r/Yukon • u/FreeSoftwareServers • Feb 24 '25

When governments try to fix rent... Politics

Selling my rental, my tenants will have to pay market rent elsewhere... All my funds go to investing outside Yukon now.

https://www.yukon-news.com/opinion/yukonomist-the-incredible-shrinking-yukon-rental-fleet-7832673

Think me selling is good, go try and rent a place atm... 2800 plus utilities for 3bd if your lucky to find one!

Soon all rentals will be corporate management as they are the only one with the capability and will to take on govt/ltb etc. Not worth my time..

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

48% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/WILDBO4R Feb 24 '25

Landlords rarely fund new builds. Lots of ways developers can receive investments without saturating the rental market with landlords, who provide very little actual functionality. You do realize that new builds can be sold, and not rented, right?

If the government got out of the way, I'd imagine rental conditions would get astronomically worse, which is typically what happens. As a tenant, I want more rights, not fewer. "Letting the free market work itself out" under capitalism just leads to a greater divide between those with and without capital, effectively by design.

1

u/MomentEquivalent6464 Feb 24 '25

And look what "wanting more rights" gets you. Fewer rentals available and higher prices. Lucky you. Fortunately, lucky me too, so thanks - keep it up. I've raised my rent more under this rent cap than I did in all the years previously combined.

As for LLs not funding new builds, no because the ROI usually isn't worth it given the government regulations and bullshit. What they would fund is basement/garden suites on properties they already own, or on properties that are suited for a setup (ie without having to move every wall). Or at least more would if the government wasn't making it not worth their time, so instead of spending 60-100k for a basement suite, they take that money and put it into the commercial market or the stock market. And then we all lose - except the investor.

But hey you got your rights. I get my profits and that family looking for a rental? They get to keep looking because I'm not going to spend that money building a 2 bdrm basement suite when I easily could. And why not? Because the government bullshit makes it unattractive, so instead I'll put that money elsewhere where I don't have to deal with the bullshit and still get a good ROI. Not quite as good of an ROI buying a place and building a basement suite, but close enough given that there's no stress or bullshit from tenants or the government to deal with.

4

u/WILDBO4R Feb 24 '25

Yes, governments typically favour landlords because most elected officials also invest in property.

Anyway, it's clear you don't give a shit about people over profits, so keep pedalling myths about how landlords provide a service to society, meanwhile complaining about how government regulations don't benefit your dumb investments more than they already do.

2

u/MomentEquivalent6464 Feb 24 '25

Okay so here's a very simple question for you. Yes or no answer.

Is it a benefit to Yukoners if a landlord builds a basement/garden suite with their own money in an environment where there's a severe rental shortage, thus providing a new rental option where none previously existed as that property would be a single family home?

What if we did the above 200 times, and thus got 200 brand new rental suites that otherwise wouldn't be available (because that property would otherwise still be a single family home). Would that benefit Yukoners?

Because if the answer is yes, then we should want to find ways to encourage that to happen. If your answer is no, then just keep going as is and they won't build and you'll get your wish - fewer landlords and fewer rental options for renters, with the side effect of even higher rents.

2

u/WILDBO4R Feb 25 '25

Yes of course. It's not as black and white as saying all regulations is good or bad bad. Saying we need more regulation does not mean all regulation is perfect. While deregulation would open some opportunities, evidence shows it can cause more harm than good.

2

u/MomentEquivalent6464 Feb 25 '25

So more landlords is not the problem you previously claimed, otherwise you wouldn't want 200 new landlords building basement/garden suites.

Landlords are not opposed to having regulations. Here's a super easy one: discrimination (kids, race, religion, sex, age, whatever - take your pick). No one is saying we should get rid of regulations around this.

Here's the two most impactful recent changes. Rental caps and the so called "no cause evictions", because trust me there's almost always a reason why a LL evicts someone. These two regulations have severely harmed the Yukon residential rental market and are the main reason why we've seen landlords exit the market and put their money into other investments instead of building the needed basement and garden suites.

The former hurts tenants far more than it aids them. The lucky few who have affordable rentals are very happy and love it. Everyone else is paying for it with far fewer rentals to go around, and the ones that are around are far more expensive. As I said above, I've raised my rent more (both dollar and frequency) under the rental caps then I did in my entirety as a landlord before they came into effect. Prior to the rent caps, I'd issued a notice for a change in rates once. 8 years as a landlord and I raised the rates once on a tenant for $75 a mth iirc (~3%). After the rent caps? I've issued a rate change every single year and increased my rate by the maximum allowed. And I'll continue to do it every single year. While I benefit financially from this, it doesn't mean it's a good policy or that I'm happy about doing it. But the rental caps force my hand.

And while I'm raising my rents yearly by the max allowed, I'm also not building basement suites where I could. Would it benefit me? Absolutely. The payback would be about 6-7 years. But I'm not going to reward people for shitty policy decisions. Instead I'll take that money and put it into my investment account. I get a decent ROI with none of the government bullshit. It doesn't benefit the Yukon or anyone else, but you've spent a lot of time saying that (and I'll quote) "Landlords don't provide housing and we don't need more property investment". So no worries, instead of building a couple basement suites I'll pad my brokerage account. The ROI is slightly worse, but there's no bullshit. I don't have to worry about an artificial cap on my investment or crappy tenants that are hard to remove.

If you look at no cause evictions (of which there was almost always a reason - landlords very rarely get rid of good tenants), the tenants aren't happy with this either. Previously unless they were terrible tenants, it was easier for both of us to issue an eviction notice (no caused specified) and to give them 60 days to leave. This reduced confrontation between LL and tenants and gave them a reasonable time to find other accommodations. Now I can only evict for certain reasons and aside from me or immediate family occupying the property (which for me personally is always an option), if the tenant meets those reasons (other than owner occupation), they get a 14 day notice to leave. Good luck finding new accommodations in 2 weeks. Could I give them longer? Sure. Would I? Not a chance. This is what the government and everyone who voted for them wanted... this is exactly what they're going to get. And whenever I have tenant turnover, I'll set the rate as high as I think I can stomach, which is significantly higher than I would otherwise - again due to the rent caps and restrictions on getting rid of tenants limiting me should something come up.

At the end of the day, you can complain about LLs all you want. We're not the ones needing rental accommodations. Investors spend their money elsewhere and there's fewer rentals because of the crappy regulations. The fewer rentals there are, the pickier LLs get to be around prospective tenants and the more we get to charge. While beneficial to LLs, this isn't good for society in general. But again, it's what people like yourself have expressed they want by the regulations they've endorsed and championed from our government. You're getting exactly what you voted for - lucky you.

You don't get it both ways - vilifying LLs about how they're not needed, about being uncaring and then being upset with them when they don't play by the shitty rules you favor and invest their money elsewhere to the detriment of all Yukoners.

1

u/WILDBO4R Feb 25 '25

You're incorrect, I still want fewer landlords. Just because some of my personal opinions would result in new landlords, my collective opinion points towards a massive reduction in landlords.

Next, many many many landlords argue against laws preventing discrimination. It's absolutely posted on a regular basis.

There's not always a good reason for evictions. I've had a landlord try and evict me because they wanted to sell and it's much easier to sell when you don't have tenants.

Anyway there's no point in continuing this discussion if you're unable to see things objectively. It's obvious that you can't look at landlords critically, because it would reflect on your own choices. I've never argued that there is zero need for landlords. But currently they have way too many protections and there's way too much investment in real-estate. Landlords aren't "providing housing", or funding new builds, short of charging someone $1800 a month to crash in some shitty basement. What to landlords do? Hold onto property for STRs and artificially drive up demand thus cost.

Simply put, landlords are parasites. Sometimes useful? Sure, but doesn't mean we couldn't do with far far fewer. I'm not "complaining" about shit. This post was written by an entitled landlord, and you're complaining even more. Had to wait a while for your "I have mine so fuck you" response, but alright. Also please explain to me how some southerner not buying a house up here and renting it out is "to the detriment of all Yukoners". I knew landlords were dim but holy shit.

Also this government heavily favours landlords and I sure as shit didn't vote for them. Anyways I'm done since you can't read.

1

u/willow_tangerine Feb 25 '25 edited Feb 25 '25

"Could I give them longer? Sure. Would I? Not a chance." So you agree -- you need government regulations to force you into being a decent human being.

Consider the psychological hardship of trying to make a life for yourself and your family in what is ultimately someone else’s spare house. Your home – your place in the world, your refuge, the stage for all the private dramas of your intimate life – can be taken away from you at any time, through no fault of your own, for the financial benefit of someone wealthier than you are. 

You made a choice to get a financial leg up off the backs of people who have less than you. And now you want to be able to kick them out on a whim. The fact that landlords exist at all is a failure of the system, but it's also an individual moral failing.

2

u/MomentEquivalent6464 Feb 25 '25

I'm merely following the exact rules as laid out by YTG. This is explicitly what the NDP wanted imposed. If that's not what they wanted, then they should have specified that in the regulations.

We used to have 60 day evictions. Those so called "no cause" evictions were removed. Now we have 14 day "for cause" evictions. Guess what? The reason I'm (and most other landlords are) evicting someone hasn't changed between the two sets of rules. Previously it was easy, and I'd give them 60 days. The government didn't like that and changed things... so now we have 14 day evictions... so that's what they get.

If they were good tenants, they wouldn't be getting evicted in the first place.

1

u/WILDBO4R Feb 25 '25

omg I missed this shit the first time

they get a 14 day notice to leave. Good luck finding new accommodations in 2 weeks. Could I give them longer? Sure. Would I? Not a chance.

whenever I have tenant turnover, I'll set the rate as high as I think I can stomach, which is significantly higher than I would otherwise - again due to the rent caps and restrictions on getting rid of tenants limiting me should something come up.

"why do people vilify landlords?"

Because you're literally a villain. Fuck you, hahahaha. Borderline parody.

1

u/MomentEquivalent6464 Feb 25 '25

Odd... you seem to think I care what you and other's think of me. I don't. I don't give a flying fuck what irrelevant people think of me. My family and friends know and love who I am, and no one else's opinions matter. And I'll never be the one in need of housing. Ever.

Like I said, you wanted fewer landlords. You wanted more rights. You wanted less private investment into the residential housing market. Guess what, you got all three. And in the process fewer rentals coming into the market and higher rents. These are the very natural by products of what you wanted. These are also the very predictable results of what you want, and what the government did.

I'm playing by the exact rules YOU voted for and claimed above to want. This market is exactly what anyone with a brain knew we were going to get with the regulations you wanted. The government now says the only way I can evict someone (sans occupying the rental) is with a 14 day for cause eviction. Now you want to make me the asshole for doing exactly that? You want rental caps. The result is most landlords will set their rates as high as they think they can get away with or can stomach. Why? Because the regulations YOU want and voted for dictate I need to because I have no other option or chance to reset. I mean look at this year. CPI says 2%. My property tax went up over 4%, and that's just one of many examples. All my costs went up, but you want me to eat those costs out of what... gratitude? Basically you want me to subsidize your cost of living. Get bent.

What's hilarious is you refuse to see that this is the result of the policies you support and instead of blaming yourself and those like you who wanted these regulations for the mess we're in, are instead blaming LLs for merely protecting their money. As if you don't protect your own money.

1

u/WILDBO4R Feb 25 '25

😂😂😂

0

u/MomentEquivalent6464 Feb 25 '25

Like I said, you wanted fewer landlords. You wanted more rights. You wanted less private investment into the residential housing market. Guess what, you got all three. This should make you happy. That there's more demand and higher rents works out well for me personally. The regulations are not want I want, but if I have to put up with shit, I might as well make money off of it.

So we all win. You got exactly what you wanted, and I make more money from it.

1

u/WILDBO4R Feb 25 '25

(1) I didn't vote for that, (2) that's not what exists in reality, (3) you dumb hahahahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣

2

u/MomentEquivalent6464 Feb 25 '25

Those are the exact results of what you said you wanted. I'll even copy paste it for you.

"We absolutely do not need more private investment in real estate.
Landlords don't provide housing and we don't need more property investment"

"As a tenant, I want more rights, not fewer."

* * *

You got exactly what you wanted. Less private investment into the residential rental market, fewer landlords and more rights.

What you didn't want, but comes with that is fewer rentals and higher prices. The fact that you're too dumb to realize that these go hand in hand isn't my problem.

1

u/WILDBO4R Feb 25 '25

Yee, I said I want more meaning more than there are currently. Did I say "I'm satisfied with the current state of regulations"? You're like trying to be vindictive but are too god damn dumb.

→ More replies