'This is egregious': Sisters shocked when Toronto landlord raises rent to $9,500 a month

They're not generally cartoonish evil, I'm sure they agree that some tenant protections against sudden eviction are a good thing, and allowing unlimited rent hikes completely obliterates all that.

Jesus, I'm getting it from both ends here, somebody else is dumping on me for suggesting that a rent-control system that's a few points above inflation so that landlords could adapt to the market without abruptly bankrupting their tenants was somehow a reasonable compromise.

I'm not arguing for extreme rent-control policies, just that no rent control is bad because it lets landlords write their own eviction laws.

Peg it at like 2.5% or 5% per year above inflation and you can't use it as a sudden backdoor eviction but you also let landlords adapt to market reality over time.

Capping rents might be stupid for all the reasons economists say, but putting a damper on sudden price shifts is just being humane.

I think your second point is valid, but the first is upside-down. Landlords compete with tenants for plots and bank loans. If they started leaving the market, more plots will free up and banks will be forced to start giving out loans to tenants. This will allow people who are currently tenants to build their own houses, rather than needing to rent. And your third point only applies if you exclude some properties from rent control, which is what Ontario seems to be doing.

Before I took economics in college I would have downvoted you. Price ceilings don't solve the problem.

So the first point is simply false, the second point is symptomatic of the third point which is simply an example of a poor policy.

Also the second half of the third point is completely fucked off. If new construction were exempt from rent control then your ROI would be better on building units than buying units.

Nice ChatGPT copypasta, bro

When people trying to purchase their first home are outbid constantly by investors (corporate or not) who later try to rent out that same space at more than the first time buyer would be paying on their mortgage then no, you daft idiot, they are not providing a service.

This whole lAnDlOrDs ArE oUr FrIeNd shtick makes you look pathetic.

If not for landlords who would you rent from?

public housing is a thing, you know

The reason so many can't afford to buy is because so many houses are bought purely to be rented back out again, if no landlords existed housing prices would drop and more people could afford to buy.

For those who still couldn't, as others have said - public housing

If not for landlords who would you rent from?

If not for landlords who would suck all supply?

Public housing. That's where you rent it from. Landlords serve no purpose in society that can't be solved in better ways.

For example, I would gladly purchase my apartment. The rent that I pay would be roughly equal to mortgage payments on the approximate value of the unit. But instead I'm stuck paying that amount so someone else can own it. Just cut out the parasite in the middle.

Landlords provide housing the way scalpers "provide" tickets. The solution for people who need can't afford to buy or who only need short term accommodation is public housing.

The CMHC used to provide funds to the provinces which would then build big public housing units with affordable rent. This provide a check & balance to the free market, keeping rents and house prices from skyrocketing. But then in the 80s and 90s, both Conservative and Liberal PMs successively defunded that aspect of the CMHC to solve budget issues, and those properties were destroyed as they reached their "maturity" date, regardless of whether the building was still usable or not.

I lived near one of them, located here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SG2kkXeVsp3Nia2RA Check out the street view and click "see more dates" for 2012, that's housing for 90+families. Then in 2014 it was closed for demolition. And today it's still an empty grass lot. Almost 10 years as a Govt-owned empty lot, instead of affordable housing, because those Govts kept promising "market solutions" to housing problems.

But it turns out the "problem" with housing was letting the "free market" turn it into another Tulip Bulb craze, instead of keeping it an affordable necessity

Please tell us more about how the types of people who decide to jack rent up to absurd levels when given the slightest push back are actually a good thing for society.

if not for landlords who would you rent from?

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"

Decomodify housing. Like tax owning a home past like the 3th one so high it would destitute someone as rich as Musk in a month. Watch everyone who uses property for investment panic sell and crash the market into oblivion. The people who want to own a home can now do so and the rest can be bought up by the government for cheap to convert into public housing. Ez affordable housing and renting in one swoop.

Found the landlord. If not for tenants, who would you and your estate agent squeeze for every possible cent, cutting every possible cost along the way so you can more horde wealth, buy more homes and get fat at other people's expense.

Nobody that wasn't bleeding renters would try and look reasonable by saying "corporations shouldn't be able to own too many houses".

The people complaining are not the ones who should be ashamed.

We don't need Capitalism any longer. We can do better.

Without landlords, nobody would need to rent in the first place.

The geniuses on this site think that if the government is your landlord then you don't have a landlord. Basically they want a form of communism. Public housing has it's place but as someone who has rented in the past it's not the sort of housing I'd choose unless it's a last resort.

In any case, VERY STRONG DISAGREE that the only rentals should be government run or co-ops.

Attacking landlords is textbook communism. Straight by the book. The red guard is in full force on lemmy.world.

Bank can't do the same thing?

There is no limit to yearly increases in the real world. You get a phone call from your landlord telling you that they want to sell/renovate the unit, you get the hint and tell them that you will accept a rent increase, then magically they no longer want to sell/renovate. Happened to me with an otherwise "good" landlord.

In Norway you can set the rent as you wish when negotiating the initial contact. So it doesn't matter what the previous tenants rent was. But the raise cap per year is set per year after that as long as the contact is valid.

This exact same thing can happen in Québec with appartements less than 5 years old, the infamous F part, In Montreal a LL can increase your raise from 2500$ to 9500$ if he wishes.

There is no limit on what you can change the rent by between renters. Only what you can increase while the same person lives in the unit. The moment they move out its perfectly fine to increase the rent for the next renter.

Found the landlord

No landlord is a good person. The sisters, even if assholes, doesn't excuse the fact that the landlord is also an asshole simply by being a landlord.

Ya. It sounds like they wanted to raise the rent to $3500 which the landlord clearly thought was being reasonable for this building. They bitched about it so the landlord raised the rent high enough to get rid of them.

Sounds like the gambled and lost. Instead of going to the news, they should have tried to negotiate back to $3500 or something close. Good luck now.

In both the Western countries I've lived so far (France and Italy, but my guess is the list is much longer), this wouldn't be possible.

The landlord could at most adjust the rent to inflation.

The only wag he/she could ask for such a steep increase is by making a brand new contract with someone else, but for that purpose the current contract should be terminated, which isn't possible if your occupants are paying their rent, unless he/she wants to re-take possession for selling the apartment/house or to live in it. If they fake the repossession and actually end up renting again to an inflated price, the new contract is deemed void and the previous occupants could be reinstated.

It makes any other sort of renter protections moot if they can basically be evicted whenever by saying the rent is now $1,000,000 take it or leave it.

No one should answer you seriously, because that the most braindead question I've read.

Because people need housing to live in, so it's in the interest of the vast majority of people to make sure the few that own property can't increase rent by 100s of % for no good reason. Additionally we live in a democracy so usually the interests of the majority are supposed to guide policy making even if it upsets the minority that control access to resources because they won't profit quite as much as otherwise.

Then you have become the first person ever to find the fabled Golden Goose who shits out money for the rich, no strings attached.

Yeah, I think you're right, and I'm pretty sure this is super illegal as a result.

Yeah agreed but because of the lack of rent control they don't have to. That's my point. They hold a lot of power being able to do what they want with rent changes alone.

Source on doubled? There's no mention in the article of the initial rent

Edit: For all we know the initial rent increase could have been $50. But sure, I'm the bad guy for pointing out lack of info