News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 1.6K     1 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 578     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 1.2K     1 

Toronto Rental Cost (& AirBnB) Issues

Filip said:
1 month rent is paying them rent.
Click to expand...

First, your claim that you can't terminate their lease for your personal use at the end of the lease term is false.

Second, yes, you need to pay them compensation if you terminate their lease. You don't "have to pay them rent" - it's not some obligation triggered by your lease of the premises. It only kicks in if you decide no longer to lease, and in theory it compensates the tenant for the interruption of their tenure. Practically, you as landlord can set the rent at the beginning of the term, so if you know that there is a likelihood you will be kicking them out, you can set a rent which reflects that. In this market you can almost undoubtedly get it. I'm hard pressed to understand why this is such a predicament. It mirrors long-standing provisions of the RTA (and previous legislation) which provide for compensation in case of demolition or renovations, but it provides for significantly less compensation than those other provisions. Our residential tenancy legislation has always sought to protect the security of tenure of tenants, even under the Harris-era TPA, so this is nothing new.
 
Skeezix said:
First, your claim that you can't terminate their lease for your personal use at the end of the lease term is false.

Second, yes, you need to pay them compensation if you terminate their lease. You don't "have to pay them rent" - it's not some obligation triggered by your lease of the premises. It only kicks in if you decide no longer to lease, and in theory it compensates the tenant for the interruption of their tenure. Practically, you as landlord can set the rent at the beginning of the term, so if you know that there is a likelihood you will be kicking them out, you can set a rent which reflects that. In this market you can almost undoubtedly get it. I'm hard pressed to understand why this is such a predicament. It mirrors long-standing provisions of the RTA (and previous legislation) which provide for compensation in case of demolition or renovations, but it provides for significantly less compensation than those other provisions. Our residential tenancy legislation has always sought to protect the security of tenure of tenants, even under the Harris-era TPA, so this is nothing new.
Click to expand...
If I have to pay you a month's rent, it's paying rent in my books - not sure why you'd call it compensation. Life is unfair, deal with it.

Now ask yourself why there's such a supply issue when there are so many empty condos - these are ongoing discussions in landlord circles and none of us are looking at increasing our risk profile by renting. There are better ways of monetizing our assets.

After your first year lease, it is my understanding you go month to month - if during that period you tell your tenant that you need the property for yourself in 3 months, you shouldn't have to pay them. They're on month to month. Just like you, as a landlord, are SOL when they decide to dip with 2 weeks notice and you have all your carrying costs, etc..

It's unfortunate, but that's why there's a housing crisis - many landlords refuse to rent, and for good reason.
 
Filip said:
Well ask yourself why there's such a supply issue when there are so many empty condos - these are ongoing discussions in landlord circles and none of us are looking at increasing our risk profile by renting. There are better ways of monetizing our assets.

After your first year lease, it is my understanding you go month to month - if during that period you tell your tenant that you need the property for yourself in 3 months, you shouldn't have to pay them. They're on month to month. Just like you, as a landlord, are SOL when they decide to dip with 2 weeks notice and you have all your carrying costs, etc..

It's unfortunate, but that's why there's a housing crisis - many landlords refuse to rent, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

I don't really need to ask myself anything. I'm not arguing the legislation with you, except to say that it's largely been that way for decades. My point was that your initial post was false.
 
Skeezix said:
I don't really need to ask myself anything. I'm not arguing the legislation with you, except to say that it's largely been that way for decades. My point was that your initial post was false.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what's false about having to pay them a month's rent. That's rent, no?
 
Filip said:
I don't understand what's false about having to pay them a month's rent. That's rent, no?
Click to expand...
Do what you think is best, from my perspective: the fewer landlords, the higher the rents collected by those of us willing to rent out. Amortize the 1 month payout over the year, add it to the list price - you're likely to get it. It's also not as a difficult to get rid of a tenant as you think. Wynne's rules barely changed the existing system. 1 month of rent is a pittance compared to the higher rent you're nearly certain to collect by re-listing the apartment, and I'm talking about decent, but not new or nicely reno-ed apartments in houses, not a new condo.
 
narduch said:
I'd say closer to 10, maybe 15.
Click to expand...

For rent? Four years ago I rented a new 2 bedroom condo on the subway line for $1800. The following year (3 years ago), I moved into a new-build one bedroom (about 580 sq ft) condo (no longer on the subway) for $1200. In the three years since then, those prices have gone up by about 60-70%+. I don't think there was that huge of an increase prior to that. I understand my experience is anecdotal, and applies more to the condo-rental market than the apartment market (which tends to have higher rents), but it still shows just how big the increase has been.

A negative for me, and I assume many others, is that it has forced me to stay in my current unit because moving anywhere would be so expensive.
 
toaster29 said:
For rent? Four years ago I rented a new 2 bedroom condo on the subway line for $1800. The following year (3 years ago), I moved into a new-build one bedroom (about 580 sq ft) condo (no longer on the subway) for $1200. In the three years since then, those prices have gone up by about 60-70%+. I don't think there was that huge of an increase prior to that. I understand my experience is anecdotal, and applies more to the condo-rental market than the apartment market (which tends to have higher rents), but it still shows just how big the increase has been.

A negative for me, and I assume many others, is that it has forced me to stay in my current unit because moving anywhere would be so expensive.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was thinking housing prices. I agree with you.
 
Filip said:
As a property owner - I can maybe add some context to why I'll never rent.

The new rules put in place by the Wynne government give me very little recourse in case something goes wrong. I also no longer have control over my own property because I can't even evict someone for my personal use - I have to pay them rent! That's not right, is it?

I may be leaving for a work placement to Paris for a year. Under normal circumstances I would have looked at renting it out for the year - today? Not a bloody chance in hell. I'll give my mother the keys and let her monitor the place every few weeks.
Click to expand...

So instead of renting the place for 12 months and paying the tenant one months rent amount when you evict them - effectively you'd be making 11 months rent - you'd rather have the space sit empty?
Sure, that's rational and not based on unfettered political anger at all.
 
A lot of my friends my age, are starting families, most of them have moved out of the city, province and even to the states. There is just no affordable 2 bedroom units, Toronto like the Manhattan of the north.


 
Avenue said:
So instead of renting the place for 12 months and paying the tenant one months rent amount when you evict them - effectively you'd be making 11 months rent - you'd rather have the space sit empty?
Sure, that's rational and not based on unfettered political anger at all.
Click to expand...
It’s the risk. I can’t risk coming back from my placement to a tenant who doesn’t want to leave or is causing me issues in the LTB. Too many horror stories and I cannot risk that with my primary residence.

Courts and arbitrators favour the tenant and not the landlord.
 
gabe said:
A lot of my friends my age, are starting families, most of them have moved out of the city, province and even to the states. There is just no affordable 2 bedroom units, Toronto like the Manhattan of the north.
Click to expand...
Our great housing failure is not having middle type of housing units in this city. The dichotomy between single detached houses and condos are really what is causing this great inflexibility for many people.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top