|
Lexicon posted:Umm, I don't give a gently caress about people buying anything they like. Don't worry they won't have to reduce themselves to begging. They already have it covered! They're just going to take the money directly from your bank account when they need it, Cyprus style: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/02/f-rfa-macdonald-canada-cyprus-banks.html
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Is there such a thing as a rental bubble, or is the TFW program going to perpetually subsidize slumlords? I'm trying to find a place in Vancouver right now and some of these fuckers are off their gourd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:Is there such a thing as a rental bubble, or is the TFW program going to perpetually subsidize slumlords? I'm trying to find a place in Vancouver right now and some of these fuckers are off their gourd. Vancouver is an exceptionally miserable place to find a place to rent. A bit like SF or NYC, but minus the career and money-making opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Rime posted:Is there such a thing as a rental bubble, or is the TFW program going to perpetually subsidize slumlords? I'm trying to find a place in Vancouver right now and some of these fuckers are off their gourd. What are you looking for and where? Do you have to bonafides to prove you can pay the rent? While it may seem that there is a lot of competition to rent an reasonably priced apt, you have to remember that Vancouver's population is absolute garbage and you're competing with a lot of white trash. Being a landlord in Vancouver is a loving nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:you're competing with a lot of white trash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 00:14
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Being a landlord in Vancouver is a loving nightmare. My heart bleeds for landlords, truly.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:My heart bleeds for landlords, truly. "My tenants aren't providing me a monthly profit on top of paying the mortgage for me, and can't fix the yard sale appliances i installed"  Going through the real estate section of kijiji here is incredibly entertaining. Trailers for sale for 90 grand with "own your own home, cheaper than paying rent!*** " as the title. *** Lot rental $419/month
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:loving ugh. Why post this? Because Vancouver is full of some of the most unfriendly and elitist people on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...hboard/follows/quote:Ottawa is taking new steps to cool the country’s housing market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Being a landlord in Vancouver is a loving nightmare. Being a landlord anywhere is a loving nightmare. Good renters are hard to find and often know it so even if you get one you have to deal with below market rent changes to keep them from jumping. And that isn't even touching on the nightmares that can happen with maintenance. It isn't like a rental house is some sort of magic money dispenser or something, but people sure seem to think it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Being a landlord anywhere is a loving nightmare. Good renters are hard to find and often know it so even if you get one you have to deal with below market rent changes to keep them from jumping. And that isn't even touching on the nightmares that can happen with maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:Point 1 sounds like capitalism at work. Point 2 sounds like something you'd have to deal with whether you lived in the house or rented it. Turning a profit on land/housing you own but don't live in is about as close to 'magic money dispenser' as anything gets in this world, so cry me a loving river. Well, I mean that tenants can let problems fester. A leaky shutoff valve that would cost a DIY-er $10 to replace or even a plumber only $60 or something can easily become a multi-hundred or thousand dollar repair if allowed to sit until rotted floor boards and joists need replacement. Proper landlording tends to be slow, small returns punctuated by pretty massive expenses and lots of work. Yet so many people think "Oh I'll just rent out the house and make $1000 per month! It will just arrive in the mail!". I think it is an extension of the whole "renting is throwing your money away!" myth, with people thinking that they were just paying directly into their landlord's pockets (because that's what they have been told for years that they have been doing) and now wanting to be on the other side of that entirely fictional situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
I've lived in a lot of rentals, but I've never lived in one where the problems with the house/unit weren't chronic or didn't predate my arrival. Landlords also have rights and can inspect the units when reasonable with 24 hours written notice. Floor joists take a while to rot out, long enough for a diligent landlord to catch it even if the tenant is apathetic. Sure I agree that being a landlord isn't easy, but I'm not going to pity the landlords who didn't realize renting a property wasn't a hands-off enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
No sympathy for landlords here. Every. Single. Place I've moved into in Vancouver has the following situations: 1. Landlord pretends not to know the Residential Tenancy Act, claims not to be responsible for things that they are 2. Refuses to return damage deposit, but doesn't file a claim for damages. I love this one because I've made money every time I move - just file a complaint when they're more than 14 days past due and you get twice your money back! 3. Stuff in suite is broken. They don't fix it, despite me giving permission IN WRITING to enter my suite. The list goes on and on, but landlords need to read and follow the rules as much as tenants do. For every landlord "horror story" you just have to dig a few questions in and realize that the landlords actually had several avenues that they could have pursued for damages against the tenant, they just weren't aware of them or didn't document them properly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
I've noticed a lot of my friends in Vancouver have just sort of given up trying to deal with their landlords after being successfully intimidated or neglected for long enough. Half the stove doesn't work, just use the other half. Sink in the bathroom doesn't work, just use the kitchen sink. Heat isn't working well enough in the winter, just buy a space heater. Tenant below them clearly smoking despite it being against the rules, just keep your windows shut. They all just say they don't want to cause problems or have to move out because it took them years to even find a place so nice. Are these the fantasy tenants from the wildest dreams of lovely vancouver landlords?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:I've lived in a lot of rentals, but I've never lived in one where the problems with the house/unit weren't chronic or didn't predate my arrival. Landlords also have rights and can inspect the units when reasonable with 24 hours written notice. Floor joists take a while to rot out, long enough for a diligent landlord to catch it even if the tenant is apathetic. Oh yeah I am not in any way feeling sorry for the idiots getting into the rental market, nor should anyone else. In fact I am more sitting back and enjoying the show.  The next act should be when they get fed up or spooked and try to exit only to realize that years of neglect and no updates craters the value of a house.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:try to exit only to realize that years of neglect and no updates craters the value of a house. This a million times, we've had old family friends and co-workers and poo poo who did this. They'd buy a house, sometimes not even in the town or region they live but in a hot property market. You see the house is an INVESTMENT and they're going to sell in 5-10 years and make mad cash, but since they are such smart capitalists they are going to rent the house while they wait to make even MORE money. 5-10 years later the house needs 50-100k of work due to horrible tenants and a hands-off landlording style. One of them would seriously not even come to the same city as the rental house unless the tenants left, which over 6 years happened only twice. Both times resulted in them getting "surprised" and flipping out that the lawn was the mess, things needed painting, appliances needed replacing and so on. The 2nd time they gave the tenants notice saying they were going to sell the house as the market was up and landlording was just tooo stressful for them. The tenants had a dog which literally chewed through one of the doors and half destroyed a couple more. The carpets were all totally ruined and thread-bare in patches. The entire house reeked of unwashed dog and tobacco. The fridge and stove needed replacing and the sliding glass patio door had a huge crack running through it. Because they were so lazy to inspect the house and wanted the tenants out asap they gave back the damage deposit before they even saw the house because "They said the house was fine!" They had to put in about 60k on new flooring, new kitchen, painting, and general repairs. They bought the house for about 280k and sold it for about 350k 6 years later. Real-estate, the most savy of investments!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
.
Sassafras fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:They had to put in about 60k on new flooring, new kitchen, painting, and general repairs. They bought the house for about 280k and sold it for about 350k 6 years later. But I bet when other people (who want to believe in the dream) tell their story they point out that they made $70k!!!  Also... Baronjutter posted:Are these the fantasy tenants from the wildest dreams of lovely vancouver landlords? Yes, as long as they pay their rent they sure are. The nightmare tenant of lovely landlords is the one that documents failings and fires off registered mail demanding it be fixed and knows the deposit rules forward and backward when they move out. "They were just so demanding/abused the legal system"  I do have a question about a practice that I'm seeing more and more of in the US: do you see landlords trying to pull off zero-day turnarounds by either requiring the tenants to vacate X-days before the end of the lease or trying to do repairs that legally should have been done before move in? For example I've been seeing a ton of leases here in Austin, Texas (which has a bit of a rental crunch of its own) saying that the tenants have to move out 5-7 days before the lease is done to allow for cleaning and make-ready. It seems very dubious that you can require somebody to leave yet still charge them rent for that period but since when has "every iota of legal precedent and tenant law says you can't do that" stopped people from slipping bullshit into lease contracts? They literally are charging you not to live there...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Arabidopsis posted:No sympathy for landlords here. Every. Single. Place I've moved into in Vancouver has the following situations: Have you ever pursued these landlords though legal avenues?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Have you ever pursued these landlords though legal avenues? I don't want to throw money down the lawyer pit, but the easiest thing to do is file complaints with the Residential Tenancy Branch. I basically have to go that route to get my damage deposit back every time, even when the place is fully clean. I am a reasonable person - if I broke something I'll pay, but they just pretend that they can keep the "fee" at will, which is just not true. I've been incredibly charitable too, on a couple occasions I've sent a letter threatening to file a complaint with the RTB (which would result in a default judgment in my favor, and would require the landlords to pay double!) It just makes me sick to hear landlords whining and complaining when they themselves don't know or choose not to follow the clear rules that are laid out. I know there are poo poo tenants, but if you get a poo poo tenant there are many options for dealing with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
We've got a pretty decent house rental in a Vancouver suburb, but the owner seems to not care about keeping the house upgraded. Like it took him 6 months or longer to agree to replace carpet in the living room that was worn and smelly when we moved in. We ended up removing the carpet ourselves, and he paid for laminate flooring. I also worry about the wiring in the house. The last electrician who came out said that the wiring was so old that it is potentially a fire hazard. I'm not even sure if the house is up to legal standards--guess we should check that out. Otherwise, it's big and has a nice yard and is more akin to a character home than a rundown house; it's just old, from 1960 (this is a joke, since I grew up in the midwest in the states, where houses were build in the 19th century). It has a remodeled full basement, a beautiful living room with high, slanted ceilings, two fireplaces, and a great yard. It's a great place to have parties, but the house needs some structural upgrades, for sure. The owner hasn't increased rent in a long time--we do a lot of upgrades ourselves, like painting, installing screens, building a raised garden, etc. We don't really mind since a lot of it's DIY and cosmetic. The owner is still responsible for appliances, plumbing, and all that. Speaking of home ownership, I've been watching house prices in the tri-cities (Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby), and they haven't really gone down at all, despite the looming bubble. Nevertheless, even with a double-income, both professional workers, we aren't really seeing houses around Vancouver as an option to buy due to their high prices, and honestly, though Vancouver has a ton of nice stuff, I think at times if we could find work in the interior in our fields, I'd much rather live there. We have family there, and housing is much cheaper. It would be more like a long-term investment in a place I could see settling down in/retiring in eventually. I'm thinking Kamloops/100-Mile, Nelson, Osooyos, or even smaller towns like Trail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Maybe the real solution is to just get a condo in the other Vancouver?
etalian fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I do have a question about a practice that I'm seeing more and more of in the US: do you see landlords trying to pull off zero-day turnarounds by either requiring the tenants to vacate X-days before the end of the lease or trying to do repairs that legally should have been done before move in? For example I've been seeing a ton of leases here in Austin, Texas (which has a bit of a rental crunch of its own) saying that the tenants have to move out 5-7 days before the lease is done to allow for cleaning and make-ready. It seems very dubious that you can require somebody to leave yet still charge them rent for that period but since when has "every iota of legal precedent and tenant law says you can't do that" stopped people from slipping bullshit into lease contracts? They literally are charging you not to live there... You'd have to check state laws. A few years ago I'd have said it was illegal with no hesitation, but then I moved to Indiana and discovered a state supreme court case in which it was ruled that landlords can legally void warrant of habitability in a lease and not be liable when the apartment condition maims/kills the tenant. Check your state laws, especially since you live in a known lovely state. The bigger thing I see is landlords / management companies preying on people's lack of knowledge by including huge waivers of every law under the sun in the lease and then trying to convince them that they have no right to pursue claims when things go wrong. They try to get around this with that stupid 'any part of the lease found invalid will be invalid separate from the rest of the lease which will still be binding' clause, and then they fill it to the brim with illegal clauses, leaving it to you to fight each one as it comes up. The biggest winner I've seen yet was the lease in Indiana that tried to ban children from laughing within 800 meters of property. Enforcement of an activity off-property aside, why the gently caress did they even care?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
etalian posted:Maybe the real solution is to just get a condo in the other Vancouver? The Columbia is a damned nice valley; I was just doing a bunch of work on the river between Portland and Vancouver. drat shame the British didn't bother to keep that part of land; would be the best area of Canada bar none.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Simon Fraser was actually about a week late from claiming that part of cascadia for Canada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
The Northwest and the Columbia had already been explored by James Cook and George Vancouver long before that though. The HBC, operating out of Fort Vancouver (now Vancouver, WA) was the largest European settlement in the area for some time. The real problem was accepting joint-occupancy, which just allowed thousands of Americans to flock in and settle the area north of the Columbia, which up until that point was pretty well British controlled. The American authorities had no reason to stop them either, since they really wanted to get their hands on the natural harbour at Puget Sound.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle13705668/quote:The irony is that it is a problem almost entirely of the government’s own making. Starting in the late 1970s, successive Liberal and Conservative governments made it a national policy to aggressively encourage home ownership. The government offered mortgage insurance to all homeowners via CMHC, then it expanded those guarantees to private mortgage insurers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Pretty sad how Canada followed the US mistake of encouraging home ownership instead of the more useful goal of home affordability. I'd rather be renting for a reasonable monthly cost like in the Vienna model instead of playing the "home investment" speculation game. Then there's repeating all the mistakes such as creating moral hazard by getting into the mortgage business, so when the house of cards falls apart it swallow millions of dollars in bailout assistance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
In terms of government policy how do you encourage affordability vs ownership?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:In terms of government policy how do you encourage affordability vs ownership? You 'encourage affordability' by ensuring there is an adequate supply of good rental stock that covers all sectors (i.e., three bedroom units, etc.), and then you get the gently caress out of the securitization business entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:In terms of government policy how do you encourage affordability vs ownership? Here's what not to do - encourage ever-greater access to credit by granting risk-free profit to banks, and providing buyers with ever more sources of capital for financing purchases (robbing RRSPs, first time buyer "grants") => more dollars chasing housing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Is it possible to get a mortgage from a Canadian bank as a non-citizen, and if so does the CMHC insure it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
It honestly makes no sense to me the amount the government spends on making mortgages "easier" for people to get. It really seems like all that money and energy, if put into grants for affordable housing, grants to encourage rental-construction and so on would have much much better results. The construction industry would still be "stimulated" but it would be directly. Do the people making these choices honestly believe making borrowing easier is the best way, or is it an entirely cynical wealth transfer to the banks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Cmon the answer isn't that hard. If you were finance minister, which policy do you think would make your party look better? One that made canada a nation of home owners or a nation that was 'throwing money away into the rental abyss'? You don't think the NDP/Liberals would have ridden that rear end till it was raw?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Is it possible to get a mortgage from a Canadian bank as a non-citizen, and if so does the CMHC insure it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:In terms of government policy how do you encourage affordability vs ownership? Off-topic but you can look up a interesting solution called the Vienna model for housing. Wouldn't work for most cities since it depends on municipal government owning vast tracts of land in the city instead of private parties. This allows the city government to cut deals with developers to expand or convert existing buildings to high quality class A rental units. So the developer gets a chance to develop nice properties for a decent return over the lease agreement while the city government is able to provide both affordable and quality housing. The Vienna model also gives the renters unique home ownership features such as being able to remodel their rental properties and also pass on the rental properties to their kids. Pretty much makes more sense from instead of going with the US speculation model which places a higher priority on the appreciation "investment" aspect of housing instead of focusing on keep the price affordable in terms of income for the area and also keep the housing inflation expenses flat over time. Also throwing out the "investment" perspective helps prevent the nasty entanglement with the beloved banking sector through government back of the private mortgage market or having the government held hostage when the bubbles explodes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
So let's assume the market correction is going to happen sometime within the next 2 years. What happens? Does the conservative government try it's hardest to keep everything afloat until the 2015 election? Do they just drop the mic and say Im out, Justin deal with this poo poo? How do the banks react? It's not in their best interest to flood the market with foreclosed inventory. Do you get a US situation where you have swathes of housing stock on a shadow list? I am just trying to play out any situation in my head where I can actually afford the nicer quality houses that my relative income level should have afforded me 10 to 15 years ago and right now all I can see is a perfect poo poo show 5 to 10 years down the line. Things take a hard bounce and the tail end of the baby boomers retirements and HELOCs just get wiped out and their forced to work through their supposed retirement age. Edit: whelp our long national nightmare is just beginning. apatheticman fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Whiteycar posted:So let's assume the market correction is going to happen sometime within the next 2 years. What's going to happen is that that first of all the economy as a whole will take a very bad hit in the dick because as things stand, a) business are still too shy/scared (b/c of the ongoing instability) to do any serious investment that really creates jobs, b) the CPC sure as poo poo isn't creating government jobs or any sort of direct spending and c) housing bullshit is actually one of the last few things driving "growth" and spending. So once that falls down we're gonna be poo poo out of stuff. IMO neither the CPC nor the LPC is likely to do start significantly increasing government spending, which is the only thing that will make this less painful. So, probably more unemployment and wage stagnation. The second thing that's going to happen is that a whole loving truckload of boomers that are about to retire or already retired were sort of counting on the bubble never ever bursting, so you know, that would no longer be the case. They'll have to lean on the government (who is revenue starved and whose tax base is hurting) and their children (who are already stretched to the limits if they are employed at all) to get by. And we'll still have articles wondering how "the Me generation" managed to gently caress up all those retirement plans for BEST EVER GENERATION baby-boomers. That will be the best part of all!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Whiteycar posted:So let's assume the market correction is going to happen sometime within the next 2 years. Just look at the US 2009 real estate meltdown for a good guide of what will happen. There are some small differences such as canadian banks being a bit better in terms of rainy day funds but still is really ugly when you get the post-bubble rapid asset deflation. Just messes up the economy in so many ways from the HELOC injections into the economy suddenly drying up, rapid destruction of local government tax base and also other businesses such as construction getting trashed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:02
|
|