[concrete_and_light]

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.

Please specify what possible realistic parallel cycling route to Bloor you're talking about. It doesn't exist.

Bloor needs to be made safe to cyclists no matter what. All our streets need to be because people need to travel on them regardless even if parallel routes exist in some places (food delivery, local travel, going to and from places on that street, people who live and work there). But Bloor and many of our major streets don't have viable parallel routes because of how the city was built. I'd love it if they did, but they don't.

If you think you have an idea of how it could be done I'd be interested in specifics.

This idea that parallel routes can solve it is just not reality and is simplistic wishful thinking about a fantasy version of the city that is laid out completely different and an alternative simplistic policy answer that doesn't grapple with the details of the map of the city but sounds reasonable. Viable parallel routes do not exist because of how the street network was built. We just don't have a lot of east west routes in particular outside of our major corridors. It's mostly long north/south blocks in between major roads. And the ones we do have don't connect very well.

 

[zang]

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.

And "investors" would buy up all the food in a grocery store if they felt they could legally make a profit reselling it.

You think you're providing a service?

"Rental investors" have driven the cost of living up dramatically in this city.

I have many other words I can use that I won't use here. Let's just say I think there's a lot of greed in most landlords.

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.

Immoral is buying up free stock of the human right to housing in order to make a cozy profit.

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 will relish her win, even if she wasn't my initial choice.

 

[afransen]

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

Unaffordable market rents are the flip side of rent control. If people are unwilling to leave rent controlled apartments, liquidity is lower in the rental market and there are fewer available units being chased by prospective renters. And new supply is less likely to be added if the expected returns are depressed by the prospect of long tenancies with below-market rent increases.

 

[Towered]

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.

Please. Bloor has had "insane" congestion forever. I remember my parents frequently taking me downtown in the 80's, often using Bloor, and it was almost always stop and go traffic, decades before anyone even dreamed of putting a bike lane there.

Stop spouting ignorant nonsense. Cars and 80 years of city policies catering to them are the sole causes of congestion.

 

[picard102]

As it stands today with extremely low turnover of units landlords are simply not recovering their annual cost increases

They should sell then.

Landlords are having to eat that cost and accept a lower profit or a loss in many cases and all operating costs have skyrocketed along with inflation.

Good. Investor landlords are immoral.

Does Apple have a price cap on the cost of an iphone? How about Rogers? Loblaws? Air Canada?

Only one of those sells something that's a basic necessity.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Seeing Thug have a conniption over the mere thought of a "lefty" like Chow becoming mayor warms the cockles of my black heart.

That’s why I voted for Chow. She’s may be a disaster or may be fine. I voted to piss off Doug.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Good. Investor landlords are immoral.

Isn’t every landlord an investor? You don’t do it to lose money.

 

[zang]

Isn’t every landlord an investor? You don’t do it to lose money.

No, no.

Home owners make investments. Investors think spending money is the same as working.

 

[afransen]

No, no.

Home owners make investments. Investors think spending money is the same as working.

So renting should be abolished?

 

[No Vacancy]

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.

Congratulations- you're rich! Does the government dictate what Apple can charge for an iPhone or what Tim Horton's can charge for a Double-Double?

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.

Correct. Rent control is immoral. Limiting how much a private property owner can charge to lease out his property is immoral. Please see below for some flavor of my thinking:

Rent controls violate your rights. They are a gun at your head. As an apartment owner, you have the moral right to decide the price at which you’ll offer a unit for rent. The government has no right to dictate to you what rate you can offer. Of course, it has a legal right to do this; it has a legal right to do whatever it can enact into law and get upheld by the courts. But that doesn’t make it moral. Slavery was legal at one time, but it was never moral. And rent controls are nothing less than enslavement of the property owner.

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

Glad you asked:

Establish the Toronto Renters Action Committee – Olivia is committed to elevating and incorporating the voice of renters into how the City works giving them a seat at the table on City decisions. The Committee will work on anti-renoviction bylaws, advocating for real rent control, reviewing existing policies and programs related to renters, and holding the City accountable to renters.

1. We don't need anti-renoviction bylaws- there's no such thing as a legal "renoviction". A landlord simply cannot evict a tenant to renovate an apartment unit unless it's some sort of emergency repair. You don't need a bylaw, you need to educate tenants of their rights.
2. Reviewing existing policies and programs related to renters is 100% going to make eviction of bad tenants harder. In case you didn't know, landlords aren't in the business of evicting good tenants.

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.

Biking as a hobby is fantastic! I love it! Bike lanes however are evil on major streets. They are very dangerous for cylcists and pedestrians. They are also bias in favor of young men essentially and an erornmous impediment to traffic flow. Bike lanes shuld be relegated to side streeets.

 

[tiffer24]

It's a real tell that in the middle of the worst housing crisis this city has seen in decades, investment landlords feel that they are the actual victims here.

 

[No Vacancy]

And "investors" would buy up all the food in a grocery store if they felt they could legally make a profit reselling it.

Fortunately competition makes hoarding food untenable. But there are food shortages in Communist countries- would you prefer that model then?

You think you're providing a service?

Yes. Renting out apartments to tenant residents is providing a service. It takes a lot of work. Perhaps you should try it sometime and see for yourself.

"Rental investors" have driven the cost of living up dramatically in this city.

How do investors in rental apartment buildings drive up the cost of living? If anything the more supply the lower the cost of rent. See competition reference above.

I have many other words I can use that I won't use here. Let's just say I think there's a lot of greed in most landlords.

Greed? How so? Do you not seek to maximize the return on your investments? Are owners of Apple shares greedy for hoping their stock goes up? How about employees asking for a raise? Greed?

Immoral is buying up free stock of the human right to housing in order to make a cozy profit.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

What the Legislation Won’t Do


1. It will not create an enforceable individual right to access housing: During the development of the legislation, there was a debate as to whether the law would provide mechanisms for individuals to seek redress if they did not have access to housing. The legislation contains no specific mechanisms for individuals to seek out access to adequate housing; there will be no federal tribunals or bodies that will hear such cases. In this respect, the right is more of a collective right rather than a legally enforceable individualistic right.

I will relish her win, even if she wasn't my initial choice.

I respectfully disagree. I think she's a nice lady who probably thinks she's helping but will cause exponentially more harm to more people than any mayor in Toronto's history.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Biking as a hobby is fantastic! I love it! Bike lanes however are evil on major streets. They are very dangerous for cylcists and pedestrians. They are also bias in favor of young men essentially and an erornmous impediment to traffic flow. Bike lanes shuld be relegated to side streeets.

Stop trolling

 

[concrete_and_light]

Biking as a hobby is fantastic! I love it! Bike lanes however are evil on major streets. They are very dangerous for cylcists and pedestrians. They are also bias in favor of young men essentially and an erornmous impediment to traffic flow. Bike lanes shuld be relegated to side streeets.

"Young men" are proportionally more the ones who feel comfortable biking in the more dangerous situation out in traffic. Bike lanes make things more comfortable and safe for those non young men who tend to feel less comfortable in dangerous traffic.

You can wish people would just cycle as a hobby but that's also just complete denial of reality. People cycle to get around because they need to. There are bicycles on our streets and there will continue to be no matter how much you wish it weren't so. Not everyone can afford a car, insurance, parking first of all. I'm glad you're fortunate enough that you can. Also if everyone who needed to get around used a car that would more cars on the road creating traffic. With our population growing this will never be sustainable and cycling will only increase. People also cycle as part of their job (I hope you never order food delivery if you think cycling should just be a hobby).

This is just reality. If you think we can create a magic alternate reality where cycling is just a "hobby" that's just pure fantasy.

As for "side streets" being the place for lanes, I challenge you as well to please specify what realistic viable side street routes exist to our major corridors for instance Bloor street. I'd be interested to see your map and specifics around how it would work.

 

[No Vacancy]

They should sell then.

Some will; some will ride it out and finance their losses. That's the beauty of an open market.

Good. Investor landlords are immoral.

Bad. Investors landlords provide essential product to a market. Who do you believe should own rental apartment buildings? The government?

Only one of those sells something that's a basic necessity.

Really? An functional smartphone isn't a basic necessity today? How about clothing? Food?