I agree with you about the pricing. Interest rate hikes should have provided the cooling off period to slowly bring prices down. But we don’t have the supply to allow for a buyers market to take over. I watch coworkers who are late twenties and early thirties signing $900,000 mortgages. They are desperate. So the small number of people who can actually afford homes are taking the small supply even at these interest rates. I made a post up earlier about a way to free up supply, which of course was met with more anger. This whole situation sucks.

This is simply not true. Most of the single family dwellings rentals are owned by regular people. If you think the average person can throw down on a $800,000 mortgage at 6% and pay $8000 a year in property tax plus other expenses just to hedge inflation, you are as delusional as most of the people I’ve run into on this site. Just do the simple math on how much rent you would have to charge to break even on a rental if you wanted to be a land lord tomorrow, then see if you could just sit on a $50,000 loss per year. Jesus. I’m about done with Lemmy. People here are dumb as shit

That’s because you aren’t interested in solving the problem. You just want to punish people that you think are evil. You would rather throw everyone you don’t like under a bus than actually help the people that need help now. Which is the vibe I get from many people on this site. The problem with what your want to do is it will never happen. There is no support. My solution plays into the hands of those in control but still gets the job done.

I get your angry, but your comment about housing prices crashing is going to fuck over so many good hard working people that bought houses in the last 5 years. You would subject those people to holding hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (say if they had to move for work); just to satisfy your need for revenge?

Rental income is taxed at 100%, FYI.

I think carrot works better than stick. Instead of punishing everyone who made an investment, and spending god knows how much money to enforce it, just offer a one time capital gains exemption on any investment single family dwelling that has rental income for more than a year. But make that exemption dependent on the sale going to someone who doesn’t already own a home. (No landlords scooping up extra properties) this puts sellers in connection with buyers and since the seller is getting a big payout they can do the extra leg work. I bet many of the properties get sold to existing tenants.

The government gets an easy cost effective way to free up supply, and it doesn’t actually take money out of their pocket. (Just removes future tax income). Limit the program to no more than 3 years. Anyone who is a casual landlord will jump to get out. Boomers in retirement will jump at it as they will have owned these properties for years. This will free up supply in months, not years. Everyone I know who owns rentals that I discussed this with said they would sell if they could avoid capital gains.

That’s my $0.02. FWIW

My tenants get 30% below market rate on rent. They get 24/7/365 access to maintenance calls for any issues. Every 4 years I renovate a room of their choice. I never get up on their business. Anyone else would say they have the best deal going. But here on Lemmygrad I am still the bad guy because of an investment I made 15 years ago, and decided to maintain in order to ensure my disabled son has a home. I respect your opinion, but I’m done defending myself on this site. No one here lives in reality. It’s almost comical. You have a great life. I sincerely hope whatever you are looking for in life you find. Cheers.

Yeah that would be nice. No one wants to live in apartments here because they are usually in the city. If you we’ve to raise a family, it’s not easy in a city.

I pay for a property management firm to take care of all the problems that come up at the properties. They are the ones who originally found the tenants. The houses are in a different city, I guess I could reach out, but my life is busy enough. It is purely transactional at this point. But after 12 years I am guessing it’s at least acceptable. I do find it interesting the hate that landlords get on this site. I mean I used to rent and never had an issue. But back then renting and owning worked out the same after 30 years if you invested the difference between your rent and monthly house expenses. That sadly isn’t the car any more.

This graph is cherry picked from the worst of Canadian sectors and the best of American. Still in general Canadian housing is bad. The problem isn’t about building houses. Everyone wants to live within 30 miles of the border. All our farm land and natural green space is in the same location. So what would you do? Which would you have us do? Bulldoze farm land, or bulldoze protected green space that is already threatened? If it was as easy as “build houses” we could have done that. We have more than enough houses/accommodation for everyone. But much of the available supply is bought up by people that have more money than the people that need the housing. Add in foreign investment, corporations, speculation and pent up demand… Well here we are.

Some people like the flexibility, some may not be in the area long term, some may believe the stock market has better potential. In our free market type society, that is their choice. You can rail against the status quo, but whether you like it or not, it’s the current reality. As shitty as it is.

Yeah, honestly I think the estimate may be low, or perhaps white the death toll is not what is expected the actual quality of life is going to take a huge bit.

Yeah. Don’t blame people at all for not having kids. Frankly the planet probably needs less humans.

Agreed, especially in today’s market. It wasn’t the case back when I bought the properties. 15 years ago, it was a renters market. Landlords were under pressure, but cheaper prices and low interest rates made it feasible. My first house that I bought was cheaper per month than the apartment I was renting previously.

There are many European families that I know in Canada that are financially able to buy but choose to rent.

Honestly? I went into it as an investment, from a capital appreciation stand point I have done very well. I’ve mentioned in another post that I basically charge minimum rent (30% below market). When I had kids I thought the properties would provide decent income for the kids so it would supplement what they earn in the long term. But then one of my children ended up with a life long disability. My properties are in a condo/town house community close to many amenities. It’s very possible they may end up living in one of the properties while the other parts for their expenses. If I had wanted to get out I would have done so last year. But as it turns out I may actually need the properties to ensure my kid doesn’t end up as a disabled homeless person. So at the end of the day, I’m not interested in making money off the properties, I just cover expenses. It’s probably who I’ve had the same tenants for 12 years. I literally don’t even remember their names.

27,000 deaths a day approximately. According to the WHO 150,000 people die every day right now. 385,000 people are born every day. I mean it sounds bad, but in this context it doesn’t sound that bad…

It’s 100% true. You can not count on a supervisor BY DESIGN to violate policy whenever it may become necessary. Its a recipe for a fatality. In specific circumstances the supervisor should recognize when the situation no longer is covered by the intent of the policy and act. But expecting a supervisor to violate a policy BY DESIGN is inherently flawed, and hence will not translate into actionable legal accountability.

And honestly, today I agree with you (although I think there is some merit in a rental system as some people prefer to rent). I haven’t bought a property for 15 years and I see what the younger generation is going through. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have purchased rentals. But at the time the real estate market was much different. Hell there were decent properties for sale for 70k back then.

Most legal action will not involve the direct supervisor, and it probably shouldn’t. A direct supervisor could have stepped in here and possibly made a difference. However, the idea that a direct supervisor will by design know when to violate company policy in order to safeguard an employee is not feasible… The company managers and those who are responsible for implementing state laws for protecting employees need to be held accountable. Direct supervisors should be documenting the policy issues that are a problem, and helping the union stewards to get the policies changed. In a perfect world… Unfortunately most companies hate working with unions and managers are too removed from the issues that are harming employees. The current system sucks.

I read that series a while ago. I second it as a suggestion. It was a really fascinating read.