Does removing rent control help build more apartments?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- What happens when rent control goes away? In 2018 Ontario rolled back some rent controls to incentivize developers to build more purpose-built rental units. But as CBC Toronto’s Shannon Martin found out, that’s not exactly what happened.
00:00 - Introduction
00:53 - Ontario’s conservative government removes some rent controls in 2018
01:45 - Developers send in applications, but building stalls
03:27 - Timelines
05:22 - What does the province have to say 5 years later after policy change
6:42 - Conclusion
»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos: bit.ly/1RreYWS
Connect with CBC News Online:
For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage: bit.ly/1Z0m6iX
Find CBC News on Facebook: bit.ly/1WjG36m
Follow CBC News on Twitter: bit.ly/1sA5P9H
For breaking news on Twitter: bit.ly/1WjDyks
Follow CBC News on Instagram: bit.ly/1Z0iE7O
Subscribe to CBC News on Snapchat: bit.ly/3leaWsr
Download the CBC News app for iOS: apple.co/25mpsUz
Download the CBC News app for Android: bit.ly/1XxuozZ
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
For more than 80 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio, CBCNews.ca, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.
There was a lot of people that want to build homes but 2/3 where denied getting permits so they couldn't build houses. If they want more affordable homes they have to do a better job getting permits approved faster making it cheaper to build.
Yes, it will help build more unaffordable apartments/condos.
Better that than housing being unavailable even if people are willing to pay the higher rent.
The issue is that either the renter or the owner must in some way pay insurance and property taxes if they want a "permanent roof" with utilities like electricity, gas and water. Because of this, many people-at least in California, where I currently reside-are living in tents. No taxes, rent, mortgages, or insurance. The number of people who tell me they live in their car that I meet amazes me. Its crazy out here!
Wow It takes 8 years to build and 67% of the applications got rejected plus rates, shortages and inflation.
The problem is if you remove rent control you create a new problem over night
Which would be?
@@shauncameron8390 that rents see an immediately sharp increase. Theres been studies on this that prove it. Which means more homeless, more people who have to scrape to get by which means less money going into the economy which means its a real estate bubble. Bubbles pop and our next major recession (2008 but worse) is right around the corner no matter what happens at this point. People need financial help and a shorter work week. People need time to rest, heal and enjpy their life. Not to struggle to avoid homelessness.
@@shauncameron8390huh? Are you actually asking what? Its clear. Rent increases without proportionality means rental prices would go sky high and cause more defaults and even more LTB issues, more civil suits, and even higher homelessness.
Wondering why rent control can't be on a sliding scale. Like right now it's anything built before 2018 is rent controlled but what of instead it was like, any building older than 10 or however many years is not subject and once it "matures" it gets rent control?
you would be absolutely insane to become a landlord in Canada. Now you understand the problem
Canada just loves bureaucracy
Follow Vienna’s system where the Govt is owning the rentals and eventually letting residents purchase the homes. Not the Ponzi scheme being run in Canada.
yeah, we have that, its called public housing and like 90% of the crime in most cities comes from this area.
If governments mandate rent controls,, they need to standby & provide financial support... can't just offload all costs to builders & smalltime landlords...
So, it does work. The issue of long permitting and actual build times is an entirely separate issue that has to be addressed, but it is disingenuous to suggest the removal of rent control did not have the intended effect - over 40% increase in development applications for new rental units. The apparent demand by pro rent control advocates that anything less than an over night increase of millions of new rental units and and immediate drop in all housing costs is delusional beyond belief and probably breaks physics. They would literally feel better having FEWER rental units as long as rent control is in place! The ulterior motive of course is that many of them and their constituents currently benefit from rent control and they do not wish to see those benefits disappear for them personally, to heck with those who are left without any housing at all. Cynical politics at its very best.
Very interesting topic since basically the returns are what are driving the pension funds
I believe this is a positive video in solving this greed.
😂yeah theirs a very small possibility...
That rent will go threw the roof.
But they may build a few more rentals to over charge on
No. It makes it easier to find a place. I am looking now, after my THIRD eviction for landlord use. I can't afford to move out on my own without sacrificing light and air for a basement, and even then, I'll scrimp by. I just want a place to live without having to move out with a partner earlier than intended, so many condos, so few pre 2018s 😒
BS! There are plenty that were built before 2018. It's just that they're all occupied by those benefiting from rent control and already have a place.
Ignore the comment from the first guy, he’s just going around each comment, playing bias from a landlord’s perspective. Clearly is a landlord with price gouging intentions
When you lift rent control.. they don't build lot but control rental bulid limited to increase price
Sure look at Vancouver 😂😂
What are San Francisco and New York's excuses? Both have rent control, yet their housing crises are the worst of the worst in the US.
@@shauncameron8390San Fran and New York are extremely populated areas where the demand for housing is extremely high, therefore rental control prevents landlords from utilizing this demand to leverage for gouging. Comparing apples and oranges.
More rental units built that 90% of Ontarians can't afford...
Wow, a refreshing balanced report from the CBC. Thank you for this one
With!
Just dont touch the greenbelt
Building more rentals doesn't help if those rentals are unaffordable.
That's actually a common myth. Most research shows that even luxury market-rate apartments help bring down rental prices. Without those luxury apartments, you'll be fighting richer folks for older, affordable apartments
You need to learn supply and demand, just basic economics. Your level of ignorance is what cynical politicians leverage to get into office and ruin the economy for you - and you don’t even know you’re the cause of your own misery.
Due to government meddling that made rentals too costly to build and maintain.
The easy way to build more is to build more.
None of this "convince developers to build more", just build more
If you can't convince developers to build, who/what will do the building? You?
Dude it needs to be financially viable to build homes, if you make the government pay the cost it only sweeps the problem under the rug and resurface as a sovereign debt crisis.
With what money and whose labor?
@@curtisw0234
The government made it unviable through bureaucracy.
@@curtisw0234
Case in point: the USSR after Khrushchev.
Runaway greed!
Only to the ignorant.
@@shauncameron8390 I think you’re talking about yourself.
@@catherinewilson1079
And you guessed wrong.
The problem is students are homeless and underhoused now. People are underhoused and precariously housed now. great you're building, we'll see that 10 years? 15 years from now? Rent is through the roof now.
Honestly, why did people even believe deregulation was a good idea
You can't regulate people into building more houses
Simple. Regulation = housing shortages.
@@shauncameron8390stopping social housing == housing crisis
We shouldn't have stopped the government from building housing
Respectfully, did we even watch the same video? The video mentions how a major hinderance to the housing getting built is
1. The low approval rate of projects
2. The shortage of labor and materials
3. High interest rates
4. Slow permitting
Literally every one of the above is due to over-regulation. How can you watch the video and come out with the conclusion that no, this is all due to deregulation?
Rich people think so
The government should give small time landlords an exit opportunity and acquire condo units at market value. The government can then become landlords, offer up the units at rent controlled rental rates and then they can deal with the Ontario LTB. They need to understand first hand the debacle they've created.
BTW CBC another hit out of the park. This article is mentioning all of the aspects instead of the usual pitchfork and torch method where people just pick on one aspect that they perceive to be the problem.
Another issue is the uber wealthy hoarding empty units for a tax write off
Because thanks to government meddling, that's more worthwhile than renting to bad tenants they can't legally evict in a timely manner.
She just described the fact that hate keepers and NYMBY are controlling supply by regulation and bureaucracy.
Govt interference and regulation is the problem.
Lack of governance is making the problem. We should have more, higher up interference by the government, with more standardization.
Nimbys can control supply using civil law, they don't need the government, and only the government can stop them
@@lomiification
What lack of governance? Canada's housing market is over-regulated and only the richest of the rich can afford to put with the government's BS to get anything built.
Developers ARE the Richest people in Canada ... this is problematic
No and not even close.
Rent control only drives up price and decrease supply. Easy economics
Building _upwards_ while halting expansion _outwards_ causes home prices and rents to skyrocket, shunting the lifetime earnings of residents squarely into the pockets of the chosen few. Those most affected cheer each time another tract of land is "protected" tightening the snare on their own demise. A quarter million homeless in Canada with 1000 deaths each month. A major issue in this country is the vast expanse between cities, but no land may be spared for housing. Organized protest in an effort to save a grove of trees meets each attempted use of land, yet 895,000,000 acres of forest extend all the way from the West Coast to the East Coast.
This artificially created land shortage serves the purpose of financial institutions, but costs consumers from five to above twenty times the normal price of a home. For each $100,000 of market price, if land is $20,000 and the building is $80,000 lenders will not advance funds beyond the value of the indestructible portion, which is the land, itself. A deliberately restricted supply caused prices to skyrocket with the cost of the building and the cost of land exchanging places in the equation. Now, for each $100,000 spent on a home the building accounts for $20,000 of the purchase price and land makes up the remainder, which is $80,000. Banks lend an amount that matches the indestructible portion of the acquisition, which is land. In an ironical twist this arrangement enables buyers to finance their purchase by paying several times the normal cost of a home.
Canada produces cereal crops and livestock that are its staples, which are grown some distance from cities. We have highways and railways to haul in these products. This country also produces some fruit and vegetables during a relatively short growing season. The reality is that 95% of the food that we consume arrives from or through the USA. Major retailers are not going to snub reliable suppliers in order to acquire local produce for a few weeks each year. That has not kept land from being declared "agricultural" in an effort to prevent its use for housing and that has inspired movements to place a halt on the use of _all_ land. In order to save land for agriculture, forest land should be made available on which to construct homes. Legislation and regulations have severely restricted the home building and home improvement industries, the two industries for which we are admirably suited with our abundance of land, lumber, stone, minerals and other material. We have skyrocketing property prices preventing people from becoming established and a growing gulf between property owners and the remainder that cannot be bridged with any amount of effort.
Housing has been turned into an unregulated financial paper market, with public officials that personally benefit at the expense of citizens, setting conditions to constrain supply that results in monopoly prices, with rent at maximum levels and home ownership beyond reach.
*Footnotes:*
¹ A result of this cunning _sleight of hand_ is that purchasers make a down payment of $200,000 and finance the remaining $800,000 for a home that should only cost $200,000 to begin with if it were not for a deliberately restricted supply that caused prices to escalate to absurd levels.
² Building upwards while halting expansion outwards does not save farmland, as it escalates in price to the million dollar per acre level. Farmhouses are replaced with 40,000 square feet mansions, it is not feasible to grow anything and the land is left fallow.
³ Average price of a home in Vancouver in 1969 was $23,939. In Winnipeg $13,588. That equals $23,939/$7284 = 3.3 years salary in Vancouver of a new degree holder or $13,588/$7284 = 1.9 years salary in Winnipeg.
¹³ Civic governments reap a bonanza from inflated property assessments.
This 'argument' is wrong on so many levels. Absurdity on absurdity.
@@9UaYXxB In Vancouver house prices that were in the $20,000 range are now in the $5,000,000 range and above. Rents exceed pensions. Halting expansion causes prices to skyrocket. The pretext _Agricultural Land Reserve_ was false. As home prices escalated so did farm land. Not nearly as much, but farms mean acreage, so farmers that are now multi-millionaires are not going to work for nothing. Owners borrow on their equity and sell upon winding-up of their estates or their heirs sell. The land is left fallow, a 40,000 sq. ft. mansion replaces the farmhouse and the land returns to nature. Toronto is a generation behind Vancouver in terms of real estate.
In 1969 I earned $7284 per annum that increased to $9180 eighteen months later. A home in Point Grey was on the market for $29,000. An offer of $27,500 was finally accepted. An equivalent home in Winnipeg cost $11,000. Vancouver was an expensive city. Prior to 1972 it was difficult to sell a home and might take two or more years. Then legislation that placed a stop to the use of land turned home ownership into a financial instrument and created a virtually monopoly market with monopoly prices.
(Average sales price of houses in Vancouver in 1969: $23,939.)*
$27,500/$7284 = 3.8. In 1969 a home cost the equivalent of 3.8 years earnings.
Today that home is worth $5,000,000 while an equivalent salary is about $60,000.
Wage rise due to inflation: $60,000/$7284 = 8.2 times.
Cost of home now in terms of equivalent earnings: $5,000,000/$60,000 = 83.3 times or the equivalent of 83.3 years earnings.
A price comparison yields: $5,000,000/$27,500 = 181.8 times its former cost.
The home should cost $60,000 x 3.8 = $228,000.
With both earnings and inflation taken into consideration $5,000,000/$228,000 = 21.9 times its normal value.
The market for homes used to be a free market like that for cars and persons at each income level could afford to buy one as homeowners whose income increased moved on to newer, more expensive homes leaving their old homes to be purchased by new entrants. (You can purchase a three-bedroom home in Detroit for $15,000).
Home prices may be verified from actual transactions for those years at the public library. My example is for Point Grey. A home in East Vancouver cost about $12,000 or less at that time.
Property in Canada is not a human rights issue? A nation should not utilize the land that was not promised to it. It is being “protected” for the chosen few.
Life, liberty and _property_ as inalienable rights was changed to life, liberty and the _pursuit of happiness._ From the very founding of America the International Socialists had their sights on takeover. Thousands living on the streets.
The exemptions help big wigs. Not mom and pop who are so abused by bad tenants. Let the big wigs do renting and if you screw with them, rents go high or a shortage of apartments occur. Renters are not children who need parents. Maybe they can pay mortgages and bills. Well people, you get the permits and build. Put the shoe on the other foot. Building and selling better than dealing with renting. Renting is the worst part of being in real estate. Especially with low income where management alone makes renting an option that is less and less viable. Flip and sell. I told my wife that I like the LTB ( because it raises the price - on surviving real estate ). She replied that I like terrorists if I like the LTB. She’s talking about people destroying apartments or not paying rent. All these millennials destroying mom and pop shops just to give all the power to big wigs. Power to the 1%. Long live the destructive LTB with Gov rules.
😂😂
Takeaways: 1. canceling rent control works. 2. Ford made a right decision. 3. liberal municipality and federal government holds building through delaying permits and high interest rates
The extremely important fact that rent control was only in place for 1.5 years before Doug Ford dismantled it should have been mentioned right in the beginning of the video, not the end. Developers never built even prior to implementing rent control and they managed to make a fool of Doug Ford once again!
This is false. Over 40% increase in new rental building applications as soon as the new policy took effect. It doesn't get any more clear than that. What more do you want? Did you even watch the video?
rent control is an abuse of power. It is interference with business income without subsidy to the landlord. Once all landlords realize that the RTA is an abuse of power, they will either all sue the state or all pull out of the market, leaving the state where it belongs, the housing landlord. Leasing and housing are two separate concepts.
Making money is all there is. We have to look after ourselves. It's not my responsibility to look after you