649

'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

323 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

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 235 points 2 years ago

It shows that "no rent control" basically means "your landlord can throw you out at any time without notice" by raising rent to a ludicrous amount. It completely undermines all other tenant protections. Even conservatives should be supporting at least modest rent controls to prevent cases like this.

[+] mindcruzer@lemmy.ca -18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes, rent control, our panacea.

Negative Effects on Supply: Rent control can potentially lead to housing shortages over the long term. When landlords are unable to raise rents to cover maintenance and operating costs or to generate a reasonable return on their investment, they may have less incentive to maintain or invest in their properties. This can lead to a deterioration in the quality of rental housing and a reduction in the overall supply of rental units. In some cases, landlords may convert rental properties into other uses, such as condominiums or commercial spaces, further reducing the supply of rental housing.

Inefficiencies and Reduced Mobility: Rent control can lead to inefficiencies in the housing market. Tenants in rent-controlled units may have less incentive to move, even if their housing needs change, because they want to keep their low rents. This reduced mobility can make it harder for new renters to find suitable housing.

Selective Impact: Rent control often applies to older buildings or units built before a certain date. This can create disparities in rent levels between newer and older housing stock, potentially discouraging the construction of new rental units and leading to further imbalances in the housing market.

A short term band-aid that causes long term problems. Government price controls are a tale as old as time.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Uh, part of the point of the greenbelt is to stop building detached houses because they're actually environmentally quite bad. I mean maybe individuals could work together to put together a co-op but Housing Now TO says that municipal governments generally block any of those that would pencil out.

[-] MrMonkey@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

I wanted to build a duplex but "zoning laws" say that wasn't allowed, only single family detached houses with at least X amount of land.

Most zoning laws are serious bullshit and work as defacto segregation to keep the dirty ~~brown~~ poor people away from the nice good rich folk. It's why suburban school is a totally different things from poor urban school.

Zoning laws are why developers in LA can't afford to build anything other than luxury condos. Land is literally too expensive to build. As an example: a requirement to have at least X parking spots per X units, even when it's built right next to a metro and a bus depot and you're building low income housing for people who are less likely to own cars in the first place.

Too many NIBYs whining about things.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

part of the point of the greenbelt is to stop building detached houses because they’re actually environmentally quite bad.

If we're being honest, all housing is environmentally bad. And not just environmentally bad, but bad for society in general. A necessary evil for the individual, perhaps, but it stands to reason that they should carry a high cost to account for the negative externalities they place on everyone else.