2023 Toronto Mayoral by-election

[felix123]

Just watch her in action- it will be an unmitigated disaster.

Ok, Doug Ford.

Doug Ford says Olivia Chow would be an ‘unmitigated disaster’ as Toronto’s mayor

Stepping up his push for former police chief Mark Saunders as Toronto’s next mayor, Premier Doug Ford is warning front-runner Olivia Chow would be an “unmitigated disaster,” with tax hikes chasing businesses and jobs out of the city.

www.thestar.com

 

[afransen]

Rent control is also bad for mobility. If tenants are locked into cheap rents, it can be a strong disincentive to move for better opportunities elsewhere.

 

[JGHali]

I am an investor in rental units.

Good to get the disclosures out of the way. I suppose I’m also such an “investor” as I own a rental with two units (in-laws live in one right now) and hold units in several REITs.

[…] In my opinion all rent control at all is immoral and ineffective but that's probably a lengthier post.

[…] Rent control is really immoral theft.

Immoral theft? Sure, developing and maintaining rental properties can be a productive endeavour, but there’s a reason why “rent-seeking behaviour” is harmful. Broadly speaking, a landlord collecting rent does not provide much of any investment or productivity. While construction of new rental housing is a clear social good, it does not follow that regulation cannot or should not be used to ensure affordability, up to and including rent control measures, simply because it could make it less profitable for rent-seekers.

FYI Chow has zero ability to affect rent regulation in the city of Toronto; it's a provincial law. She may try to interfere but will be shot down by the province. She is actually probably a tenant's worst enemy, and a landlord's too to be certain, because she will make it much, much, more difficult for property managers to run buildings smoothly. She will make it more difficult to evict bad tenants which hurts good tenants and landlords alike,

So she both has no ability to affect rent regulation and will drastically make it worse? Best pick one.

Just watch her in action- it will be an unmitigated disaster.

Not sure what would be worse than most candidates whose plans mainly involve getting the province and feds to bail out the city.

 

[JGHali]

Rent control is also bad for mobility. If tenants are locked into cheap rents, it can be a strong disincentive to move for better opportunities elsewhere.

How do you figure? Unaffordable rents are just as bad for “mobility”.

 

[turini2]

I do hope that Tory's u-turn by endorsing Bailão backfires.

The sudden realisation from the right and centre-right in the last week that the election looks like Chow's to lose has been ... interesting to watch.

 

[No Vacancy]

Immoral theft? Sure, developing and maintaining rental properties can be a productive endeavour, but there’s a reason why “rent-seeking behaviour” is harmful. Broadly speaking, a landlord collecting rent does not provide much of any investment or productivity. While construction of new rental housing is a clear social good, it does not follow that regulation cannot or should not be used to ensure affordability, up to and including rent control measures, simply because it could make it less profitable for rent-seekers.

I'm merely trying to maximize the return on my investment for my stakeholders. I assume you do the same with your investments? rental suites, Apple shares, gold, art, bitcoin, baseball cards, watches, etc. Investors are looking for a return on their investments. That generates enormous tax revenue to the state.

The landlord tenant relationship is governed by a voluntary contract entered into by both parties evenly. There is no coercion. Managing rental property is a full time job for any manager and provides a great deal of investment and productivity for the region through non stop maintenance, repair and capital work. Regulation is immoral. It is essentially a taking of private property rights.

So she both has no ability to affect rent regulation and will drastically make it worse? Best pick one.

That's right- she can't change rent control but she can use her role as mayor to make the eviction of bad tenants harder. That in turn makes life drastically worse for good tenants- the ones who pay and don't disturb others. She will create the most toxic environment possible and cause widespread harm.

Not sure what would be worse than most candidates whose plans mainly involve getting the province and feds to bail out the city.

Furey and Sanders are the least bad candidates. Pick whichever one you feel has the greatest chance of winning. Neither is impressive I agree but the city cannot afford 2+ years of a dangerous Chow. She will turn us into a mini San Fran without the ocean and nicer weather.

 

[adma]

Yeah, what this all does is work to affirming whatever narrative Mainstreet was trying to drum up. Whether she "pulls an Eggleton" a la 1980 is another matter entirely...

 

[tiffer24]

Maybe conservatives would be more comfortable with Chow if she picked up a crack smoking habit or chugged down forty ounces of booze on her way to work in the morning.

 

[prisecaru0]

I'm merely trying to maximize the return on my investment for my stakeholders. I assume you do the same with your investments? rental suites, Apple shares, gold, art, bitcoin, baseball cards, watches, etc. Investors are looking for a return on their investments. That generates enormous tax revenue to the state.

The landlord tenant relationship is governed by a voluntary contract entered into by both parties evenly. There is no coercion. Managing rental property is a full time job for any manager and provides a great deal of investment and productivity for the region through non stop maintenance, repair and capital work. Regulation is immoral. It is essentially a taking of private property rights.




That's right- she can't change rent control but she can use her role as mayor to make the eviction of bad tenants harder. That in turn makes life drastically worse for good tenants- the ones who pay and don't disturb others. She will create the most toxic environment possible and cause widespread harm.


Furey and Sanders are the least bad candidates. Pick whichever one you feel has the greatest chance of winning. Neither is impressive I agree but the city cannot afford 2+ years of a dangerous Chow. She will turn us into a mini San Fran without the ocean and nicer weather.

I have to agree with you. Many of chows "revolutionary plans" have been tried in new York, san francisco, los Angeles, Portland, or every city with massive issues in right now. As much as Some people don't like Furey I see that he is the best positioned to lead Toronto. Saunders is a Doug ford ally and someone who would never tell him no which think is a big problem for a mayor. Look at Ontario place, imagine if we had a mayor to tell Doug Ford no (Matlow would also be good for this). Furey really isn't that radical, he really is fairly progressive. He just uses common sense. If you listen to him not just yell at him you find he is fairly pro cycling (unlike Saunders). He also notices the insane congestion on streets like university and Bloor where cyclists could easily be directed on side roads, but instead we choose to make our streets more dangerous and congested. His plan to treat homelessness is also the most logical. Drugs are the core problem and if we do not offer proper treatment, these people will never escape their drug addictions and continue to sleep on the streets. Go watch the cp24 debate. The most calm and respectful person on stage was Anthony. He isn't perfect, but he has the best plan to lead Toronto.

 

[No Vacancy]

I have to agree with you. Many of chows "revolutionary plans" have been tried in new York, san francisco, los Angeles, Portland, or every city with massive issues in right now. As much as Some people don't like Furey I see that he is the best positioned to lead Toronto. Saunders is a Doug ford ally and someone who would never tell him no which think is a big problem for a mayor. Look at Ontario place, imagine if we had a mayor to tell Doug Ford no (Matlow would also be good for this). Furey really isn't that radical, he really is fairly progressive. He just uses common sense. If you listen to him not just yell at him you find he is fairly pro cycling (unlike Saunders). He also notices the insane congestion on streets like university and Bloor where cyclists could easily be directed on side roads, but instead we choose to make our streets more dangerous and congested. His plan to treat homelessness is also the most logical. Drugs are the core problem and if we do not offer proper treatment, these people will never escape their drug addictions and continue to sleep on the streets. Go watch the cp24 debate. The most calm and respectful person on stage was Anthony. He isn't perfect, but he has the best plan to lead Toronto.

I agree with you about Furey 100% but he appears to be fading in his support with time running out. I don't find anything he has to say remotely radical. The most radical candidates are Chow and Matlow, by far.

 

[Towered]

Seeing Thug have a conniption over the mere thought of a "lefty" like Chow becoming mayor warms the cockles of my black heart. Though I'm still inclined to vote for Matlow, I might just switch to Chow out of spite for that buffoon.

 

[christiesplits]

I think what gets Chow across the finish line on Monday is the lack of a consensus anti-Chow candidate.

Among centrist/centre-right types, it’s Bailao.

Among right wingers, it’s Saunders or Furey.

 

[JGHali]

I'm merely trying to maximize the return on my investment for my stakeholders. I assume you do the same with your investments? rental suites, Apple shares, gold, art, bitcoin, baseball cards, watches, etc. Investors are looking for a return on their investments. That generates enormous tax revenue to the state.

Sure, that’s what investing is all about. I don’t assume that my investments occur outside regulatory environments and, of course, politics. I also mainly stick to the index. And pay a six figure tax bill annually.

The landlord tenant relationship is governed by a voluntary contract entered into by both parties evenly. There is no coercion. Managing rental property is a full time job for any manager and provides a great deal of investment and productivity for the region through non stop maintenance, repair and capital work. Regulation is immoral. It is essentially a taking of private property rights.

The landlord-tenant relationship is governed by provincial legislation. There are bad tenants and bad landlords. There’s lots of coercion and bad behaviour. You are not presenting serious arguments and honestly just making stuff up. Regulation is “immoral”? Law is “immoral” then? This is just 16-year-old level fact free Libertarian nonsense.

That's right- she can't change rent control but she can use her role as mayor to make the eviction of bad tenants harder. That in turn makes life drastically worse for good tenants- the ones who pay and don't disturb others. She will create the most toxic environment possible and cause widespread harm.

Where is she planning on making evictions of bad tenants harder? You’re making stuff up.

Furey and Sanders are the least bad candidates. Pick whichever one you feel has the greatest chance of winning. Neither is impressive I agree but the city cannot afford 2+ years of a dangerous Chow. She will turn us into a mini San Fran without the ocean and nicer weather.

Furey has no relevant experience and is just a dog whistle for right-wing pet projects, like the evils of bike lanes. Saunders presided over a criminally incompetent serial killer investigation.

 

[Northern Light]

I have to agree with you. Many of chows "revolutionary plans" have been tried in new York, san francisco, los Angeles, Portland, or every city with massive issues in right now. As much as Some people don't like Furey I see that he is the best positioned to lead Toronto. Saunders is a Doug ford ally and someone who would never tell him no which think is a big problem for a mayor.....

Revolutionary? Whoa...... no free passes on the use of that word, spell out exactly which campaign promises merit that appellation and provide evidence in support of same, please.

In respect of vacancy de-control; the comparison to SF is inapt.

I'll explain why; what is noted is that when SF went to full rent control that many landlords converted their buildings to condos to circumvent this........

However, in Toronto that is already prohibited. You simply can't eliminate rental housing w/o rebuilding it, and offering it at essentially the same rent as was previously the case (for buildings with six or more units) As such there is no material risk of a comparable outcome.

I'm not advocating one way or the other on the vacancy de-control question, nor am I Chow's defender; rather, I would like to see speech stay reasonable, well-evidenced and fair; as opposed to hyperbolic. That is equally true whether one's inclinations lean right or left or somewhere in between.

I agree with you about Furey 100% but he appears to be fading in his support with time running out. I don't find anything he has to say remotely radical. The most radical candidates are Chow and Matlow, by far.

Again, radical is a very extreme word; it cannot be used by a reasonable person without citing those specific policy proposals you deem to be radical and providing evidence to support the claim that that is a reasonable descriptor.

 

[Northern Light]

One other note on the issue of vacancy de-control, Chow cannot implement it as the law stands today. She can only advocate for it with the province.

Since Doug Ford chose to eliminate vacancy rent control (implemented de-control) it would seem unlikely that a Chow mayoralty will change much on this front.