[freshcutgrass]

Completely disregarding the human costs of this, of course.

There are consequences no matter what, including the status quo.

Be more specific about who you are speaking of, and we can address that.

 

[freshcutgrass]

From the bill's explanatory note:

Currently, subsection 48 (1) allows a landlord to give a termination notice if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation by the landlord, a member of the landlord’s family or other specified persons. Under subsection 48 (1), as amended, the landlord must require possession for the purpose of residential occupation for at least one year. Under new section 48.1, a landlord who gives a termination notice under section 48 is required to compensate the tenant in an amount equal to one month’s rent or to offer the tenant another unit acceptable to the tenant.

Right...so the extra month I was talking about. Sounds reasonable.

 

[Bayer]

There are consequences no matter what, including the status quo.

Be more specific about who you are speaking of, and we can address that.

As an example, I moved into the Manulife Centre a few months ago. As was mentioned here before, the tenants' average age is unusually high; some people have lived here for decades and those who have mobility issues are numerous. Some of them have no money problems obviously, but I am sure many would not be able to pay the $2,200 a month I am paying for my one-bedroom apartment and might even have to leave the city altogether if rent controls were completely eliminated.

There are things the government needs to be seen as doing that don't necessarily make perfect economic sense. The electorate would not tolerate the immediate effects the elimination of rent control would have on vulnerable people, even if such a measure had positive effects on the market a decade or so in the future (which is pure speculation).

 

[freshcutgrass]

As an example, I moved into the Manulife Centre a few months ago. As was mentioned here before, the tenants' average age is unusually high; some people have lived here for decades and those who have mobility issues are numerous. Some of them have no money problems obviously, but I am sure many would not be able to pay the $2,200 a month I am paying for my one-bedroom apartment and might even have to leave the city altogether if rent controls were completely eliminated.

There are things the government needs to be seen as doing that don't necessarily make perfect economic sense. The electorate would not tolerate the immediate effects the elimination of rent control would have on vulnerable people, even if such a measure had positive effects on the market a decade or so in the future (which is pure speculation).

Right...so what I have been saying is that the burden of subsidizing those that need social housing assistance should fall on the government as a tax-funded service. That's their job...Landlords are not social workers. The government is simply shirking their responsibilities off onto private businesses. The current two-tiered system is not fair to anyone.

 

[LNahid2000]

Right...so what I have been saying is that the burden of subsidizing those that need social housing assistance should fall on the government as a tax-funded service. That's their job...Landlords are not social workers. The government is simply shirking their responsibilities off onto private businesses. The current two-tiered system is not fair to anyone.

No one is forcing them to be landlords. If they don't like the rules, they can sell their properties (which would lower prices by putting more supply on the market).

 

[jje1000]

I like this notion- laneway housing is a must, employment zones can be redeveloped to retain commercial/industrial uses (like they are experimenting with in New York)- but opening up development in 'stable' neighbourhoods to small-scale intensification projections is a good idea, especially if it were applied to certain suburban areas to ease them gradually into denser forms.

Toronto’s housing crunch could be eased with laissez-faire urban planning

When Ms. Hall became mayor, the areas around King and Parliament in the east and King and Spadina in the west were desolate. They had once been the industrial heart of the country, producing furniture, garments and machinery. By the early 1990s, most of the factories had long since closed or moved. Brick warehouses stood abandoned. Many were demolished and turned into parking lots.

Artists and other urban pioneers had started to take over parts of the remaining old buildings for studios and even makeshift apartments, but the city frowned on the practice. Strict zoning rules forbid any use other than industrial in the Kings. The convention at the time was to divide cities into discrete zones – industrial, commercial, residential, recreational – and limit mixing of these uses.

Ms. Hall remembers how forbidding the Kings could feel, with empty sidewalks, sprawling parking lots and ghostly buildings. The success of a place could be judged by how it felt to be there, Ms. Jacobs had said. By that standard, the Kings were failing, and Ms. Hall worried they would drag Toronto’s successful centre down with them.

She brought together a group of advisers, including Mr. Greenberg and Ms. Jacobs. The result was a decision that seems radical even today: Knock down the zoning walls and let people do more or less as they liked with properties in the Kings. The city’s planners were skeptical. So were city councillors. But after a bit of a tussle, the change cleared city council.

Mr. Greenberg says the experiment is the most dramatic example he knows of what he calls “subtractive urbanism.” Just taking away restrictive rules and regulations can work marvels. It could go a long way to help ease today’s housing crunch.

The city could allow for housing on city laneways. It could abandon its fixation with holding onto “employment lands,” even when industry is moving out and housing could take its place. It could soften the planning rules that designate so much of Toronto as stable neighbourhoods and make it hard to build anything new or dense.

Cities will evolve on their own if authorities only let in a little light. Toronto didn’t have to bribe developers to move to the Kings. In fact, the city gained millions in new fees and taxes. It didn’t have to draw up a big, complex blueprint for what it wanted to happen, either. It simply got out of the way. Change – stunning, positive change – followed.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...laissez-faire-urban-planning/article34815902/

 

[freshcutgrass]

No one is forcing them to be landlords. If they don't like the rules, they can sell their properties (which would lower prices by putting more supply on the market).

What you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense.
First of all, it's the "rules" that are bad.
Secondly, it is discouraging people from being landlords, which is why we have a shortage of purpose-built rental units, and hence...our current dilemma.
Third...how is selling the properties in question (pre-1991 rental buildings) putting more supply on the market????

 

[aquateam]

Right...so what I have been saying is that the burden of subsidizing those that need social housing assistance should fall on the government as a tax-funded service. That's their job...Landlords are not social workers. The government is simply shirking their responsibilities off onto private businesses. The current two-tiered system is not fair to anyone.

The current situation makes rent cheaper for people who have lived in a building longer, which is not the same thing as making life more affordable for people who need it. There are plenty of immigrants, refugees, poor, etc., who are unlikely to have had the luxury of living in a rent-controlled building. Meanwhile there are plenty of comfortable people who have just stayed in place. If we are subsidizing someone's rent, it should be needs-based.

No one is forcing them to be landlords. If they don't like the rules, they can sell their properties (which would lower prices by putting more supply on the market).

Except if they sell the unit then that's grounds to terminate the lease, isn't it? Then the new owner gets to charge whatever he wants to the new renter.

And overall that's not putting more supply on the market because you still have the same number of units and occupants, you're just shifting ownership to someone who is more willing to put up with red tape.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The current situation makes rent cheaper for people who have lived in a building longer, which is not the same thing as making life more affordable for people who need it. There are plenty of immigrants, refugees, poor, etc., who are unlikely to have had the luxury of living in a rent-controlled building. Meanwhile there are plenty of comfortable people who have just stayed in place. If we are subsidizing someone's rent, it should be needs-based.

Exactly. That's why removing rent controls allows you to target those who actually need the assistance, and allow the market to find a natural equilibrium, rather than have half paying artificially low rents and half paying artificially high rents based on how long you have lived in your unit or something as arbitrary as the date your unit was built.

 

[Filip]

Right...so the extra month I was talking about. Sounds reasonable.

I'm understanding this as I have to pay the tenant one month to leave. Or am I misreading legalese?

 

[Palma]

I find it hard to believe people living in Manulife Centre cannot afford 2200/month. I know someone who sold their house facing St James Park in the Royal York area, who owns properties here and abroad and moved into the Manulife Centre. I doubt the place is cheap. Just the monthly maintenance fees alone

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm understanding this as I have to pay the tenant one month to leave. Or am I misreading legalese?

Sounds like the landlord has the option of either 3 months notice...or 2 months notice plus one month's rent (you already have their last month's rent deposit, so you credit them the second last month's rent).

 

[freshcutgrass]

I find it hard to believe people living in Manulife Centre cannot afford 2200/month. I know someone who sold their house facing St James Park in the Royal York area, who owns properties here and abroad and moved into the Manulife Centre. I doubt the place is cheap. Just the monthly maintenance fees alone

Manulife is not a condo building...it's a single owner rental building, hence no monthly maintenance fees. This building includes utilities, cable and amenities in the monthly rent.

 

[jje1000]

Four measures that will create more rental units

The Toronto Region Board of Trade has plan it says will stimulate the construction of desperately needed rental stock in the GTA.


Toronto needs more rental units now to support its competitive and growing workforce. Governments are offering incentives to get more rental homes built, but they must also remove barriers to private sector rental construction.

For example, MP Adam Vaughan announced a new four-year, $2.5-billion fund to offer low-cost loans for rental construction. Premier Wynne’s recently announced Ontario Fair Housing Plan makes property taxes more reasonable for rental units and offers subsidies for rental construction. The province also made provincial land available for development.

However, with the deck remaining stacked against rental housing in our tax system, existing barriers dilute the impact of these initiatives on rental development.

Rental builders pay the same land transfer, development charges and taxes that other developers do. But they also face a unique penalty: while a developer building, or operating, another type of property can fully recover their HST costs, a rental builder or rental property manager cannot. Eliminating this tax distortion for rental investors would reduce government revenues — but it would increase supply of rental units more quickly than subsidy programs.

Rent control, while popular in theory with current renters, is another critical barrier. Evidence from high growth cities such as New York, London and Toronto itself show that rent control curtails investment. Less investment means less supply, which in turn means fewer choices and less competition for renters, driving rents higher.

Currently, 80,000 people move into the city each year. To house them, we should have 30,000 homes a year coming on-stream, instead of the fewer than 2,000 built in a typical year.

Meanwhile, 20,000 new rental units are waiting for planning approval. However, the province’s plan to bring new units into the rent control regime means this surge of proposed new rental units is at risk. Many builders will compensate by launching their projects with much higher rents than planned. Others may build condos instead, or not build at all. The province should formally track the impact of this policy change on these proposed units. If the impact is fewer rental units, it must reconsider the policy.

Condo rental capacity matters, too. Many Torontonians ask why so many condos are built relative to rental apartments. Different tax treatment is a factor, but the benefits and limits of condo legislation are also important. Condo builders can mobilize small investors to finance construction through deposits. While end-users help through pre-sales; rental investors can’t. Developers can earn a return on condo investment over a few years while rental investors must wait decades for rental payments to cover costs.

With condos now making-up roughly one-third of Toronto’s rental supply, it’s time to put condos and rentals on equal footing. To do so, the Board of Trade proposes four measures.

First, amend the Condominium Act so rental developers can use the same tools to their advantage.

Second, allow condo towers to be developed explicitly and entirely as “rent-only condos,” packaged with slightly different rules, services and governance structures to attract rental-oriented investors. When units are sold in these towers, they’ll stay in the rental supply.

Third, make these purpose-built rental condos eligible for the same government benefits as conventional rental towers.

Fourth, with government making more land available for rental projects, officials should pre-zone and fast-track approvals of this land to reduce approval risk. Property tax assessment policies should not tax a builder who is assembling or holding land to build a new rental tower as if the tower has already been built.

If land prices are a barrier to using government land for affordable rentals, try the approach London is testing. Charge a reasonable fee to rent the land instead of forcing rental developers to finance the upfront purchase.

For most renters, finding an apartment depends on whether developers can build and offer units at a price that generates a return for investors. Given the long-term nature of purpose-built rental housing, rental investors tend to be long-term, stable investment organizations, such as pension funds, who need a reasonable return to finance our retirement incomes. We need rental development, finance and tax policies that reflect this business reality.

Our rental market is a mess because policy-makers forgot the business side of rental development over decades of policy changes. With all eyes on the need for rental growth — not to mention its impact on talent attraction and retention — let’s not miss a chance to correct that today.

Jan De Silva is president and CEO of the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...sures-that-will-create-more-rental-units.html

 

[jje1000]

Basic summary- changing demographics (more empty nesters) mean dropping populations in the burbs. I like the suggestions in allowing denser redevelopment in traditionally single-family neighbourhoods.

Toronto has too much housing despite overall population growth: report

Ryerson researchers found population declines or freezes in most neighbourhoods over the last 30 years.

The report found household sizes don’t vary much between detached homes and other types of housing such as apartments, townhouses or duplexes, so some people are living with far more space than other families.

Meantime schools in the inner suburbs are declining in enrolment and seniors can’t age in their own neighbourhoods because they don’t have downsizing options close to home, Case said.

That’s a result of long-standing zoning introduced during the sprawl years before government recognized the value of denser development, said Case’s mentor Sean Galbraith, who runs a private planning business.

Most of the city has the highly restrictive zoning around residential detached housing, so you can’t build other kinds of homes in those areas, he said.

Case’s study supports the need for policies that would unlock the restrictions on building other housing such as townhomes, apartments and triplexes in suburban neighbourhoods.

“If you wanted to do the gentlest form of density there is — taking one unit and making it into two — you basically can’t. Zoning and the Official Plan restricts you from being able to do that in just under 40 per cent of the land mass of the city or 62 per cent of the residential areas,” he said.

Galbraith says the capacity for neighbourhood change is concentrated in a few older areas of the city such as Parkdale or the Annex, where there are long-standing histories of multi-family housing.

“The majority of the residential areas are overprotected from change. And that puts change pressure on parts of the city that are under-protected from change,” he said.

But Galbraith doesn’t blame city planners for Toronto’s difficult retreat from the postwar sprawl era. He says the city’s planning department is “chronically under-resourced.”

Planners have to pick their battles so the city is focused on avenues such as Eglinton, where new transit is being built along with more midrise housing, said Galbraith.

“That’s great but it only solves part of the problem (in those neighbourhoods),” he said. “If you don’t want to live in a midrise building, you don’t have any options, you’re now in the house market.

“Essentially everybody in the housing market is stuck where they are. Everybody who is fortunate enough to have a house, instead of moving on to a different unit that is better suited to their needs, they’re just renovating an existing house,” Galbraith said.

https://www.thestar.com/business/20...despite-overall-population-growth-report.html