“But we also think that the responsibility for the safety of [low-income people] — and let’s face it, it’s low-income people who have this problem — that’s a responsibility for society at large, for everyone, not just for the people who happen to own the buildings where these people make their homes.”

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    7 months ago

    if a landlord can’t afford to install air conditioning where air conditioning is required, they should be forced to sell any and all properties that don’t comply.

    actually, hold on, let me fix that for me:

    landlords should be forced to sell any and all properties except the one they live in. period.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        America is not the only place in the world. In places without mass corporate landlords, private landlords happily fill that void and are absolutely still the problem.

        Show me a landlord that genuinely finds efficiencies that arent just ‘hire a cheaper contractor than they would hire for their own home’.

    • LoveCanada@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      You DO realize that if we sold all our properties that millions of people would have no place to live? Just because we put them up for sale doesnt mean a current tenant could afford to buy them. What does that mean? They would likely be snapped up by corporate property management companies. And that means rent would go UP as companies would control all the rentals and can set whatever price they wish. The existence of mom and pop landlords is what keeps prices DOWN especially if they are for basement suites.

      • patatas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Perhaps cities, provinces, and/or the federal government could buy up those properties instead of corporate landlords. Then they could charge geared-to-income rent instead of whatever the market will bear.

        Amazing the things that one can come up with when one stops thinking only in terms of housing as a commodity

        • LoveCanada@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Who pays for that? The taxpayer, which means a MASSIVE increase in taxes because the average house in Canada is now about 700,000.

          Lets say the gov wants to buy 1000 homes in a city, thats 700,000,000. How much do you think taxes would have to go up to spend nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars for 1000 homes in a major city? If they did that in 30 Canadian cities thats 21,000,000,000.

          21 TRILLION DOLLARS! Currently Canadas entire national debt (the highest in Canadas history) is 1.4 trillion. So you’d have to make it 15 times bigger to buy those houses. If everyone taxes TRIPLED we couldn’t pay that off.

          You think thats workable? Not a chance. And thats just for 1000 homes per city. Vancouver for example currently has about 125,000 rentals, Toronto has 550,000 rentals so 1000 is barely a drop in the bucket.

          Amazing the things that one can come up with when one doesnt do the math.

          • patatas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Amazing the things that one can come up with when one doesnt do the math.

            I agree! The correct number is 21 billion, not trillion. Don’t worry, you were only off by a factor of 1000!

            $21B is about 1/8th of what Carney is proposing to spend annually on defence.

            Absolutely doable.

        • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Perhaps cities, provinces, and/or the federal government could buy up those properties instead of corporate landlords.

          This is what needs to happen, not a one-time subsidy for a landlord. This way the province gets something out of its investment and continues to supply proper housing. Handing out cash is just throwing money away.

  • flandish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 months ago

    running any business comes with risk. “help” should go to the tenant before the business. if a landlord cant afford a business then they should quit and get a normal job instead of being a piece of shit human.

    landlords should not exist, to begin with. they are garbage people.

    • timberwolf1021
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Landlords are not philanthropists. You are not going to find a big group of homeowners who want to rent at a loss out of the goodness of their own hearts.

      I would love if the government took strong measures to encourage home ownership and discourage treating real estate as an investment. Really, I would. But that will take many years of hard work and economics PhDs to concoct a plan that works. So, until we find a government with the balls to do that for real, we have to understand that dealing with landlords in a realistic way is a necessary evil.

      Because if you nuke rentals without first ensuring people can afford to buy, all you’ll accomplish is to create a mass housing shortage worse than you’ve ever seen.

        • timberwolf1021
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I agree! However, it will take a lot of time and carefully crafted policy to make that happen, without perverse incentives appearing. In the meantime, we have to live in the real world and deal with landlords as a (hopefully temporary) fact of life.

            • timberwolf1021
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              So do we just… fuck over all the renters living in landlord-owned units for the next 5-20 years while this cool new mass public housing is being built by all those extra construction workers we definitely don’t have a shortage of?

              • socialsecurity@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                We should let the housing market crash out, then nationalize it ;)

                Similar to what was done after 2008 except federal government doesn’t give money parasites and just does it by itself

                • timberwolf1021
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Do you realize how many suicides and assorted anguish such a crash would cause?

                  I swear to gods, you people don’t really know how to think things through.

    • LoveCanada@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yes, thats a brilliant deduction. I rent safe, comfortable and most importantly AFFORDABLE suites to people like: university students, single moms, people who are just separating from their spouse, couples who just met, disabled veterans, people on a temporary work assignment, people who move every couple of years, people who dont know where they want to buy a house yet, people who would rather invest than buy a house… and NONE of them want to buy a house. But Im a ‘garbage’ person for giving them a good place to live. Ok then, good deduction there Sherlock.

      • flandish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        neat.

        sell them instead so people own and are not beholden to your “affordable” market values. I guarantee not NONE want to buy. The market is too expensive.

        • LoveCanada@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          So my rental basement suite, I rent out for 1200 in a major Canadian city. The house is worth 650,000. A mortgage on that house at todays interest rates would be 3650. Insurance is another 150. Property taxes are 300. So monthly fixed costs of ownership are 4100. But there’s always something to fix so add on a very modest 300 a month for that and 4400 is a reasonably moderate estimate.

          SO explain to me how the person who now pays 1200 a month is going to come up with more than THREE times their rent per month to buy a house? And theres no way that house is dropping so far down in value that 1200 is anywhere close to being able to buy it, even if it lost HALF its value. Give me your solution to how that would work.

          Mom and pop landlords provide the cheapest rentals on the market. Our investment in rental housing is absolutely necessary in providing a place for those on the lowest budgets.

          • flandish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            ahh ok. my fault - you rent rooms. I was speaking to the rental of houses. you could sell the suites however. individually. condos are a thing.

            • LoveCanada@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              No, I rent houses. That basement suite is the lower suite, the upper suite is a separate unit. My point is that they are far too big an investment for renters to actually be able to buy and many of my renters dont WANT to buy. Some do and several have done so but thats the minority.

              And condos are a very bad investment. Condo fees and insurance, plus emergency repairs on them make them highly expensive. Would never touch one.

    • Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      landlords should not exist, to begin with. they are garbage people.

      This. Landlords are simply unnatural. An abomination of nature itself.

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    7 months ago

    As a renter who just recently bought, im almost upset this isn’t comimg fast enough after years in 30+ temperatures in the summer. However I do have 1 small complaint about how they intend to implement it.

    “[Those buildings] are not very viable economic propositions,” he said. "And it’s society that has imposed that on the property owner. And now, at least in our view, it should be for society to help solve the problem that society has created

    This qoute is in the context of an old building trying to be sold instead of the landlord updating. We’ve fucking catered to landlords enough in this province. We don’t need to bail them out. If they can’t sell a property because of a condition it is in, thats their fault for maintaining it at that level. If no one will buy the property because the rent to price ratio is too high, then i guess they’ll have to lower their asking price. Our province has bigger financial problems to tackle than helping landlords sell their neglected buildings or helping landlords bring them up to modern standards. Those risks and responsibilities should be on the landlord who has been profiting this entire time.

  • BeBopALouie@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ya sure. We are low income and our low income shit building charges $250 cdn per air conditioner per season. Like they are going to put airco in. Fucking pipe dream.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    No they don’t. They’ve been profiting off of doing no work for decades. They can sell their cottage if that’s what it takes for their tenants to have a single reasonable home.

  • AverageGoob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    I am shocked we don’t have this already with new record temperatures every year. 26 is a perfectly reasonable temperature as a MAX and boohoo landlords who would rather leave people live in life threatening heat.

  • LoveCanada@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    An air conditioner unit for a single room is as cheap as $140 brand new at Walmart and often used they’re just $40 on marketplace. But the tenant pays the power bill. Sure I’ll buy you a couple, not exactly a big deal, its your power bill.