Agree.My buddy is a property manager for well well funded Guys from India. They set up corporations in Canada for their buying, and if some new laws make things challenging, they will list my buddy as head of the corp. Canadian born citizen.
This is just smoke and mirrors.
You want to avoid empty houses? Make it easier for landlords to evict non-paying tenants and allow to have damage deposits. With current law I cannot blame people for keeping empty houses instead of renting them out.Exactly there is many ways to go around the ban.
What I would do is heavily tax empty houses and empty condo. Housing should become a right and not just a speculative item to make money on. You buy a house or a condo but leave it empty? You give 25k per year in tax... This would neglect the gain buyers expect to make.
As things go right now my retirement home will be in a small remote village in mexico. Hopefully near the sea. Because once I sell my house I won't be able to buy anything else anyhow...
I hope you understand that it will not solve the systematic problem: home owners do not want to put up their houses for rent because they are helpless against renters. Renter's protection works exactly the same way as minimal wage: it helps people who are renting now and do not wan to move (i.e., "workers who have a job") but hurts people who want to rent something else or first time renters (i.e., "unemployed" in my labour market analogy) since noone want to rent to them. I do not rent to anyone who does not have a steady job and making at last $100K. I do not care about credit rating - all I care is about stable paycheck my renters are getting. I would be wiling to rent to someone with lower income if I would be able to request a deposit and be able to evict them for non-payment withing a month or two (whatever their deposit covers) but, since I am not allowed to do it, I would rather have my rental property siting empty. What do you think leads to higher GDP: requesting that firms produce more product and sell it cheap or letting them decide how much to produce and charge? I think, the USSR example taught a valuable lesson about the command economy, but some people are too young to remember it.If you don't like the risks of real estate investment and being a landlord, liquidate your position and invest in something else. At least that would put more supply of homes on the market.
Is that a bad thing?Government likes high house prices. It makes Canadian banks very rich.
For young Canadian's hoping to start their lives and have a place to live.Is that a bad thing?
His comment was specifically referring to making Canadian Banks very rich.For young Canadian's hoping to start their lives and have a place to live.
There now, edited to reflect all the red herrings constantly, repetitively and incessantly stoked by the those < investors, real estate agents/brokers, developers, profiteers et al > that have raped and monetized the social compact of housing to house human beings.People buying houses to rent them out - increases the supply of rental properties. Yet the same people lamenting this are complaining of a shortage of rental housing. And whether you believe it or not, the cost to rent is, over time, a supply and demand market. More rental properties will mean lower rents.
And all of the rules against foreign ownership, vacant houses, etc. will do squat. These arered herrings,things politicians grab for political points.
Overall it is more demand than supply. Our zoning rules, our nimby isms, our long times for development. And all the various "authorities" and levels of authority. If this could all be streamlined, and costs capped, there would be a vast increase in house, apartment, condo, development.