this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
88 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
10 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ 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
 

Two B.C. landlords whose costs have skyrocketed – due to their variable-rate mortgage – have been allowed to impose huge rent hikes on their tenants to offset their financial losses.

In a recent ruling, an arbitrator with the province's Residential Tenancy Branch approved increases totalling 23.5 per cent over two years for each of the landlords' four rental units.

That's on top of the 3.5 per cent annual increase previously approved by the B.C. government for 2024.

"The landlords experienced dramatic interest rate increases which have made managing the property unsustainable," reads the ruling, which was published in May.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 months ago

So if/when rates go back down the tenants can apply to have their rent lowered back, right?

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Oh good! Does this mean the government's also going to protect my stock portfolio and guarantee those investments always succeed, too? Because if so, I should start having a stock portfolio!

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

Right?????

What the fuck?

If you invest in something you gotta assume the risk.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Past growth performance gave me good reason to expect that I would make money, too! But now I'm not! Government, help meeeeee!

[–] AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 months ago

Man, I can't wait until government schmuck decides that the stock I bought that dropped 80% over the course of the pandemic is 'unfair' and I should be compensated. Absolutely utter bullshit.

If their gamble on real estate didn't work out, take the hit, sell at a loss, and learn your lesson.

No fucking wonder people can't buy a starter home anymore.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The landlords, who are identified only by the initials S.O. and K.O., argued they had good reason to expect the rate would remain low when they purchased the property. The Bank of Canada had kept its interest rate low for more than decade, as part of the government's effort to stimulate the economy following the 2008 recession.

… in 2021? We were in the middle of a global pandemic, economy was already starting to show signs of stress, and a nationwide property values had shot up 25% YoY. How did they even manage to make the argument that anyone in their right mind would expect interest rates to remain low until the end of their term?!

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

You raise a great point. That's @#$%ing absurd. It sounds like the "an arbitrator with the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch" was unqualified to work on this case if they do not understand that economic point

[–] AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Because they're ignorant and entitled.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

As a renter, this is deeply disturbing. Their rent is going up 7.7x the previously stated legal limit so that "Two B.C. landlords" who didn't properly anticipate the consequences of their borrowing can be bailed out of financial losses?! WTF are these "two B.C. landlords"? Corporations, probably, right? Modern-day capitalism is such a fucking grift: if you're not rich, you're on your own; if you're rich, you get bailed out. The renters did nothing wrong here: they were fiscally responsible. But the laws will be bent to extract (steal) unforeseen amounts from them in order to bail out wealthier people who chose to take on the risk they did to satisfy their greed. If you're not rich, standing on your own two feet isn't good enough. If you are rich, don't worry about standing on your own two feet--keep taking on risk to make more money and we'll protect you if you incur losses

[–] Buckshot@programming.dev 14 points 3 months ago

I was always told landlords deserve to extract profit from the economy for nothing because of the risk they take on. Yet time after time it seems like they can't possibly tolerate any risk at all.

[–] crazyminner@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 months ago

Holy shit. When are things going to snap and people start hanging or humiliating landlords like they did in China??

Things are so bad right now.

[–] nul42@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago

I say it is time for the feudal system to be abolished. No more Lords.

[–] smallpatatas@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How on earth is it possible for an arbitrator to just override legislation like this?

[–] festus@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because they aren't overriding it - the legislation allows for these rent increases in certain circumstances. Not agreeing with the law or the decision, but the arbitrator isn't making up some new power.

[–] smallpatatas@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks, yeah admittedly I hadn't read the entire article before posting - and quickly realized the answer to my question when I did! I should really know better than to do that :)

Anyway, maybe the question I should have asked is more like, "why the heck did they give arbitrators so much latitude" - which it sounds like we agree on!

[–] festus@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If I were to play devil's advocate, it would be that capped rent increases is to prevent predatory landlords from increasing rent more than their costs, but that if their costs go up more then they have a way to cover that without losing the property / going bankrupt.

That provision is maybe more acceptable when you're talking about families renting out their basement suite, but I have zero sympathy for investors who took a risk and lost. And even in the case of non-investor landlords, I'm skeptical that it's appropriate to make the tenant shoulder all the increased costs.

[–] smallpatatas@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

I'll be honest, I have zero sympathy for any landlord here. Rent control is necessary to (hopefully) make sure there is housing that people can afford to live in - and acts as a kind of limit to the extraction of an ever-increasing portion of the paychecks of the working class by the landlord class.

If the renter loses the ability to pay for a home, they become homeless. If a landlord loses the ability to pay for a property, they become a renter. Economic conditions changed? How about this: these landlords should sell, and make property prices drop a little, instead of having renters getting kicked onto the street.

[–] 7rokhym@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Mortgage rates shouldn't be considered and no one should be bailing out real estate speculators. A competent investor knows there is a market rate for rent, and would consider the variable risk of debt financing and would never have considered the 'investment'. Owners of units that aren't highly leveraged have minimal exposure to these rate increases. These people are simply greedy speculators that not only took stupid gambles, they are partially responsible for the current real estate crisis in the first place. High leverage, low interest rates drove high demand and market scarcity.

This ruling needs to be disputed as the adjudicator's decision appears incompetent, prejudiced, or both.

"I find the world and economic events in reaction to the pandemic were not reasonably foreseeable and have impacted the landlords, despite them taking reasonable precautions by accessing a mortgage through a recognized and well-known lender," the ruling reads.

Really? It wasn't reasonable to foresee this crisis with record low emergency interest rates and highest real estate prices in history? Idiot.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

Why allow rental rate hikes instead of allowing the tenants to purchase the building dirt cheap?

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

Why do they hate tenants?

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

I wonder what impact these kinds of government protections have on artificially inflating the property prices in BC

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Why is it the tenant's problem when these "businesspeople" made bad business decisions?

Nobody owes you protection from the consequences of your own actions.

[–] rxbudian@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago
[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

This is a dystopian ruling.