658
submitted 1 year ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

The landlord had told them he wanted to raise the rent to $3,500 and when they complained he decided to raise it to $9,500.

“We know that our building is not rent controlled and this was something we were always worried about happening and there is no way we can afford $9,500 per month," Yumna Farooq said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

You can't afford to buy. If not for landlords who would you rent from? Where would you live?

The idea that if there were no landlords you'd be able to afford a house is absurd.
I agree corporations should be limited in how many single.family homes they are allowed to buy but this whole "all landlords are scum ". Schtick makes u look pathetic and ignorant of the facts.

[-] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 166 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I never said any of that. What are you talking about?

[-] Artemis@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago

You wrote it. You can’t re-read it?

The idea that if there were no landlords you'd be able to afford a house is absurd.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] fiah@discuss.tchncs.de 65 points 1 year ago

If not for landlords who would you rent from?

public housing is a thing, you know

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 62 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I mean this is patently false. Even when there were huge housing surpluses and rates were rock bottom people still rented. Sometimes even when they could afford to buy.

Sure now large corps have gobbled up the supply but even if they sold everything and tons of houses were on the market there would still be renters. And those renters need landlords.

[-] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

Well yes, hence my last sentence - there will always be some people who have to rent (or just prefer it), and for those people, we could have public housing. Basically housing that's treated as a public infrastructure - run not for profit, but for public good. It's really not that hard to grasp - remove the landlords from the equation, and set the rent prices to exactly the cost of maintaining the properties.

If you remove the landlords leeching away extra value for investment profit, and instead just charged what it cost to make the housing available, it'd be cheaper by definition. Providing essential services at an affordable cost is literally the whole point of civil infrastructure

You don't need landlords to give people a place to rent, in the same way I don't need to pay someone to bring water to my house, or haul my sewage away, I use the public utilities in my area. And I'm not even talking about subsidizing the cost with tax dollars (though I think that's a good idea), you could give renters significant savings simply by not trying to make money off them

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pretty sure this is the other way around.

People want to rent. The market responds with a supply of rentals.

I am not a “free market knows all” person but pretty clearly these sky high rents are a function of demand.

The inverse of your suggestion is that, if people bought houses instead of renting, there would be no demand for rental properties and prices would crash.

In fact, if it is true that there are excess properties being purchased to rent out, that should push prices down due to increased supply and competition for the finite number of people wanting to rent.

[-] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Demand isn't high because so many more people prefer to rent - demand is high because it's the only financially viable option. Why is it the only financially viable option? Because landlords (both corporate and personal) buy up all the property they can and rent it out. Because so many houses are getting bought as rentals, the supply of houses that can actually be bought is low.

Seriously, have you spoken to anyone who has tried to buy a house in the last few years? Every single one I know had a myriad of stories like "I put down an offer, but some investment company offered $20k over asking, cash in hand"

And because housing prices are so high because of the above behavior, more and more people are forced to rent, who would have 100% been able to buy a house not that long ago. And so rises demand.

If what you were saying was true (that rent prices are high purely because people love renting, and no one wants to be a homeowner), then why are we seeing sky high home prices at the same time? You're quick to pull out a half baked supply and demand theory, but you're very quick to ignore the other side of that equation.

Also, more fundamentally the whole "supply and demand explains all commerce" thing has been thoroughly untrue for ages. Maybe in a world without giant multinational conglomerates, political corruption, and price fixing. But in the real world, things are wildly more complicated

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] uis@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago

If not for landlords who would you rent from?

If not for landlords who would suck all supply?

[-] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

If not for landlords who would you rent from?

I wouldn't be renting. Landlords solely exist to make profit, not to serve anyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

You mean you'd pay the same amount for a house as a landlord pays? But you can do that now, why don't you?

Has nobody ever informed you that growing demand leads to price growth only if supply grows slower? But if prices grow, then supply does also grow faster. These are feedback loops.

Which means that what a house costs now it would cost still, after a short transient process.

"Suck all supply", my ass. You mean that you'd buy that house for 1/10 of what the landlord has paid for it, because it'd just be there, like a mushroom after rain? It wouldn't get built, dummy, cause it wouldn't be worth the money.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] PaganDude@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jcrm@kbin.social 52 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (24 replies)
[-] countflacula@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Poob@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 year ago

if not for landlords who would you rent from?

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Ok. I support this.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've NEVER met a landlord who had low prices, just government subsidized low income housing. Even large real-estate companies/ banks tend to offer better prices. Landlords fucking suck. Investing in a house, is like "investing" in water. You're just spending money to increase demand and make money, on SOMETHING PEOPLE NEED TO LIVE.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago

You can’t afford to buy

Because landlords are buying all the properties?

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SlikPikker@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (25 replies)
[-] terath@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
658 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
217 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS