump in value because his property is now permitted to be rented.