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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
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!
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.
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.