OK, of course we don’t like to see people who cannot afford more expensive housing put out on the street, that is just not right. But the real question here is who is responsible for providing this housing. Why is it private companies and individual owners that must do this, where is the government in this, maybe they should spend less time putting restrictions on private companies and individuals to try and pass the buck to them and come up with a plan of their own.

In this case if the developer has purchased the land as if following the laws, what is the problem. It gets tiring listening to these cases and the rulings of the tenancy boards etc. Why go into the property business, if the government wants to control it why don’t they buy it.

Again, please don’t misunderstand the fact that I do feel sympathy for those who have to find new housing, I just think the responsibility is being passed on rather than dealt with.

Read more at the Tyee

I am certainly not an expert in this area, but I did come across and interesting blog post on the topic and thought it may be useful to pass along.

Read it here

They feel that there are enough condos currently to handle to demand out there, so they will add to the rental inventory which is lacking.

There may be some that use this tio fuel the scare that the market is tanking, but I see this in another light. Developers shifting to fill the demand, at the same time helping create more demand for the condos that are out there right now by capping the supply both should help stabilize the market and speed up the recovery.

There is good in everything.

Read the full story in the Vancouver Sun.

As is pointed out in an article at Straight.com , The Law states that in order for a Landlord to be able to make a claim against the Damage deposit, and any further claims they must have a Move in and Move out inspection filled out in writing and acknowledged by the tenant and landlord. It would seem to be common sense, just like when you rent a car, if there is no inspection done when you pick it up then there is going to be trouble when you bring it back if there is damage.

To protect yourself as a tenant, and a landlord you must do these things and you must get it in writing.

As the case discussed in the Straight.com article points out, regardless of the law, cases can go either way. In this case there was no inspection reports filled out but the landlord was able to make a successful claim against the tenant. Now this hardly seems fair but if there were reports done there would not have been a problem, all would have been in writing and there would have been nothing to dispute.

This case also points out that the Residential Tenancy Boars is inconsistent so you better make sure you protect yourself.

Now in this case I find it interesting that the tenants do not seem to be denying that they caused damage, or at least some, so I can see where the Board may have felt they were just trying to take advantage of the law and the fact that no reports were taken, in fact it seems that they asked the Board before moving out if the fact that there was no report would mean that they would get their damage deposit back. What would they ask this unless they felt there was a reason for the landlord to keep it? In fairness, I don not know any of the details here so I cannot place blame on anyone. But certainly if you do not protect yourself you are open to people taking advantage of you.

As a landlord myself, and one who is familiar with the laws, I must say it has always been quite frustrating how the RTB is of little help and more often than not a hindrance for owners. The assumption seems to be that the tenant is always in the right and the owners are the out to take advantage of the tenant. The RTB has been set up and organized under these assumptions which has now lead to tenants being able to use the system against the landlords/owners. It seems that there are more and more roadblocks put up against those that actually have the means to provide housing, which is desperately needed, when will the government wake up. or maybe they are but just don’t care.

As well, the fact that the police say it is difficult to prove these types of cases makes no sense in t his case, the person involved openly admits what he is doing, I guess that is not proof enough.

Read the full story “Fake landlord takes cash from international students”

Nothing ever comes as a surprise anymore.

Although rental bylaws can be difficult for investors, I am not sure making it law to cause stratas to allow units to be rented out is the solution. If you are an investor and you have bought a condo to be rented out, you best make sure that the building you are buying in allows rentals, and even if it does, make sure there are enough rentals and investors in the building that it would be difficult to pass a rental bylaw later.

The other thing to note is if you have bought in a new building, there is likely no rental bylaw to start with so you can rent out the unit if you are so inclined, as as the original owner you will be allowed to do so always. So all the units that are feared to be sitting empty soon in new developments and that will be difficult to sell in the current market will be rent-able.

I think it is a bit ridiculous to think that we should be able to tell people what they can and cannot do with their building, if the majority in the building do not want rentals then they should be able to pass a bylaw as such. A condo building is like a large house, if the owners in the house do not want to rent it out, then so be it. I know this may seem like the opposite of what I am trying to say, as in this case we are telling people what they can do, but it is the owners that make the decision, not the government. You have to understand that if you buy a condo, you have to participate and make decisions as a group, just as you have to pay for common expenses as a group. this is one of the benefits of condo ownership as well as a drawback sometimes, but you cannot have it both ways.

All to often it seems like the answer to fixing problems is to put more restrictions and laws in place. How about making it easier for those that want to provide rental accommodation to do so. For example, suites in houses.

Not to mention, if we are looking at a shortage of low income housing, I don’t think this is the right place to be looking anyway.

Bottom line as a condo buyer, make sure you know what you are getting into and make sure you can use the unit you are buying for the purpose you are buying it for.

I am all for investing in real estate and building a fortune by providing a needed service or product to people. In the case of providing housing, I think this is a great contribution. Having said that, like anything else, when you get people who see an opportunity and don’t have the ability to think beyond themselves you have trouble. This is the case with almost anything, it is the human aspect added into the situation that can turn something good into something bad.

The main point of this post is, there are those out there that do care to do something about these problems and that means there is hope for those who feel stuck. If you are living in poor rental conditions don’t feel that you have to accept it because you are small and your landlord is big. There is nothing OK about this and you need to speak up. Go to the government department responsible for the landlord tenancy act, or go to your MLA and try to get the ball rolling. Another thing you can do to help others and expose the situation is post a review about the building on www.condoavisory.com, if the building is not on the site you can add it and in so doing let others now before they end up in the same situation.

Landlords take note, you have the fortune to profit from providing an essential part of life, don’t abuse it, there can be consequences beyond those whose lives your are affecting.