|
|
|
The laws in our province are backwards, i know of many cases of the tenant refusing to move and wrecking the homeowners lives financially. It's sad when you own a property and you follow all of the rules and the renter has more rights than you have, the system is totally broken.
Indeed. I wonder if you called 911 to report this as a trespasser what the police would do or say? As the property owner can’t you just unlock the door and push them out?
If people did not have houses that they rent where would all renters live? Are people and companies that own multiple buildings that rent apartments for profit evil? Just because someone worked their arses off and have invested in real estate that provides housing for people should they be subjected to some professional tenants that know how to abuse the system and not have many options to get them out?
Who’s doing that? This couple is selling up but we don’t know if they’re doing it for profit. Maybe they’ve over extended their credit and need to bail. Must property owners pass a means test?
They would continue to rent somewhere else, such as purpose built rentals, rentals where the owner is also a resident, or they could themselves buy housing that isn't being hoarded by the rich.
They are making passive income with this house, not working their arses off. They are not doing this to be altruistic, they are doing so to profit off people's need for housing.
They make it clear it is an investment property, and not their primary residence. I similarly don't feel bad for people who lose money in the stock market when investing beyond their capabilities. They sold a house as vacant without any guarantee of that being true, it's 100% on them to eat the loss IMO.
People can make passive income as they wish, if they made the money legally and want to invest in real estate that's their choice, it sounds like you have an issue with people that can do things that you can't. My parents immigrated to this country in 1971 and purchased their first house 2 years later, they rented the 3 bedrooms on the second floor to 3 different boarders, 4 of us lived in 1 bedroom and my parents lived in the other, 1 bathroom for the boarders and the 6 of us. Through hard work and saving their money they bought another house to rent 15 years later, they renovated the house and created a triplex, they can now live a comfortable life in their eighties due to their hard work and smart investment in a second house, (by the way my mother worked until she was 76 years old). So they profited from peoples need for housing same as my brothers profit from people needing to eat and i profit from people needing me to build houses for them. People like my parents did not buy houses to hoard them they bought them to better their life and by doing that they created housing for many people over the last 34 years.
But if profits are not allowed what‘s the incentive to build such properties? No one owes you a house. It’s capitalism.
Ad hominem, we can stop there.
Buying up housing stock to rent it out, isn't the same thing as building purpose built rental housing.
So what would be your alternative? That income properties should not exist? That they can exist but never be sold? That a tenancy should be permanent?
My alternative would be that houses should be homes and not investment tools.
A single family home is used as an income property by a sole investor. A multiple unit building is used as an income property by multiple investors. Where's the line?
