ACORN says sale of rental units on Hamilton Mountain “financialized tenant displacement”
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2024
- A looming threat of eviction has filled a Hamilton Mountain community of more than 100 people with dread.
Earlier this year, Dicenzo Management notified every single one of its tenants living on Anna Capri Drive that their homes were going up for sale.
The neighbourhood has three townhouse complexes, totalling 123 rental units - many of which meet the provincial standard for affordability.
Marni Oram, who has lived in her home for 14 years, says she pays $1,050 monthly and has always been a good tenant.
“Just please, don’t do this. It’s not fair,” she said. “We’ve paid our rent on time, we’ve been diligent in keeping our place. This isn’t right. Please don’t do this.”
In a statement, Dicenzo Management said it plans to sell only a few townhouses at a time and would provide tenants with “a minimum of 60 days notice to vacate” in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act.
“As well, we will pay you compensation equal to one month’s rent in order to assist you with obtaining new accommodations,” it added.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has called the move an act of “financialized tenant displacement,” adding that it would displace hundreds of low and moderate-income families.
“All of this happening in the wake of Hamilton City Council passing new rental replacement protections requiring landlords to provide new units for tenants displaced by condo conversion is indicative of DiCenzo’s financialized motives,” ACORN said in an email to CHCH News.
When asked where she would go if evicted, Oram pointed down the street and pitched the idea of living in a tent alongside her neighbours.
$1050 is extremely low rent , especially for an entire townhouse , they wont even be able to find a 1 bdrm apt for less than $1200-$1400.
If the townhouse is worth $550,000.00 and the tenant is paying $1050.00 per month that's less than a 2.50% return on the owner's money not including maintenance, financing costs and taxes. I think the owner doesn't have a choice but to sell. Perhaps the tenant could purchase the townhouse with the money she's saved over the years by not paying market value rent for so long.
No the current market value of a unit says nothing about the owner's return on investment relative to the current rent, maintenance and financing costs. One of two things is likely to happen if the existing owner is permitted to go forward with the sale; 1) New owners will reside in the units 2) The new owners will continue to use the units as rental properties. Under the current rules the owners can request an above guidelines rent increase if they can show that they are making significant capital investments in the properties. Judging by the footage in the reporting and photographs from other stories from different news outlets these units are pretty tired looking. The current owner hasn't made significant investments in the properties in a long time. New owners of the individual units under the umbrella of a condominium association might represent the capital needed to make significant changes to the properties. The units can be renovated and reclassified. Higher rents are very likely with reclassified units and condo fees for maintenance and management going forward. This will price out the existing tenants.
Sean Cowan is an odd choice to report on this story considering that he is a part time reporter/real estate agent.
If you don't own the property you have no say in what happens.
Such nonsense.
To bad the new 'market rent' is rigged and fixed. It is not in line with the targeted market. Absolutely disgusting what is happening to this country.
Why should renters effectively have more rights to a property than the owner of said property?
That is what groups like ACORN want: for tenants to be able to stay in properties paying way below market value thanks to rent control in perpetuity with no way to ever get them out, the property owner be damned.
That's hyperbolic.
Is it at the point where someone is willing to pay half a million for a townhouse that looks pretty rundown.
The owner had difficulty selling the entire complex(s) to a single buyer. The expectation is that by selling the units individually you'll get many buyers. Think of it as several individual investors buying units in a condominium project. Fractional ownership. You raise quite a bit of capital to then renovate, upgrade and improve the units. The new ownership group then can have the units reclassified and rented out at higher rates that now include built in condo fees for maintenance, operation and future upgrades. It can also be a pretty good entry point for a home buyer that sees a distressed or under valued property.
The issue being discussed though is those displaced with few viable alternatives on a short timeline.
Keeping the tenants should be a precondition of the sale.
That's almost impossible. The current owner is looking to sell. They have indicated that it has proven difficult to sell the entire complex to a new single owner. Their expectation is that by selling the units individually they can get many single unit buyers at a higher value than selling it all together. A condo model means that many investors can come in to pool capital for renovations, upgrades, improvements with an expectation of a nicer unit for owners to live in or rent out at a higher rental fee. A rental fee that would now have condo fees built in to help cover maintenance and operation. Buyers don't want the hassle of removing the tenants after they have taken ownership of the units if they choose to live in the units themselves. A new group of buyers intending to renovate and charge a higher rent will want the current tenants out so that large scale renovation projects aren't delayed. Can you reference an Ontario law that supports the idea that a buyer should be required to continue the current tenancy?
@seanwebb605 I doubt that there is an Ontario law like that, it's not like renters have ever been a consideration. But I'm saying that there should be one.
@@rotopope Rent controls, zoning and public housing have all been part of a consideration to low income and working poor renters. I haven't seen the political will for an expansion of public housing in a long time. The current provincial government has weakened rent controls.
Heartless :(
The owner might have no choice but to sell off, enormous taxes, insurances, maintenance, interest rates, his own personal finances/business could be in jeopardy.
This is scary. Government needs to step in.
no no they don't
The Government is what's causing it
Yes, they absolutely do. That’s their primary job: to protect the individual citizen from disgustingly greedy super wealthy scam artists
The landlord has every right to sell his properties and no one can stop him he owns the properties.
And what about all those people lives being disrupted after living there for so many years?
Then maybe it’s time to change the laws
Nobody is questioning that someone has the right to sell their properties. The issue being addressed is the people who face being displaced with few viable alternatives.
@@62Cristoforo Maybe its time to sale all Rental properties and just get out THERE is NO GUARANTEE WHEN YOU RENT THIS IS THE START THANK ACORN and other FELL SORRY FOR ME GROUPS AND THE ELECTED PEOPLE FOR THE MESS READ THE R T A LANDLORD IS WITH IN THEIR RIGHTS
based Acorn as always
Based?
Craziness when people are left to the ravages of open market forces. That brings chaos and people living in tents. People’s lives are not market commodities. People’s lives cannot be commoditized, contrary to what some extremely wealthy developers may think.
Okay. But let's remember that for a few centuries now residential real estate has been the single most reliable way for an individual or a family to build wealth. You buy a home for yourself and your family to live in, maintain it and you build wealth. If you have a little more money you invest in a rental unit to increase your income and built wealth. There are extreme examples of residential real estate investment speculation and squeezing the poor and working poor. There is also the Soviet Union model of shared misery in ugly, simple, inadequate and depressing housing where the state determines where you live and how much housing that you may have. Reasonable people can see the value of private ownership and compassion for the poor, working poor etc. I see some really heartless libertarians commenting.
Price you pay when you rent NO GUARANTEE THE LANDLORD is doing the process as written in the R T A. ACORN should by them all and become the LANDLORD instead of lying to the public that this is not wright READ THE RULES NO BODY RIDES FOR FREE ACORN
That's some horrible spin and a series of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.
@@seanwebb605 You must bee a member of ACORN . If you are then why not buy the whole package ? Buy and charge the same rent just as the R T A rules say. GOOD LUCK !!! Still the PRICE YOU PAY WHEN YOU RENT. NO GUARANTEE IT GOING TO LAST FOR EVER BECAUSE YOU DO NOT OWN IT. AS THE MEANING OF THE WORD RENT . SO NO FEEL SORRY OR TIERS FROM ME .🙃🙃🙃
@@user-gn7xb5jo6h Well fake account, no I am not a member of ACORN. In fact I don't agree entirely with them on every issue that they bring forward. I'm just not a completely heartless bastard.
Omg. It’s the owners home. Buy your own homes then you can choose if you want to buy or sell
Since you OMG the post “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.
And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”
It is fair. What is not fair is people telling the owner that he shouldn't sell them. Owners have the right to sell their property. Period. You want to stay there...buy the house. Period.
Since when is having a legal right to do something ever make it right? Wow.
Just because you write period doesn't mean that the discussion is over. The issue is the people being displaced by the potential sale, the viable options for the tenants and the relatively short timeline they will have to move after the unit has been sold.
@@62Cristoforo SO when is it right to say it is the Tenants right when the are not the owners What is the meaning of RENT TO OWN ???? IF you were the owner and i told you that you can not Sell or do what you want is that my Right Or Yours ????
@@seanwebb605 So the property still doesn't belong to the renters. It belongs to the owners. No matter what low rent they may have been charged. You want to have a say in the property, then buy it. PERIOD!
@@62Cristoforo Owners of the property have the legal rights too. No matter what low rent they may have been charging out of the generosity of their hearts. Renters want to have a say in that property, then buy the property.
Trudeau says dont worry because it happens everywhere 😆
But don't worry you will soon be able to get a free cleaning at the dentist
That's not true.
Would mass immigration be the issue?
How many full-time jobs do you have?
Thank you to defaulting to racism and scapegoating immigrants.
Yes it is part issue it’s also foreigner buying up places and greedy owners!