Ontario compared to other provinces...

[JoefromTO]

Iv`e read a number of threads that says that Ontario is NOT a good place to invest, because the laws set in place with the RTA are not "fair" to landlords.

For example, in Ontario...we cannot charge a security deposit....why?!? If we could, what does that do...? That will ensure that the tenant has something to lose if they damage the apartment, if they leave early...etc...

Example number 2...a tenant admits to bringing in bed bugs and it is the landlords responsibility to cover the cost to remedy the problem...Whats wrong with this picture? So basically, tenants don`t need to be responsible for their actions? Put some of their money on the table and I`d like to see if they act differently...

This is about politicians wanting more votes...

All this does is one thing...promotes commercial rentals instead of residential. I have residential, and plan on buying more, but I don`t agree that the political people of the province have the right to dictate what residential landlords have the right to do...

I beleive in free enterprise. People should be able to discuss and agree to their own terms. The laws should be in place to help both parties in the event there is an issue...

I`m just frustrated because I have intentions of buying more residential rentals, while dreading it at the same time...

 

[housingrental]

There are many laws in place to protect consumers
Rental housing in Ontario shouldn`t be excluded!

These laws are helpful to ensure that tenants can be provided with safe, secure, and clean housing
Sadly there are many bad landlords

Would you prefer its easier for landlords to take advantage of tenants?

 

[invst4profit]

The RTA and the LTB in Ontario are definitely slanted against the LL.The eviction process is designed to cost the LL several months lost rent, tenants have no compunctions against destroying LLs property because there is no damage deposit and the RTA does not respect or support the lease agreements. A one year lease is not for one year it is only as long as the tenant wishes to stay providing they give 60 days notice.
The act prevents LL from raising the rents of long term tenants to market resulting in LL losing money because they have a "good tenant" and proving you have a bad tenant usually results in the board giving them one more chance to destroy your property before you can get rid of them. In addition the government financed tenant activist groups cry discrimination and scumbag legal aid leaches provide free representation for your professional tenant while all along talking with the LTB adjudicator, presiding the case , on a first name bases. These are only a few of the issues LLs in Ontario face.

No we do not want to take advantage of tenants we simply want the system to be fare and for government, tenants, tenant activists and legal aid tenant leaches to stop paint us as SLUMLORDS.
Fair would be nice and being able to evict a tenant within 30 days when they refuse to pay there rent or destroy my property.

 

[housingrental]

Not a bad post

I'd prefer the law changed for same day or preemptive eviction - theft it theft - if rent is due on first you should be able to get them out them in the event of non payment

Life would be much better for good landlords and good tenants - lower market rent from increased supply as more rental housing becomes available




QUOTE (invst4profit @ Sep 3 2009, 07:39 PM)
The RTA and the LTB in Ontario are definitely slanted against the LL.

The eviction process is designed to cost the LL several months lost rent, tenants have no compunctions against destroying LLs property because there is no damage deposit and the RTA does not respect or support the lease agreements. A one year lease is not for one year it is only as long as the tenant wishes to stay providing they give 60 days notice.

The act prevents LL from raising the rents of long term tenants to market resulting in LL losing money because they have a "good tenant" and proving you have a bad tenant usually results in the board giving them one more chance to destroy your property before you can get rid of them. In addition the government financed tenant activist groups cry discrimination and scumbag legal aid leaches provide free representation for your professional tenant while all along talking with the LTB adjudicator, presiding the case , on a first name bases. These are only a few of the issues LLs in Ontario face.



No we do not want to take advantage of tenants we simply want the system to be fare and for government, tenants, tenant activists and legal aid tenant leaches to stop paint us as SLUMLORDS.

Fair would be nice and being able to evict a tenant within 30 days when they refuse to pay there rent or destroy my property.

 

[ontariolandlord]

QUOTE (housingrental @ Sep 4 2009, 03:50 PM)
Not a bad post

I'd prefer the law changed for same day or preemptive eviction - theft it theft - if rent is due on first you should be able to get them out them in the event of non payment

Life would be much better for good landlords and good tenants - lower market rent from increased supply as more rental housing becomes available


Even the head of the biggest tenant activist group in Ontario has admitted that the laws in Ontario are a result of the tenant activist groups fighting against the big corporate landlords. Small business landlords didn't have a voice before and so just got roped in with the big Toronto corporates.



This is why there is a growing movement of small business residential landlords who want there to be a distinction in the RTA between units that are 10 or less. Head of the Toronto Tenants even agreed this was the way to go.



C'mon: damage deposits illegal? No pets illegal? 13 month evictions? Pro tenants with histories of trashing places getting evicted by their latest landlord, then get free legal aid and counter-sue the landlords and take it to Superior Court! So the landlords who just wanted to evict now have to hire lawyers to defend themselves in Superior Court while the pro tenants get free representation! It's nuts. And it's real. See: http://www.ontariolandlord.ca/forum/viewto...1df770f535d638d

 

[invst4profit]

I doubt you will get much support on this forum. Although most on here are small LLs the majority I believe have more than 10 doors, me included.
Too bad but all you are representing are the mom and pop rental owners. There are a lot more of us that should not be grouped with corporations that no one speaks for.

 

[housingrental]

Maybe I'm alone on this but I don't see the need for distinction for bigger corporations.

If a renter is damaging the unit, cranking music at 3am, not paying rent, its still a problem that should be dealt with even if the owner has a 20plex.... And really a distinction like 10 units still leaves lots of mom and pop type landlords with significant potential costs.. 10 unit x 70k unit = $700K = $105K cash needed... Not necessarily big pockets that should be forced to burn big $$$ on legal fees in the name of misguided social policy.




QUOTE (invst4profit @ Sep 6 2009, 12:39 AM)
I doubt you will get much support on this forum. Although most on here are small LLs the majority I believe have more than 10 doors, me included.

Too bad but all you are representing are the mom and pop rental owners. There are a lot more of us that should not be grouped with corporations that no one speaks for.

 

[invst4profit]

The changes to the Ontario RTA came about because of tenant activists fighting the corporate LLc and many small LL feel the rules are far more crippling for them. When a bad tenant costs them several months lost rent the loss is more crippling with only a few units to carry you.
Personally I agree there is very little difference between small and big but am confused as to why the corporate LLs are not openly fighting to get the same changes. The Ontario RTA is bad for LLs and only results in higher rents for tenants as a result of LLs trying to recover there loses and building in a buffer for the eventual loses due to slow evictions etc.

 

[tonypeters]

Joe, I can understand your frustrations, as I have had many, many issues to deal with myself. I have spent countless hours in court rooms dealing with Tenant related issues, only to come away wondering who is "really in control" of the real estate that I thought "I" owned? That is why I personally elect to invest in residential real estate in a much different way! I have been implementing a "Lease To Own" program for quite a few years now with great success! So much so, that I recorded a CD a few years ago and I titled it..."No More Terrible T`s™" (Tenants & Toilets). The "Long Term Buy and Hold" investing strategy indeed has its place, but the ride is a lot more enjoyable when you are able to compliment it with other strategies. What I specifically like about the "Lease To Own" program is this; I am able to unlock a portion of my (back-end) profits the day I place my Tenant/Buyer into the property, as they pay me a sizable "down Payment". The down payments I receive are significantly larger than what I am able to collect from a (regular) Tenant. As a result of the fact that they have more "skin in the game", they are less likely to "walk away". I also benefit from increased monthly cash flow, as I can always charge more than rent. Don`t get to despondent with Tenants and let them destroy your dreams, as there are many creative strategies that can be implemented. Hope this helps?


QUOTE (JoefromTO @ Sep 3 2009, 07:47 AM) Iv`e read a number of threads that says that Ontario is NOT a good place to invest, because the laws set in place with the RTA are not "fair" to landlords.

For example, in Ontario...we cannot charge a security deposit....why?!? If we could, what does that do...? That will ensure that the tenant has something to lose if they damage the apartment, if they leave early...etc...

Example number 2...a tenant admits to bringing in bed bugs and it is the landlords responsibility to cover the cost to remedy the problem...Whats wrong with this picture? So basically, tenants don`t need to be responsible for their actions? Put some of their money on the table and I`d like to see if they act differently...

This is about politicians wanting more votes...

All this does is one thing...promotes commercial rentals instead of residential. I have residential, and plan on buying more, but I don`t agree that the political people of the province have the right to dictate what residential landlords have the right to do...

I beleive in free enterprise. People should be able to discuss and agree to their own terms. The laws should be in place to help both parties in the event there is an issue...

I`m just frustrated because I have intentions of buying more residential rentals, while dreading it at the same time...

 

[ontariolandlord]

QUOTE (housingrental @ Sep 6 2009, 10:55 AM)
Maybe I'm alone on this but I don't see the need for distinction for bigger corporations.

If a renter is damaging the unit, cranking music at 3am, not paying rent, its still a problem that should be dealt with even if the owner has a 20plex.... And really a distinction like 10 units still leaves lots of mom and pop type landlords with significant potential costs.. 10 unit x 70k unit = $700K = $105K cash needed... Not necessarily big pockets that should be forced to burn big $$$ on legal fees in the name of misguided social policy.


Good discussion.



1. I keep hearing the words "Mom and Pop." It really isn't part of this debate. If someone with 20 legal duplexs in Ontario, with the average price/rental prop. of $300,000 (calculator out) overseeing $6,000,000 worth of real estate "Mom and Pop"? Or just a smart investor who over the years has learned what works best.



I mean, who wants to own a building or -plex in Ontario? Good luck with your tenants, as each tenant = potential nightmare, and good luck selling. I've been in the business over 15 years and know of what I write.



2. The tenant groups in Ontario are very powerful and they won't give it up anytime fast. These people get funded by the city of Toronto. They never get audited. Their is never a public tender. Why? Because they promise to deliver votes.



Will the RTA change? It needs to change. But we still didn't get damage deposits even under Mike Harris who is seen as the Devil by all the Leftists here.



Where are the rich corporates? No where to be found! Why? They are doing very well in the current system. Little new investment is coming in, meaning they get the 50%+ of the people living in Ontario (who are renters) to themselves. What's hiring a legal team when you have no competition for tenants?



Even the activists sympathize with us "private LLs" and have written on numerous forums to simply ask for a distinction, just like their is a distinction if the the LL lives upstairs. Some of the good tenant advocates even ask us point blank: "Why the Hell don't you have a voice and get a distinction??!!"



IF you want a revolution, you won't get it. Ever. If you want to save your/our butts, then don't rock the boat and get an under 10 unit change and make money and live your life.



I'm not in any way part of the ownership or admin., but people at www.ontariolandlord.ca are finally talking about these things and are well funded and have big plans. Anyone who has invested in Ontario rentals should participate there because what little mover and shakers there are in Ontario are there.

 

[ontariolandlord]

Tony, could you email me at [email protected]

I may have 20+ units for you!

 

[invst4profit]

1. I keep hearing the words "Mom and Pop." It really isn`t part of this debate. Is someone with 20 legal duplexes in Ontario, with the average price/rental prop. of $300,000 (calculator out) overseeing $6,000,000 worth of real estate "Mom and Pop"? Or just a smart investor who over the years has learned what works best.

To begin we were discussing regulation changes for LLs with 10 or less units. Your point above jumps to another level entirely which I agree is not mom and pop.
However as you are targeting 10 or less doors the vast majority of LL in that category will only own one or maybe two buildings. Those buildings may be singles or possibly up to a triplex.
They buy, rent and sit back till problems arise. They know next to nothing about the RTA and could care less unless they get a bad tenant. They are not running a business and seldom even know what there long term expenses or income will be.
The site you are promoting, and I have promoted, has some good experienced LLs but there are also many that are simply along for the ride. They are easy to spot as they make plenty of negative comments but add little content to the site.
Mom and Pop are the majority of the target market of under 10 units and need assistance the most because they do not know they are running a business.

 

[housingrental]

Yup

Very sad and true

Free legal support for landlords as to tenants would help...won't happen but would be nice

QUOTE (invst4profit @ Sep 7 2009, 10:55 AM)
1. I keep hearing the words "Mom and Pop." It really isn't part of this debate. Is someone with 20 legal duplexes in Ontario, with the average price/rental prop. of $300,000 (calculator out) overseeing $6,000,000 worth of real estate "Mom and Pop"? Or just a smart investor who over the years has learned what works best.



To begin we were discussing regulation changes for LLs with 10 or less units. Your point above jumps to another level entirely which I agree is not mom and pop.

However as you are targeting 10 or less doors the vast majority of LL in that category will only own one or maybe two buildings. Those buildings may be singles or possibly up to a triplex.

They buy, rent and sit back till problems arise. They know next to nothing about the RTA and could care less unless they get a bad tenant. They are not running a business and seldom even know what there long term expenses or income will be.

The site you are promoting, and I have promoted, has some good experienced LLs but there are also many that are simply along for the ride. They are easy to spot as they make plenty of negative comments but add little content to the site.

Mom and Pop are the majority of the target market of under 10 units and need assistance the most because they do not know they are running a business.

 

[BrianPersaud]

QUOTE (housingrental @ Sep 7 2009, 04:15 PM)
Yup

Very sad and true

Free legal support for landlords as to tenants would help...won't happen but would be nice

I blogged on this for Chris Davies and we had a pretty good discussion (here and here)



I even had this ominous threat in the comment section from a group called Toronto Tenants (see here)



Well since I've blogged about it The Star has wrote two pieces on discrimination against tenants



Here's one headline



Turned away at the door



Landlords trample on tenants' human rights: Toronto study finds the most vulnerable renters are the most likely to be refused



Another article



Rights commission targets `blatant discrimination' in rental-housing market





I know it's harsh seeing a single mom and two kids where more than 50% of their income will go towards the rent and having to turn them away...overtime you see these cases time and time again you don't have to go through the scenario of an application because you know where it will lead. I can understand why you would feel guilty...I have many times. I even helped drive a mom around looking for another place and was buying her groceries because I felt guilty for turning her down. I was still in school at the time and I had exams and tuition to pay for..it was a big deal for me...and once she got her own place she kept calling me saying she needed this and that...she even called me again last week after 2 years saying she wanted some help with drywall and painting.



As I started getting more property and seeing the cases more and more I realized helping her wasn't my responsibility. These one sided articles don't highlight our position: Property investors should not be forced to provide charity. Investors just provide a place to live for a profit, we are not set up to deal with mom's unable to feed their family, kids going through a rough time and vandalize and trash your place, dads that are drunk upsetting other tenants.



You want to choose who you give your time and money to with the profits.



Every single time i thought with my heart instead with my investors head I have got burnt out of thousands of dollars. The reason why I get burnt: it's so hard getting these folks out and I have no real recourse if they trash the place and skip out on rent. I'm sure you would feel so much better picking the good tenant and sending the money for mosquito nets in Africa.



So of course we'll have to focus on getting our ideal tenant profile and not take a chance on anything else...and this could absolutely be unfair. It's an example of the famous Milton Friedman law of unintended consequences: laws that are meant to protect the people..and the people get harmed even more.





The harm is significant:



- No maintenance done to the property, in some cases people are living in filth and squalor. Rats and roaches

- hard working people are being discriminated against getting a place they like because of a few people who ruined it for everyone.

- people forced to live in a place they don't want to..destroying the neighborhood and community which they live (trash, urine in common areas, garbage everywhere).

 

[ontariolandlord]

Excellent post.

How can we help all tenants? For a start:

(1) Allow me to charge a damage and pet deposit so I have at least a little protection from damage.

(2) Quicker evictions and no `month by month` nonsense.

(3) If someone is on welfare or disability have the funds come directly to the LL for an entire lease term.

(4) Make welfare and disability garnishable.

(5) Don`t have legal aid roaming the halls representing any and all tenants and playing dirty tricks at Hearings.

And if you want to know some of the dirty tricks, I`ll let you know the top 10.

I often go to Hearings just to see what happens. Amazing kangaroo court.

 

[selansa]

[quote name=`JoefromTO` date=`Sep 3 2009, 07:47 AM` post=`64999`]
Iv`e read a number of threads that says that Ontario is NOT a good place to invest, [/quote

Why invest in Ontario when there is better places for landlords? Its a choice. If you don`t like the rules don`t invest there.

 

[Aneta]

I am an Ontario resident and have chosen to invest in rentals exclusively in Alberta due to the more business friendly environment. Having toured a number of towns in Alberta, I have to say there is a significant difference in the amount of construction of multiplexes/rental units between the two provinces. Don`t see much of this construction in the GTA, it was an unusual sight for me to see that in Alberta. So much for rent control trying to `help the people`, instead it has the opposite effect, stifling the construction of decent rental housing. Free market is the best way to go! Just my 2 cents!

 

[asifghayoor]

QUOTE (ontariolandlord @ Sep 7 2009, 09:35 PM)
Excellent post.



How can we help all tenants? For a start:



(1) Allow me to charge a damage and pet deposit so I have at least a little protection from damage.



(2) Quicker evictions and no 'month by month' nonsense.



(3) If someone is on welfare or disability have the funds come directly to the LL for an entire lease term.



(4) Make welfare and disability garnishable.



(5) Don't have legal aid roaming the halls representing any and all tenants and playing dirty tricks at Hearings.



And if you want to know some of the dirty tricks, I'll let you know the top 10.



I often go to Hearings just to see what happens. Amazing kangaroo court.






I would love to hear about the top 10, infact i would like to hear ALL the dirty tricks..



Asif

 

[housingrental]

Not a bad list except (4)

Hard to figure out what to do in that case but no reasonable scenario will ever see that possible...

Maybe if the government is unwilling to adequately invest in social housing they will backstop and repair damage caused by renters to private housing stock if paid for by them re (3) scenario - yes I know we'll likely see pig's fly first but possible








QUOTE (ontariolandlord @ Sep 7 2009, 09:35 PM)
Excellent post.



How can we help all tenants? For a start:



(1) Allow me to charge a damage and pet deposit so I have at least a little protection from damage.



(2) Quicker evictions and no 'month by month' nonsense.



(3) If someone is on welfare or disability have the funds come directly to the LL for an entire lease term.



(4) Make welfare and disability garnishable.



(5) Don't have legal aid roaming the halls representing any and all tenants and playing dirty tricks at Hearings.



And if you want to know some of the dirty tricks, I'll let you know the top 10.



I often go to Hearings just to see what happens. Amazing kangaroo court.

 

[housingrental]

Good article list in that Brian

Its sad stuff

The current system creates a perverse outcome where both landlords and tenants are worse off

Here's to more equitable legislation in by 2050!




QUOTE (BrianPersaud @ Sep 7 2009, 07:51 PM)
I blogged on this for Chris Davies and we had a pretty good discussion (here and here)



I even had this ominous threat in the comment section from a group called Toronto Tenants (see here)



Well since I've blogged about it The Star has wrote two pieces on discrimination against tenants



Here's one headline



Turned away at the door



Landlords trample on tenants' human rights: Toronto study finds the most vulnerable renters are the most likely to be refused



Another article



Rights commission targets `blatant discrimination' in rental-housing market





I know it's harsh seeing a single mom and two kids where more than 50% of their income will go towards the rent and having to turn them away...overtime you see these cases time and time again you don't have to go through the scenario of an application because you know where it will lead. I can understand why you would feel guilty...I have many times. I even helped drive a mom around looking for another place and was buying her groceries because I felt guilty for turning her down. I was still in school at the time and I had exams and tuition to pay for..it was a big deal for me...and once she got her own place she kept calling me saying she needed this and that...she even called me again last week after 2 years saying she wanted some help with drywall and painting.



As I started getting more property and seeing the cases more and more I realized helping her wasn't my responsibility. These one sided articles don't highlight our position: Property investors should not be forced to provide charity. Investors just provide a place to live for a profit, we are not set up to deal with mom's unable to feed their family, kids going through a rough time and vandalize and trash your place, dads that are drunk upsetting other tenants.



You want to choose who you give your time and money to with the profits.



Every single time i thought with my heart instead with my investors head I have got burnt out of thousands of dollars. The reason why I get burnt: it's so hard getting these folks out and I have no real recourse if they trash the place and skip out on rent. I'm sure you would feel so much better picking the good tenant and sending the money for mosquito nets in Africa.



So of course we'll have to focus on getting our ideal tenant profile and not take a chance on anything else...and this could absolutely be unfair. It's an example of the famous Milton Friedman law of unintended consequences: laws that are meant to protect the people..and the people get harmed even more.





The harm is significant:



- No maintenance done to the property, in some cases people are living in filth and squalor. Rats and roaches

- hard working people are being discriminated against getting a place they like because of a few people who ruined it for everyone.

- people forced to live in a place they don't want to..destroying the neighborhood and community which they live (trash, urine in common areas, garbage everywhere).