660

'This is egregious': Sisters shocked when Toronto landlord raises rent to $9,500 a month (toronto.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 2 years ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

294 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 52 points 2 years 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.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Sounds like you're saying you can buy your own house. So go do it.

[-] vinceman 15 points 2 years ago

The bare minimum of research would tell you to qualify for a mortgage to buy an apartment is much more difficult than being able to rent.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I worked in real estate. I'm aware of how a closing works.

[-] vinceman 1 points 2 years ago

Apparently not lol

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Ok buddy. Lol. I'm a certified abstractor.

[-] vinceman 1 points 2 years ago

Yet you don't know how a mortgage works. Pretty impressive honestly

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

A mortgage is a document filed in the register of deeds office. I've filed several. You're looking like a clown here.

[-] vinceman 1 points 2 years ago

Oh wow that's crazy.

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

Wow I never thought of that. It's almost like people treating housing as an investment portfolio, corporate landlords, and greedy developers have made all the housing around me completely unaffordable.

On top of that, I wouldn't qualify for a mortgage of that amount, despite the fact I've been paying the same in rent for nearly a decade.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

Isn't there another similar unit somewhere you could buy, then? You're right, it sounds like your landlord isn't serving much of a role here.

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago

There is not. An equivalently sized apartment in my neighbourhood is on the market for $1.6M at least. Because the only things being built are "luxury" units made for investment, not housing people.

Also, I wouldn't qualify for a mortgage equal to my rent despite the fact I've been paying rent at that rate for nearly a decade.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

And you think your apartment is worth a lot less? I don't know if I buy that, honestly, unless it's an absolute tear-down. I've played with markets enough to learn that there's never an easy shortcut.

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Alright, I'm done being nice here.

Yes, it is worth less. I know because they just did a valuation of it a week ago. A mortgage on it would be affordable for me. I don't care what's "believable" for you. Fuck off.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

Alright. You're either very lucky or wrong, but have a nice life.

[-] vinceman 11 points 2 years ago

The bare minimum of research would tell you to qualify for a mortgage to buy an apartment is much more difficult than being able to rent.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, I know, because the banks also have to make money. So then OP can't actually pay a mortgage for the same price, if you include downpayment and all those sort of things.

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Why do banks have to make money though? What purpose do they serve that couldn't be served better by an entity that doesn't need to make a profit?

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

Well somebody has to think of the shareholders.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No reason, there are credit unions too, my riding association uses one, and I personally bank with my province. They still function like banks, though, and when they give out loans they expect interest in turn for not having the money to use themselves (basically), and various other things to ensure you can actually pay them back.

If you're wondering why we can't just give houses out freely, it's because the construction workers have to do tangible work that sucks and will want to be taken care of in turn. The only convincing way I've seen to ensure that in a complex industrial society involves currency of some kind, and then you're right back to banks.

Now, you could ask why landlords get to have so much more money than their tenants in the first place, and I'd say dunno, seems dumb. I never said I loved capitalism, I'm just not sure why landlords are worse than all the other Guys That Own Things.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

You've said things that are objectively true and I can't refuse, so I'm just going to angrily downvote instead.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

Lol, thanks for the honesty.

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

I understand how banks work, and that labour has to be compensated, but thanks for being condescending and somehow taking away that I want to abolish currency?

First: We could absolutely be giving homes away and still compensate the people that build them. Finland has been having huge success by (in some degree) giving housing away, or providing it at cost.

Second: saying there's bigger evils out there doesn't mean landlords get a pass. Especially in Canada where our housing costs are skyrocketing DIRECTLY because of landlords, corporate or otherwise. Them being any better or worse doesn't matter when they're the biggest problem RIGHT NOW.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

but thanks for being condescending and somehow taking away that I want to abolish currency?

I don't actually know you that well, and there's no shortage of people who do want to abolish currency on Lemmy so it's good to get ahead of. Sorry if I came off as condescending, I'm actually enjoying this particular sub-chain, you're bringing up lots of important stuff.

First: We could absolutely be giving homes away and still compensate the people that build them. Finland has been having huge success by (in some degree) giving housing away, or providing it at cost.

Well, yeah, the government could buy housing and then give it away at a loss. That could be an effective form of wealth redistribution, but we wouldn't have more houses as a result, which brings me to...

Especially in Canada where our housing costs are skyrocketing DIRECTLY because of landlords

I don't think that's really accurate. They might be contributing a little, but we actually just have measurably too few houses for an economy of our size and development level.