Saskatoon Milroy Apartments tenants offered first crack at converted units
Tenants of the Saskatoon Milroy Apartments received offers to purchase their units from the developer yesterday. Two of them kindly dropped me a note and I thought you might be interested in the details.
A tenant living on the 12th floor writes, “We got a package in the mail last night with the price and upgrades they are doing. Ours is priced at $315,888.09 – we have 30 days to buy and if we buy before April 10 we save a whopping 2000. This includes a surface parking spot as well. Sounds a little (alright a lot) steep for this place. They are planning on “gutting” the suite – replacing plumbing fixtures, kitchen cabinets, flooring, windows and appliances and upgrading the electrical service to the building and each suite. Replacing the air chiller, moving to in-suite laundry and upgrading the elevator(s).”
I love the .09 cents thing.
According to another tenant residing of the 17th floor, it will set you back considerably to move up five floors. He states that his unit is offered to him at $351,502.32.
Let’s assume that the gentleman on 17 is interested in purchasing this property and he coughs up a 10% down payment and mortgages the balance. At 5.1% over 25 years, and assuming condo fees of roughly $290 per month and taxes of $200 (a guess, but probably somewhere close), he’ll have monthly payments totaling $2,385.13. An annual income of $95,000 will be required to qualify. Thankfully, we have 40-year mortgages that allow him to qualify with just $82,000 in annual income. 
Average annual income of a Saskatchewan resident – $38,636.
I’m always happy to answer your Saskatoon real estate questions. All of my contact info is here. Please feel free to call or email.
Follow our daily updates on Twitter @SaskatoonHomes.
Norm Fisher
Royal LePage Saskatoon Real Estate
111 comments so far. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:59 AM
If cost that much for the property, I really don’t known to buy it or to move out and pay rent for some rental property.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:59 AM
You have to remember that a lot of the tentants were also seniors living off their pension funds. How on earth would they be able to afford to buy such a unit, let alone, who in their right mind would give a senior a 40 year old mortgage? Once again, I have to ask, who is buying these units? Say an investor comes in and buys some of the condo units and tries to rent them out, even at $1300 including condo fees he would still be losing about a $1000 a month. Ridiculous.
Just a heads up for those concerned about the housing situation in Saskatoon that there is a get together at the Cosmo Civic Centre at 8:00 on March 28th (tomorrow). Slated for discussion is the current low vacancy rates, condo conversions, and affordibility issues in the city. Hope to see some of you there.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I hate to say it but I bet a fully upgraded 2 bedroom 1000 sq ft suite on the 17th floor would probably rent for more than $1300/month in todays market. Sad but true…look on the market for comparables to prove it. Not to long ago I saw an ad for somebody in The Hallmark renting their ONE BEDROOM condo out for $1200 or $1300/month, who knows if it was even upgraded! If some people have the nerve to ask that much/month and the market is this tight, WHO KNOWS…
May 15th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Norm,
I often come here because you’ve got the most informative site I’ve seen AND you tell it like it is. Awesome! You also seem to be as disgusted as we are about this housing crisis.
I’ve “almost” posted something here in the past but haven’t, but I can’t resist tonight. $315,888.09??? WHAT A DISGRACE. Those poor people – what more can one say? THANK YOU to those developers who have finally PROVEN what we’ve all been saying for a year – if that’s not gouging then what is? If that does not convince city council that the pending condo conversion applications should not be approved… WHAT WILL?
These are the casualties of a “booming economy.” They are the victims of a government that will stop at nothing for the sake of a “better” economy and mow down (and then back up and do it again) anything and everyone in their way. So much for middle class, it will no longer exist.
A booming economy is nice, but can we not have some FORESIGHT, common sense and a little respect for our fellow citizens from our governments?
Here’s a link that says it all:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/sask/2007/09/is_saskatchewan_turning_into_a.html
I really like what one person said… “Be careful what you wish for!”
May 15th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I would also like to point out that the meeting at Cosmo (March 28th) is at 7:00 pm, not 8:00. It will be held in the multipurpose room.
Several organizations who have common goals and concerns will be present. Our objective is to form an alliance rather than start a new group because there are already so many active and successful organizations in Saskatoon who have an interest in making an impact on our housing crisis.
One organization already has a demonstration planned and you will likely hear about that at the meeting. We will also discuss other options in voicing our concers to our governments.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Oops! Thanks for the correction regarding the time of the meeting, Shannon.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Jason and Shannon,
Thanks. I would love to attend this meeting. Unfortunately, I have something scheduled at 7:30 which I cannot change.
Is there a flyer, or any other written material promoting this event? If you have anything I’d love to receive a copy by fax at 1-866-384-5171.
Would you guys consider dropping back here to let us know what kind of ideas came forward at the meeting?
Young man,
I expect that $1,300 a month wouldn’t be too far off. I just sold a unit in the Hallmark (smaller units) which had no parking at all with it. It was tenant occupied an they were paying $1,050. Just the same, I don’t think these homes have great potential for investment but who knows? I’m sure there are those who believe this gravy train will go on forever.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Can you imagine how much damage could be prevented if people listened to me when I first came on talking about these issues? It didn’t take any substantial amount of imagination to see things like this happening.
Who knows – maybe the seniors and the students would be spared this totally unbalanced shift in expectations?
I really get upset thinking about how these greedy people can – with a straight face – propose people take on such massive and worthless debt.
I love the nine cents thing too. You can tell they were being very precise with their obvious self-sacrifice generosity. It’s a wonder these people put food on the table.
Honestly – with a straight face – can you be any more conspicuous? Anyone interested in property in Saskatoon right now is just out there to screw the middle class for their own redundant profit.
Think about the kind of money being moved around for a moment:
Think about how much of a benefit or impact that money has for someone else. Somebody making minimum wage or barely more could see a stark night and day improvement in their life with a mere portion of the kind of cash being raked in!
But what do we do?
We take money that could produce an almost instant explosion of economic prosperity and give it to someone who wouldn’t know the difference if he’d lost the same amount.
It’s not communism (AKA: the “terrorism” of yesterday). In a world where we think about unjust profits, the rich stay rich. But they don’t get to me so rich as to completely displace an entire class.
So, I’m sorry, these people don’t need any more money than they’ve got. Not when they’re sitting with any combination of glitzy car, huge house, boat, cabins, child’s post secondary saved up before they’re 6, bulging savings, oodles of spare time and who knows what else…
Free market? I’m sorry, what?
That kind of rhetoric is like sitting outside of a house on fire, wondering why no sprinklers were installed.
You just can’t miss the point any more. You’re sitting there preaching the ideal in practice that is ripping affordability to shreds.
The right wing have been slowly dismantling everything Canada established since World War II. All the social values are out the door and on the street because of money lust.
If this isn’t a “regulation badly needed” scenario, then what is? In the past regulation has served to correct outright imbalances and abuse of the economy just like this.
We’ve turned our economy into a slaughterhouse for the middle class.
You call this a correction? Don’t be so smug.
Saskatoon didn’t need a correction because prior to 2006, people could make enough money to buy a house. Now they can’t. Sounds like an “incorrection” to me.
So, hear me now, just like nobody did last year:
The investment needs to be shut down down right away before more damage is done to Saskatoon and the rest of the country.
It doesn’t mean shut it down forever. But put the brakes on and start to concentrate on developing something other than inflation.
Perhaps peoples’ incomes, or heck – force the prices back down.
We’ll be lucky if it impedes growth because this is an outright malignant fleecing. The kinds of people doing the growth are doing it for far too much.
There’s no way you can put a benevolent spin on this and frame it as just a bunch of guys doing some honest business.
Not after what I’ve seen – not after this – Saskatoon has a chronic infestation of greed.
If anything I say bothers you even the slightest, then you haven’t put yourself in the shoes of the people.
People who are fast losing options because they just can’t compete. How can they be expected to?!
May 15th, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I agree with you that prices are getting out of control, and I think that it is way too much $$ for those condos, but what do I know. I thought the house Norm was featuring a couple of days ago was way too much $$ too, but everyone was commenting on how reasonably price the house is, so I thought I must be missing something. The price of houses is way up, and people are having to scale down their expectation of the house they will purchase, or take on a large amount of debt. I am not saying I like it.
Given the large increases in property prices how are rental prices suppose to be immune to increases? If prices of rental properties have doubled, I can see why rents have increased so dramatically. Their has to be enough money to pay for the building, or make the investment worthwhile, I think the last part of “investment worthwhile” is being referred to as gouging.
I have read about the meeting that is going to be taking place, and I believe one of the agenda items is limits on rents that landlords can charge, please correct me if I am wrong, but Am I the only one that thinks that this will make matters worse? Don’t we need to increase the inventory of rental properties, so that we can put pressure on lowering the amount of rents?
Just my concerns
May 15th, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Carl, I agree with you. We recently had our home appraised and within the last year the value of our house has gone up 40%, which as you all know is not as bad as we’ve seen. I know that a market evaluation this spring would bring it to an even higher number and it will likely sell for even more. That’s no shock to anyone anymore.
My point – there is more involved here than “people are being gouged by rental (and deposit) increases” and a collossal lack of affordable housing units. People who had hopes of finally owning their own home a year ago are out of luck. Well, unless they want to pay for their homes 47 times they are.
Middle class has been replaced with “the working poor.” This includes students and working families who’s dreams of owning their own homes have been crushed by out-of-province developers encroaching on our values and our hard working, tax paying, law obiding citizens. Their goals have been replaced with a struggle of having enough left over to feed their families. Disposable income? A thing of the past for many.
These issues do not pertain to tenants only. Entire communities are affected in many ways when inflation and wage increases do not coincide. We are the crime capital of Canada… will that improve or worsen now that so many more are homeless? No that’s not a trick question.
The developers have said to city council, “Leave it alone, it will all work itself out,” but are actually saying “just let us swoop in here and do what we want, everyone else has and once the shock wears off there will be no more complaining.”
Yes, rent control will be discussed. I’ve heard all of the arguements, most importantly that rent control is a deterrent to developers of new units. Also, the quality and unit sizes can decrease. City council has noted that in many cases price controls “hurt the economy.”
OK, we have put all of our concern and consideration into hindering our potential economic growth with NO REGARD for how it affects our citizens. If our two choices are A: greatly increase the hardships of our citizens (many of whom were living in poverty to begin with), and B: work toward making property owners and developers and businesses richer, which should it be?
As someone has mentioned here, this is a college town. You can’t keep a college town down!
There are MANY sucessful rent control policies in place in cities across Canada. Check “rent control” on wikipedia and google. The solution is to find a balance that will allow development to remain attractive while protecting tenants from unregulated greediness.
Saskatoon can do this too. I believe it was Councillor Bob Pringle who stated that we need to find a solution that works for US, we need to do this “the Saskatchewan way.”
Alexander, I wish there were more people like you in our governments.
Again, this housing crisis affects everyone. If anyone is thinking that they don’t need to come to our meeting because they do not rent, they will be missing out on what will be a turning point for our housing crisis. Several capable and caring organizations need to ban together with each other and our citizens to take action, I hope that this can be accomplished, we are losing precious time
Now that we are all over the shock we cannot sit by and wait to see how this will all pan out. We shouldn’t need to learn Alberta’s lesson the hard way (don’t get me started on Saskatchewan oil sands). We’ve had enough already and if our elected governments don’t have the capacity or the spine or the foresight to do something, we will.
What will that something be? We’re not sure yet. Rest assured it will be done with poise!
Norm, I will give you an update on our meeting. There is no material promoting our event. It will not be a debate or a bitching session, we are beyond that and need to focus our energy positively. We will try to refrain from pointing fingers. The goal is to pool resources, brainstorm and accomplish something EFFECTIVE!
May 15th, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Shannon,
I agree with you that the number of “working poor” is increasing. And if “Leave it alone, it will all work itself out” … hmmm, this will work if we don’t care what the results are. The result will be the market setting the price for rents, which will tend to be higher then what rents would be with rent controls.
What doesn’t make sense to me is that most people want to get the most money for their property. There is no limit on what people can charge for realestate. We let the market set the price. When people by rental properties, the market sets the price.
I guess where I am going with this, by emplementing rent controls are we asking landlords to run a social program, as we are stopping them from charging market price on for a building they bought at market value.
I agree something needs to be done about house prices, from what I have read we need volumes, we need more houses to be built. I am guessing this would work the same way for rental properties. We need a way to entice investor to put money into rental property. How???? what are the negative factors of being a landlord, i.e. not getting paid, damages to suites. How can we help with this.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Shannon,
Thank you for your compliment.
The important detail to remember is you should not put politicians in place. To me policitians don’t belong in politics – think about it and it will make sense. Politicians today spend far too much time in their ivory towers to act like they know what’s going on.
The solution? You ask *people* to represent.
I can’t fathom how representatives – especially municipal – can claim they’re in touch with the people. If I was in that important a position I’d probably spend most of my time on the streets – talking to people. Not doling out my time exclusively to people who shared my interests and concerns.
About free markets:
Free markets do not work in practice. Period. What you will see is that they influence people to stretch themselves instead of finding balance.
Also, drawing away from the extremely academic praise for laissez faire is the fact that you aren’t adjusting for the market – only half of it.
Combing those two together you can see exactly what we have right now.
When a price strains the market, it does not drop to an affordable level for everyone. It goes to the highest price for the highest portion of the participating demographics.
So, double incomes are being put towards home ownership as opposed to one. It isn’t that people make more (this has been confirmed), it’s that people are simply spending more of what they had.
Doesn’t sound very balanced to me. Sounds more like exactly what I just described: Finding the highest amount the wealthiest can pay.
Yes, “balance”. I get so tired of these theories being bandied about as these flawless economic algorithms. These kinds of ideas can only be born of minds intent on deceit – think about the real world impact!
This nonsense going on about free markets finding the correct price leaves so much unsaid, it’s just another “wait and see” strategy.
It needs to be debunked quickly before it is allowed to do any more damage.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:03 PM
I haven’t posted in a while so I just thought I’d drop in.
My take on your article Norm, is that those prices are pretty crazy and a person can probably find a decent house for the same price.
That being said, there is so much construction work that there is very little competitoin between the construction and trades these days. We’ve all seen the figures of these costs going up 50% in the last year and it wouldn’t surprise me if the developer was being ‘burnt’ themselves and trying to pass the costs along to the tenants.
That being said, my guess is that its a bad business decision on their part, the market is probably not going to buy, and they’ll end up taking a hit for underestimating conversion costs and overestimating market acceptance. The rubber is going to start hitting the road and I’m guessing that some of these developers are going to pay the price.
To me the bottleneck is the trades and untill things quieten down, they’re squeezing as much as they can out of every job.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Hey Carl : )
We do need more units to be built. One thing that I must give the city of Saskatoon credit for is that they have many initiatives to encourage new development. Unfortunately none of these initiatives will have no short term impact whatsoever. Here’s the document:
http://www.saskatoon.ca/org/city_planning/resources/publications/Housing%20Business%20Plan%202006.pdf
To summarize, tax and other incentives are offered to developers of “affordable” housing units.
“What doesn’t make sense to me is that most people want to get the most money for their property.” I’m not sure what you are saying! Please explain : )
We can’t ask landlords to run a social program. BUT, if it comes down to landlords making less profit for the benefit of our society, I vote the landlords get less money and the poor get enough to buy food for their families. That’s the balance I’m talking about.
If developers can’t make gazillions of dollars in Saskatchewan, then they can go elsewhere. The cries for help of the poor are more important than their whining about not making as much money as they had hoped. They get no sympathy from me.
There will ALWAYS be people who will invest in Saskatchewan rental housing. It’s the deception, bullying, trickery, scare tactics and greed of the developers that have led us to believe that we had better jump on board or we will loose out on what could be a “better Saskatchewan.” Better for whom?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Yes, Stoon needs more rentals and more condo buildings. But you have a lot of NIMBYS who don’t like the idea of high rises in their neighbourhood. I’m thinking of that building on Broadway that was proposed but got canned because an old paint store (!?) was deemed to be of too much heritage value… Nutana should be densified like crazy, and downtown could use a lot more units, it’s the only thing in the long run that will ease the pressure on rents/prices. I’m hoping you guys won’t go the way of bandaid solutions like rent controls and charging extra fees to developers but that’s probably what will happen.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Alexander,
You have brought up something about politics that I have always believed. I have not mentioned it because… for me, it’s not a time for finger pointing. I believe a non-confrontational approach to city council is what will accomplish the most at the moment so I’m not going to say any more about politicians!!!
Actually I’ll say this… Politicians (most) are politicians because it is a profitable career choice, not a calling. They don’t represent the values of the population because they can’t relate to them and their struggles and needs. ‘nough said about that from me.
Free markets, “laizzez faire,” – you’re right on the money. But that depends on who you ask… ask a billionaire.
Wait and see… isn’t that how this world got to be the hell that it is for so many people? I’m a strong believer in the theory that if something has proven to be unsuccessful over and over, it’s time to change your strategy. Sorry but I need to add a “DUH” here : )
May 15th, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Shannon,
I like what your fighting for, I don’t want people to be homeless or go hungry. You have lumped small and large investors together, but at the end of the day rent controls would apply to both investors. The large investors would be able to absorb the loss, and the small investor would be hurt, or out of business.
“I vote the landlords get less money and the poor get enough to buy food for their families” What your describing is a social system, we need government to step in, i believe this is their roll. I think you are targeting the wrong people to pay for the problem. I could take your statement on step further, and say that food is over priced, and we need limits on what can be charged for food. My question is are we solving the symtoms of the problem, or the problem itself.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Okay. I would love to attend this meeting but sadly I can’t make it this time but would love to be kept up to date for other such meetings by leaving an email address where i can be contacted. gymweasel@gmail.com
Now people keep saying the system doesn’t work, which i wholeheartedly agree, but one can’t have ‘redistribution of wealth’ either becuase that would put even ‘more’ power in the state (or local governments) to funnel it into where they want it.
I think rent controls DO work no matter what people say. They are in many cities and provinces across canada and the states. To simply let the ‘market’ dictate and run out of control is what the extreme end of capitalism has happening…It’s not a whole lot different from these middle eastern countries who have palaces and palaces for the government while their people are starving in the streets…the only difference is it’s not legal to intimidate by threatening someone’s life here.
Got a bit off topic there…but rent controls would work. There needs to be other systematic changes in though before that happens. What about a ‘board’ made up of 3rd party people that kept a CLOSE eye on the costs of building materials and costs, and assigned certain costs and ‘profit margins’ allowable for builders (as we’re getting gouged)…i mean architects have boards such as that where there are certain amounts of $$$ you can charge that are ruled by ‘fair guidelines’. IF you want to make more? You work harder, take on private jobs and so on.
The builders are clearly gouging if in one city in canada, the ‘costs’ of building materials go up 6% whereas here they can just toss a number and see if it sticks. If costs go up 6% in one area of the ‘civilized’ country and 35% (randomly picked number) in another, that board would have looked into it and deemed that NO the costs have NOT went up by 35% and have only went up by 6%. Again, contractors and builders and trades people would be hired and goverened by some labour ‘profit’ margin that was decided thru company appeals and boardwide decisions to keep things realistic. Again if JOE the tile setter wants to make more money, he can take on jobs on the side but would still be goverend say to make no more than say 20% of the material cost per hour or whatever rules are set up. So JOE can make his decent wage at his ‘full time gig’ and extra at his ‘part time gig’. As experience goes up for JOE, ie time he’s done it, his rates can creep up too.
There are so many solutions but no where to express them, or to brainstorm to try to figure out how to get these things created.
I think a system like this (more refined of course) is a BIG part of a REALISTIC solution…since it means people can make a wage, pretty good wage, and more if they want to work for it, and in the mean time the consumer isn’t getting screwed.
When people say controlling is BAD FOR ECONOMY…well what’s worse…something like this or rent control, OR people spending less and less and less money simply becuase more is going to rent etc…
I just wish people in power could rub 2 synapses together and come up with a GOOD idea.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Jesse,
I have reread your post a couple of times, one point that caught my eye is
“but one can’t have ‘redistribution of wealth’ either becuase that would put even ‘more’ power in the state (or local governments) to funnel it into where they want it.”
Well, given what you say, How are rent controls better? Wouldn’t the same folks that redistibute wealth have a hand in setting rent controls?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Yeah see i started out with rent controls, and then had the idea that i mentioned about the ‘boards’ come across my head and sort of mashed the 2 together which isn’t nessessarily correct either. I do believe the board thing would work as a starting point.
The thing wiht the argument against rent controls is the cities that DO have it don’t seem to be ‘suffering’ or everyone would just abandon their properties…I’m no expert in things by any means…but things are often dismissed here before people look into them. I haven’t really looked into rent controls other than knowing people in the provinces that have some and they arent’ being screwed over, and their building is still owned and operated by people or companies still…even WITH rent controls.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Over the past decade or so Saskatoon has had a relatively low vacancy rate for rental properties. Before the boom and the condo conversion craze, the low rate was an issue, but seemingly not as critical. At that time, developers, real estate agents and market analysts alike pointed out that new rental properties (towers, etc) would not be constructed until the average monthly rate increased. Construction costs were simply too high and rents too low. It appears rental rates are climbing (some would say they are too high or are at “gouging” levels). This should stimulate the construction of new apartment buildings (a few have been built in the suburbs). Clearly, more are needed. But as construction costs rise, so too will the minimum rental rate required to justify new construction. Anyone out there who is willing to front the costs of construction and maintenance on a new rental unit and take a loss has all my support.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I just think there needs to be the board solution with formulas worked out so that A, the owners don’t lose their shirt on it, and B, so people can find affordable housing.
If the owners are losing their shirts then there is something wrong in the system far before they start trying to rent thier units out to make their money back.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Could you guy post the address of The Cosmo Civic Center, please.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Jason L,
3130 Laurier Drive.
Map here – http://tinyurl.com/2bafn2
May 15th, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Norm
Thanks!
May 15th, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Anyone seeing a golden opportunity for one of the big builders here? Why doesn’t one of them step forward, charge less, but something still profitable, (ex, 240-250 psf vs 300 psf), and market the hell out of responding to the need for affordable housing. You would think they would be swamped (or even more so) and once the boom slows down continue to do well as people would support them.
However, the human memory is rather fickle…
May 15th, 2009 at 12:14 PM
My golly thats alotta money. I know a while ago I seen Colliers advertising these suites for rent at $1000 for a 2 bedroom inclusive. There might be some more opportunity to raise rent due to the great location if the place is updated.
I have heard that in a balanced rent vs. buy market the price should be about 100x the monthly rent. To expect 3150 to 3500 a month is completely unreasonable. People can’t pay more in rent than they can afford each month. Unfortunately the people who take out mortgages on these won’t have the same sanity.
The developers want to get these to market before the bubble bursts. Watch Calgary/Edmonton activity closely, we will continue to follow their ups and downs.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Hey : )
Our meeting went well! I’ve got a lot of info for you but my brain hurts – I’ll update later.
Thank you to Martin Been for being present as well as David Forbes MLA and Terry Gibson (SHIP).
Thanks also to representatives from Saskatoon Overnight Shelter (SOS), Equal Justice for All, YWCA, The Lighthouse ane to other concerned citizens who were present.
All of these people
May 15th, 2009 at 12:17 PM
There is an agreement that the time for waiting to see what our governments will do regarding the housing crisis has past.
We also agreed that as a collaborative group steps can be taken to express our common concerns and acheive the goals that we all share.
I must say that the number of people on the front lines battling social issues is astounding. Many other agencies expressed their desire to take part but could not be present.
These are the people that see first hand the overwhelming grief and hardships that are caused by rent increases and homelessness. “Affordable” housing has a different meaning for each of us.
We examined the issues and shared information in an open forum type discussion for 2 1/2 hours. Rent control was not addressed specifically but it was brought up several times and it may become an important issue in the future. I learned from Michelle, who researched rent control for us that British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, P.E.I. and New Brunswick all have provincial rent control policies. Regina and Prince Albert do as well. Provincial rent control in Saskatchewan ended in 1992.
What is common in these policies is that rental rates can only be raised by a certain percentage and only once per year. The percentage ranges from 1% in P.E.I. to 4% in B.C. I don’t think that controls for the max amount of rent that can be charged are in place in any province. Once a unit is vacant the landlord can set whatever price the market will bear and then subsequent increases are subject to the policy.
I have printed several letters to Council from the Saskatoon City Council meeting agendas (found on their web site) and some show that there are people who’s rent has been increased THREE times within 12-15 months. Some of these increases have been up to $225.00.
An organization in Saskatoon is working on getting a better estimate of the number of homeless people in Saskatoon but right now the estimate is 6400.
If the condo conversions are approved anywhere from 1500 to 2000 units will be vacated. Where are 1500 to 2000 people/families supposed to go? Not sure. People estimate that the vacancy rate is even lower than 0.6% now.
FYI Regina’s policy is that condo conversion applications are considered as “technical” in nature if the city’s vacancy rate is 3% or higher.
http://www.regina.ca/news_release.php3?id=2106
I believe that this has been raised recently to 4%.
I’m not sure why our Council does not seem to have a desire to implement rent control… I remember hearing Don Atchison saying that rent control in Saskatoon would only hurt our economy. I guess the prosperity of our businesses and industries is more important than the people who have to sleep in their vehicles, in tents or on the couch of a friend.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:17 PM
That seems like a logical conversion policy, the one in Regina that is…now i’m just waiting for all of my Saskatoon friends here to remark how Regina is a lesser of a city than Saskatoon, or still has ‘dirty water’ or is a ‘dirty city’ when in fact it’s a BEAUTIFUL city that i lived in for more than 6 years. I wouldn’t doubt if that’s part of the reasoning is personal bias’ to ‘not be like Regina’ or ‘not be like Alberta’ and so on…instead of checking into the real issues.
Thanks for posting the information Shannon, much appreciated.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Just to bring in another perspective, I lived in Ottawa for a number of years (as a renter). Landlords were only allowed to raise the rent once a year, and it was only up to a certain percentage (6% comes to mind, though I could be mistaken). If outside factors drove the price of maintaining the dwelling up (spike in heating costs, extra building maint costs..etc) they could recoup the costs by applying to a totally public rent tribunal process. If they could justify the raise in rent (over the allowed percentage), then they were granted their rent increase (sometimes not as much as they asked for, but they were considered).
It seemed like a fair enough system for everyone involved, and as a renter, you were kept in the loop throughout the whole arbitration process.
Unfortunately, small town Saskatoon is no more. If Saskatoon wants to be a big city, then it’s time to step out of the 70′s. It’s really not too difficult to figure out a system that works for the renters, keeping in mind that it is a business, and nobody wants to lose money at it. Just my 2 cents as someone who’s lived all over the map!
May 15th, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Isn’t that a kick in the teeth for the Milroy tennants?! I sure hope karma bites Viking developments in the ass and they are unable to sell those condos when the time comes.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Since Saskatoon and Regina have neared Edmonton in lack of affordability, the big influx of people to Saskatchewan is going to cool for a while. This is thing that makes no sense. The developers, speculators, etc, shoot themselves in the foot because eventually people begin to sit on the sidelines, because prices get to threshold that many people get left behind. Where I reside, Edmonton has become flooded with properties, and prices have dropped. Sales are low and inventory are high. There is becoming a huge price disconnect between buyers and sellers. Eventually Saskatoon and Regina real estate will soften. Ignore the newspapers pumping up the market, or at least read between the lines.
The funny thing for me is that a year ago I could of moved to Regina, my hometown, and banked 100 g’s, now I would get the same value for my 1657 square foot two story, double car garage. But I am not going to make the same cash or have the same opportunity. Include the fact I would pay more in taxes, gas, PST, and actually insurance. The only thing I might save is in utilities. It is crazy to think that Regina a perpetual economic hinterland, is poised to become a player in the economic spectrum of Western Canada. Imagine having a coma around the beginning of 2005 in Saskatchewan, and waking up now to see real estate prices. You may ask for for your doctor to put you under again.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:19 PM
My summary of Shannon’s summary:
“We are definitely recommending rent controls.”
May 15th, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Shannon,
“steps can be taken to express our common concerns and achieve the goals that we all share.”
Thanks for the update on the meeting. Sounds like lots of discussion took place. Were there any next “steps” resulting from the meeting?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Smokey,
I have to agree that some of the financial benefits of relocating here are gone, compared to two years ago. Oddly, there still seems to be strong interest from outside of the province. Perhaps the desire to be closer to family is outweighing the negatives of high real estate prices.
“Imagine having a coma around the beginning of 2005 in Saskatchewan, and waking up now to see real estate prices.”
Out of a coma and into a cardiac arrest.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Shannon made me do a double take with the comment “BUT, if it comes down to landlords making less profit for the benefit of our society, I vote the landlords get less money and the poor get enough to buy food for their families. That’s the balance I’m talking about.”
We already have a progressive taxation system to support social programs, we need to fight hard to get a priority on social programs that address the rental and housingissues.
On what grounds do you think landlords should be taxed twice? what are the longterm effects of these actions? If the market turns around in a year, and landlords are taking a bath are you going fight to bail them out, since we are fighting hard to take away their profits in the good times? Are we fighting to do the “right thing” or what we need to do?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Smokey, the softening cannot come soon enough here. The more we ride this up the harder it will be when things cool, especially if other economic factors aren’t so good.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Norm,
So the lithmus test is to see if all the units are sold in 90 to 120 days and how close to asking they get. My guesstimate – Full price and all gone in 100 days or less.
After all, they just don’t make land like that anymore.
Public service announcement – for anyone who hasn’t had their flu shot. Take it from me – this new flu version really kicks hard. 10 days later I wish I had listened.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Oh, I’m sure all the units will be sold in less than 3 months, and some will even have been flipped.
I’m also sure that in five years time none of the owners will be able to sell them for the price they bought them for.
Last fall, I think, I told Norm that I wasn’t willing to pay 2,500 a month to buy an apartment in a place as small and poor as Saskatoon, and he told me that I was being alarmist.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Larry and jrochest,
You guys are far more optimistic than I am, but I’m learning that it’s far easier to be wrong than right these days. If Viking follows the “rules” under which this conversion was approved, it could take the better part of two years to bring these units to the market. All bets are off as to where things will be by then.
j,
I don’t remember saying that but I could be wrong.
Larry,
Sorry to hear that you’re down with the flu. I’ve only had it once in about 15 years. It was the only year I had a flu shot.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I look forward to seeing this unfold, and thought I would share it with the blog.
http://www.jordoncooper.com/westsidestory/
May 15th, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Thanks Cindy. So do I. Jordan is an interesting guy with an excellent blog. Appreciate the heads up on this.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Carl,
All I’m saying is this:
A: A developer or landlord will make a profit of only 2 million this year rather than 3 million.
B: A family’s rent increases so much that their salary will not allow them to have money left over to provide for themselves. They might also be a family who has been evicted and is expected to find a new home in a city where there are ZERO homes available.
Who should we have sympathy for?
Norm, I’ll keep you updated on the plan.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Hey Norm –
I’m actually being a pessimist; I do think that now this process has started in Saskabush it’s going to continue, probably for a good long time.
I just don’t want to be here while this happens, bluntly.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:29 PM
If you are having difficulty finding a place to live or if your rent has been increased I’d like to suggest that you send your concerns to City Council.
You can use the contact form on the city’s web site to do this, it only takes a minute:
http://saskatoon.ca/org/clerks_office/council/council_write_a_letter.asp
We have confirmation that the current condo applications will not be reviewed further until the next Council meeting, which is April 7. To have your letter reviewed at that meeting, you must send them today, April 1st before 5:00 pm.
Your letter does not have to be long. A brief summary of your concerns is all that’s required. You may also want to point out if/how much your rent has increased in the last 12 – 18 months.
Also, be clear about what you are asking from Council. For example, if you are writing to ask them NOT to approve the 21 condo conversion applications, state that. If you would like to speak to Council, state that too.
Just a reminder that the city does not have authority to implement rent control. That is a provincial issue. I investigated rent control yesterday and no city in Saskatchewan has a rent control policy.
As soon as David Forbes, Saskatoon MLA has drawn up the petition to the City to put a freeze on condo conversions we will have it available for download. You can print it out, fill it with signatures and return it to David.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. Don’t sit back and wonder how this will all pan out – we already know the answer to that question. Please take a few minutes today to send your letter to Council.
Also, even if you are not a tenant you can still express your concerns! Several people have sent letters to Council because they see how the housing crisis is affecting their friends, loved ones, clients or someone else they know. Others just feel that what’s happening is wrong. Every letter will help!
Thank you for passing this message on to others.
Updates to come. Have a great day : )
May 15th, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Here’s a bit of an update from Martin Been (who lives in the Milroy): please attend this meeting if you can.
====================================================
Greetings Everyone
The tenants of the Milroy have arranged for a meeting at:
the Parktown Hotel
Friday, April 4, at 7:00p.m.
room 140.
After meeting with various groups concerned with the housing crisis on Friday, March 28, we realize that the scope of this ongoing struggle has changed, as the court’s decision could potentially create and has already created a great deal of hardship on the rental community.
A round-table discussion will be “whether to appeal” the Court of Queen’s Bench decision allowing the city to approve The Milroy for Condo Conversion. The lawyer representing the Milroy, Mr. Andrew Mason, will be present at this meeting.
We are extending this invitation to everyone who has been affected by the housing crisis created by our municipal government.
Please bring any questions or concerns you may have, regarding this decision, to the meeting.
Milroy case documents including the Court Of Queen’s Bench decision are available at: http://www.dufourlaw.com
Martin Been
May 15th, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Rent controls? ugh. If everyone would like to decide what I charge for rent, they are welcome to contribute to the costs of financing and maintaining a rental property. Nobody is forced to rent a property nor should the owner be forced to rent it for a limited price.
Stop condo conversions? As the owner of a converted condo nothing would help the value of it more than new condo conversions coming to screeching halt… bring it on! Economically though… it’s ridiculous.
If Saskatoon is too expensive, move elsewhere! I used to live in Toronto; I couldn’t afford it so I moved back here. If someone decides to live in Saskatoon they can’t expect to be subsidized by price controls and government regulation; these ideas do nothing but tax everyone else.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Jake,
I don’t buy a single thing you’re trying to sell. (including your condo) Other cities have condo conversion rules, it’s not unreasonable when the vacancy rate is so low. I know you don’t care about renters but if you weren’t already a homeowner you might view things a little differently. People ARE forced to rent! They have to live somewhere, don’t they? A park bench just doesn’t cut it during SK winters.
Come July, my brother’s 1 bdrm apartment in Sutherland will have gone up $225 over the course of just 14 months! It’s extortion, they want all the renters out so they can sell them as condos.
Necessities of life such as shelter should not be comprimised because of greed. What if we had a huge drought and the City of Saskatoon, instead of rationing the water to all households, only sold water to the highest bidders? ‘*** out of luck’ has NEVER been a valid excuse in my books when it comes to basic needs.
You once left Toronto because of affordability issues, and now you wish the same fate for others living in Saskatoon? That’s very compassionate of you.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Jake, I would tell you exactly what Heather said.
Your argument is so completely single minded. You’ve done what all the politicians and property owners have done: Allowed a situation that doesn’t bother you to be mishandled.
Another really important point to add is that the apartment building owners are not “maintaining” them. I’m sorry, it’s just the reality of the situation.
That’s one of the pretty humorous excuses going around with no basis in reality. I’m so sick of these red herrings being introduced to the argument just to provide some hypothetical reason to allow the greedy to continue gouging.
When I was renting in Saskatoon, my landlord was notorious for dragging his heels at any request for repair or improvement.
That resulted in me – a mild asthmatic – having to live in an apartment where the fireplace backed smoke up into the rest of the suite – making it unusable. The suite also reeked of cigarette smoke. The walls in the bathroom literally weeped brown sludge after a shower (I have pictures!).
When I asked the landlord to do something about it, he was dismissive and completely disinterested. He didn’t even pretend to care because he knew the system would never make him do his job right.
So, even if the “repairs and improvements” were done to rental units – which I’m sorry, they aren’t – you’d at that point still have to justify that its costing enough to warrant the increase.
In short: Give me a break. These people have more than enough money for everything they are complaining about.
I’m still waiting for landlords and investors to come up with something more than “Ahh! My money!”
And some of them have the gall to accuse others of a sense of entitlement….
May 15th, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Jake,
Oh I will be moving elsewhere and i hope a lot of other people do. The thought that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with the conversion craziness while the vacancy rate is as low as it is….is insanity. What if the vacancy rate is zero. Is it still okay then to convert? Maybe kick out a few hundred more tennants or families just so they can sell some high priced apartments?
I do agree that people DO have the freedom to move although with all the forcing people to move around, and the incomes not being so terribly high here…keeping in mind the extra damage deposit you have to pay each time which some people like myself have to SAVE UP to move even within the city, an intercity move isn’t nessessarily the cheapest way and in some cases completely NOT an option unles you get up and just LEAVE everything you’ve worked for while living here.
Alex,
I’m sure some idiots that are for these insane policies would tell you that hey if the fireplace was backing up, you don’t need to use the fire place mr rockerfeller….*rolls eyes*
Yeah the broken record statement that the landlords need the money to do repairs or upgrades is a joke. Go to any apartment block and you’ll see it’s exactly as it was when it was built….back in the 60′s to present day.
I wish these posi-spinners would get thier heads out of their butts long enough to ACTUALLY see what goes on.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:36 PM
What do you mean no one is FORCED to rent? What other option do I have? I can’t afford to buy a house. I can barely afford my rent. With my income I would only qualify for an $80,000 mortgage, which wont buy you diddly right now. I could move somewhere else… and do what? work at mcdonald’s? My job is tied to Saskatoon. Some of us don’t have any options… and when you watch your rent go up $400+ in a year (57% increase… you’re telling me THAT’s not unreasonable?) it makes me SICK!
May 15th, 2009 at 12:36 PM
You gotta love the people that say one isn’t forced to rent. It’s comedy!
I wonder what other options these people think there are…move in with 4 other people in a 2 bedroom apartment just to pay rent? Work 3 or 4 jobs and get no sleep just so one can ‘pay rent’ or worse yet ‘for a condo’? Go out and just pair up with some schlub or woman that you don’t really know in order to be able to pair your incomes so you can get a small hole in the wall and hope there is no falling out? Maybe they could give us the addresses and phone numbers of people who have the ultimate solutions since we’re not forced to rent…
no sarcasm at all here…
May 15th, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Jesse,
Those options you describe are still “renting,” however, you could live in a cardboard box for free.
It’s always easier to deal with when you understand that you do have options.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Oh, true. BUT I ask you this…where would one be ALLOWED to put their cardboard box? What property? Can I put mine in front of Starbucks? I like the smell of the coffee. A Tent city? Where would that be allowed? Can I just put up mine in a park?
The comments before about no one’s forcing one to rent is akin to saying no one’s forcing you to drink water, or no one’s forcing you to buy gasoline (though you can get away with bikes, busses etc).
Silliness
May 15th, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I agree that the other options to buying and renting aren’t that attractive either.
I am sensitive to the pressures renters are facing but I can also appreciate that Jake might feel it’s “silly” that he should have to take less for his condo than others might be prepared to pay because the market is tough on renters. Perhaps we should decide collectively, as a society if we want to have social housing programs and then all pay our fair share? Though some would like to paint him evil, greedy, etc, it’s really not totally unreasonable to be interested in protecting one’s assets and it’s just too easy to tell someone else how theirs should be dealt with.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Oh by all means charge what you want for condo’s in an open market where there are plenty of places to rent. When there ARE no places to rent (or very few) does this still work for people?
I’m not sure that ‘housing programs’ are what’s needed or the total solutiion either. When it gets down to there being literally no where to live (or no where affordable) is it okay to lose the people? Does the city think it’s okay to lose the people? Does the province? As much as i beak and moan about things, I’m not all one sided saying that Jake shouldn’t be allowed to charge this or that, i mean he could charge 10million dollars for all i care as long as there are places for people to rent. When there are none, what do we do?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:38 PM
One more thing…just because a 1 bedroom condo costs $140 grand to buy and probably $1200-$1400 a month payments doesn’t mean that apartment prices should be jacked to JUST below that cost either. People get mad at wal mart for pricing things lower than other places yet in this case it’s okay.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Jesse,
I don’t know Jake from Adam, but I seriously doubt he can be compared to Walmart.
Further, Walmart is what it is because the markets are open to them. You are enjoying their low pricing policy because they know how to make it work for them and their customers. At the same time, we’d probably all be better off if we didn’t shop there. It’s a crazy thing really.
Secondly, there is a direct relationship between the price of a home and the cost to rent a home and there always will be. This is just simple economics.
I enthusiastically agree that we have some serious housing issues. I would go so far as to call it a crisis. That said, I also agree that something needs to be done to deal with these problems. My question is, why do you see this as Jake’s burden to bear? Why shouldn’t I and every other able tax payer share this burden? Rent controls have people like Jake carrying the entire burden while I am insulated from it.
By the way, while I have generally been of the opinion that the market should be given every opportunity to work I am not blind to the fact that renters have fewer options all of the time. I don’t think that a new conversion policy which is tied to vacancy rates is unreasonable and I have taken the time to express that opinion to council.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:39 PM
It’s not that people shouldn’t be able to protect their interests… and by all means people who own their homes/condos etc. should be entitled to get their top dollar for it.
But why is it wrong to say that there should be some rules in place for rental properties when it comes to a situation like this?
It’s “unfair” to put a limit on how much someone can raise the rent in a year… and yet it’s not “unfair” that there have been people forced to move from one home to another to another as prices keep going up, everytime struggling to come up with ANOTHER damage deposit, etc. which is only pushing people like myself further and further away from the hope of ever owning my own home.
It’s not “unfair” that when it comes down to it, many people who’ve invested their entire lives in Saskatoon (grew up here, have family and friends here, have jobs here, have the desire to someday raise THEIR families here) are going to be forced to move somewhere else.
Right now only the renters are carrying the burden. Or maybe that’s just how I feel. It’s frustrating.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Sorry Norm,
the wal mart crack was the one that i got all mixed up about. I didn’t get that out right lol. I don’t think the people selling condo’s can’t sell them for top dollar (whatever the market is).
I support you Norm in all that you do and the constant barrages on this blog of yours
.
I think Leslie says it succinctly how i could not. I think the reason why there are the ‘complainers’ such as myself is that we DO like it here and are FIGHTING tooth and nail to be able to stay. And honestly if no one really does anything about this, people WILL leave.
I just simply think there needs to be more rental properties built. You are right Norm, there is a correlation between renting prices and purchasing prices. If i can find the stats for these figures for the past 30 years and see that they are indeed the ‘same’ (ratio wise) then I’ll shut the pie hole.
Somehow i think it’s not when my dad who NOW earns basically what i do after 30 years could buy a house in a nice area, one that’s probably worth 350,000 today, plus support 3 kids, and a wife, pay bills, AND food and STILL save.
Somehow these ‘ratios’ aren’t even close anymore is what i suspect.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Leslie,
“Right now only the renters are carrying the burden.”
I think you’re right about that, and I don’t think it’s fair.
I’m simply asking the question, why is it Jake’s responsibility to bear this burden?
I think if we’re going to address this, we should all be in for the ride. Kind of a “put your money where your mouth is” initiative. People who say, “this is outrageous! Make that guy pay!” really don’t care as much as they’re letting on.
This is a community problem.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:41 PM
No, I agree that “jake” should not bare the burden. But I don’t think any rental companies are feeling any “burdens” right now. I understand that there are costs associated w/running a rental property, but there’s no way you could convince me that the “costs” associated with an apartment or duplex have gone up $200-400+ in a year. I have not seen a single improvement to my home… let alone one that would justify a $400 increase.
As someone was saying earlier, even cities that have rent controls generally make provisions for landlords to recoup the difference if costs were to rise substantially. And you can still charge any rate to new tenants, it simply protects those ALREADY living somewhere…
I guess I don’t really see that as a “burden” to anyone.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Jesse,
My apologies because I was writing while you posted the oops.
I’m not suggesting for a moment that what’s going on is fair. Some landlords should clearly be ashamed of themselves and there’s no question that there’s some serious gouging going on. There are those that bought property cheap and are reaping big benefits. There are others who paid ridiculous prices more recently who can’t hope to cover their costs even with these grossly high rents. All of these factors will come out in the wash eventually.
I have no problems with social programs and I would gladly contribute to initiatives which would address all of the issues which you and Leslie bring forward. About 60,000 Saskatoon property owners have seen their equity fly through the roof. If you believe that this little “boom” is sustainable why can’t they all participate in a solution to the problem? That seems reasonable, fair and practical to me.
We don’t come to Jake’s aid when a tenant trashes his property or makes a midnight move. We don’t come and help him out when a place sits vacant.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Norm,
I really like your angle on this one and you do bring completely valid reminders to everyone.
Burying the landlords entirely isn’t the solution.
Winnipeg has a healthy and functioning rental market. It works great and the last place I rented in Winnipeg treated me respectfully and kept my suite in great shape.
Providing apartments is half profit half necessity and so the landlords find themselves in a really difficult position.
I wonder if landlords don’t get help in Saskatchewan for the very same reasons that renters don’t get afforded rights and standards: The entire subject has never been visited!
Also, I agree that people attempting to rent out today who are facing impossible costs are victims of the bipolar market.
The gut reaction for many is to wish for regulated prices.
But don’t get me wrong: I won’t think that’s the right solution unless someone brought be a damned good argument!!
Perhaps it was the modesty and the STEADY gains that kept things within reasonable limits. If the market was forced back down in every aspect to prices more in accordance with what the people could afford…
Just press rewind.
You can’t undo some of the damage done, but maybe those doors can be opened back up.
The biggest problem to get around would be the investors grabbing on to the lower prices and trying to run things off the tracks again.
But how is that different to what we’re going through now? Speculative investment is dangerous and really needs to have an impact assessment. I’d be happy to see a crackdown on that because it is so faceless.
A rewind would also help out employers because they wouldn’t be facing such steep demands in salaries – another spinoff of the increased costs of property.
It would also inject more money into the economy and get the consumer gears turning again.
That’s quite the impact for only one of many markets people participate in! Far reaching multilateral benefits all because we concentrated on giving the people their choices back.
What are any other options aside from regulation? You either pay people more – which demands more money, let greed continue to run rampant, which demands more money – or you obligate them to pay less.
It would be nice to see a solution that sizes things DOWN rather than UP. So, to me, current prices and investors are the culprits.
It’s just too hot.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Norm,
I’m not sure that anyone was actually implying Jake should soley be responsible. I’m simply unimpressed with his arguements on how there should be no rent controls and that a limit on condo conversions is “ridiculous”.
It’s just as others are saying, there aren’t many landlords that act responsibly and quickly concerning repairs/renovations to their rental property. Of course there needs to be a profit margin, but to increase rent so dramatically while a tenant is currently renting and not do $hit-all to improve the unit is just unethical. If the power of natural gas (or whatever) skyrocketed this would be a legitimate reason to raise rent “x” amount of $$$. Financing and regular maintenance are NOT excuses to raise the rent, it would initially be incorporated and would rise proportionately with inflation, Jake.
Again, we’re talking about basic needs, not a car, boat, or entertainment system. I think there needs to be better regulations to protect renters. There are infact regulations that protect landlords. You sure need a LOT of evidence to get back a security deposit that wasn’t returned. I did it. My landlord was such a scumbag, I continued a year long fight just because of the principal, it wasn’t worth doing it for the money alone.
Speaking of possessions… it seems places like Walmart are selling low cost items to North Americans at the expense of other countries. Ask workers in Korean sweatshops if they have their own cellphones, HD TVs, or SUVs. The stuff we buy at cheap prices are screwing people elsewhere. We really need to start paying “real” prices for our things. That way we would think twice about buying so much cr@p!
Finally, I think Jake’s attitude stinks. Because he was burned in Toronto with affordability he thinks it’s ok if it happens to Saskatoon. (conveniently now that he’s a homeowner)
Where are you Jake? I’m waiting for your rebuttal.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Heather,
“Jake” really isn’t that relevant to my point but supply and demand is a ‘legitimate’ market force, even with things so basic as food. More restrictions means less incentive to own, repair, etc.
Let’s get back to the community though. Many people act like they’re so concerned for the poor renter, but they do nothing but chirp, write letters and point fingers. These things don’t pay the rent. If every Saskatoon property owner kicked a thousand bucks into a kitty we’d have $80,000,000 to work with. Given that they’ve all made a filthy fortune in free equity it could happen without breaking a sweat for most people, but of course, it’s ridiculous to conceive that such a thing could ever happen. People like to pretend that they’re very concerned but many won’t actually lift a finger or spend a buck to help someone who’s hurting. We all like to point the finger at the other guy and say, “he’s greedy and evil. If we could just fix him and others like him everything would be good” but we don’t do a darned thing ourselves. In general, society has lost its compassion. If young people leave Saskatoon in droves, if the poor can’t find a place to sleep tonight, if a young family goes without dinner so they can pay the rent, it’s because society as a whole is willing to let it happen and not that we can’t stop it. We should at least have the guts to admit that people generally just don’t care that much. Jake may well be part of the problem, but he’s not THE problem. The problem is society’s indifference to the suffering of others. We gotta have our cars, boats and entertainment systems.
Walmart? Well, like I said, we’d probably all be better off if nobody shopped there.
Man! I’m just kicking up crap today!
Thanks for listening to my “chirping.”
May 15th, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Let me just say that I’m not implying that anyone here is all talk and no action. I don’t know any of you well enough to pass such a judgment. I’m speaking very generally about a culture that seems to care a little less all the time, yet I know that there are still many people who are kind and generous.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:43 PM
on the wal mart thing…not really relevant and i promise this is my last comment… i’d rather pay wal mart 3 dollars for something they got made in china than spend 12 at sears (who also bought it from the same supplier only is charging 4x as much).
May 15th, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Lol! Good point Jesse. Other than liquor almost everything we consume is made elsewhere. It’s amazing that we have any money.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:44 PM
“Where are you Jake? I’m waiting for your rebuttal.”
Heather, the fundamental problem is that there are not enough homes. Rent controls and condo conversions bans are nothing more than a regulated redistribution of wealth. The free market works so well because every transaction is a MUTUAL agreement between the buyer and seller.
I 100% support initiatives to increase the housing supply in Saskatoon. As rents increase we will begin to see more rental properties. Money follows the path of least resistant and when renting becomes profitable again, I can assure you there will be rental properties.
I’m currently working with a group from Craik, SK on “Evergreen” — http://www.evergreenbuild.ca/ (check back soon?!?) — an initiative to build affordable, sustainable house for people in rural Saskatchewan.
The key is though that we need to get more supply. Taking from others is not the solution. Wealth is not a zero-sum game and is always being created; we have to get out of the mentality that someone doing well is at another’s expense.
If there are 100 people living in a 80 capacity town. Regardless of what the rent is or what the houses sell for, there will still be 20 people without homes. Let’s build more homes!
I can assure that me being “burned” in T.O does not make me want others to have to face the same issues here.
Heather, my condo isn’t for sale.
Making the best financial decisions for yourself is not greed! It’s common sense! Alex moved to Winnipeg; was this greedy? No, it made sense to him.
Norm charges a commision to sell a home — greedy? No! Would he charge more if the market would bear it? Proabably yes! greedy? No!
Jake
May 15th, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Our petition to City Council regarding condo conversions is ready to print and distribute.
We have also prepared a petition to the provincial government to reinstate rent control, which will be presented either to the newly formed Provincial Task Force on Housing Affordability or sent to Premier Brad Wall. On that note, the new task force is seeking public input. They seem to care what we think! Please visit http://www.socialservices.gov.sk.ca/housing-task-force to submit your comments to them online. Every voice counts!
See the attached PDF documents to print out the petitions.
The petitions are also available in .doc (Microsoft Word) format here:
http://www.groovity.ca/petitions
HELP US take action! This is an important step toward putting a stop to converting condos in Saskatoon and to the evictions of tenants who will not be able to find a home in a city with a 0% vacancy rate.
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW – please pass this message on to your friends, family and colleagues. Also consider bringing the petition to those in your neighborhood (door-to-door) this weekend.
IMPORTANT: Signatures must be original and cannot be photocopied, scanned, faxed or reproduced in any way.
WHAT TO DO WITH THE PETITIONS:
A. Bring your petitions to City Hall on Monday, April 7th between 5:00 and 5:45 pm. Someone will wait outside the building to collect the petitions.
B. There are people willing to pick up your petition if you cannot bring it to City Hall on Monday. Please reply to this email by SUNDAY April 6th (afternoon if possible) to let us know that you need your petition picked up.
C. Drop off your signed petitions at the office of David Forbes, MLA before 5:00 pm on Monday April 7th:
Constituency Office
904D 22nd Street West
D. You can also bring petitions into the April 7th City Council Meeting (6:00 pm), which is when 9 of the condo applications will be addressed. Please arrive early so that we can add your signatures to our total count.
Please bring your petition along if you are participating in the Station 20 Community Walk on March 5th (10:00 am, 20th Street and Ave. M South) to have people sign it during the walk.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 384-5504 or reply to this email.
Thanks and take care,
Shannon Christensen
May 15th, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Jake,
Once I see any progress on your project I’ll make sure to applaude you, until then…
I was being sarcastic about your condo. You mentioned how the value of your condo would rise if condo conversions were stopped, why does it even matter if you’re not going to sell?
Why does Alex moving to Winnipeg (just as you moved to Saskatoon from Toronto) have anything to do with greed??? I never said that. It “made sense to him” to move to Winnipeg because Saskatoon had become unaffordable. You said to people move elsewhere if you can’t afford it. How is THAT compassion for your fellow man?!
Of course people need to make profit for their business, how else besides living in a utopia would one survive in society? I even stated this in my last post if you had read it.
The minority of people who care will actually narrow their potential profit margin somewhat to help others. Maybe I’m different than most, but whenever I’ve been in control of a potentially lucrative situation I’ve always tried to be fair and not taken advantage of the person/party. It all has to do with how good of a person you are TRYING to be.
Are you a person who would take the $10 bill that was accidentally given to you through change by a cashier at a convenience store? How about what happened at the Dakota Dunes recently? An employee had unknowingly stocked the $5 payout machine with $20s instead. SO MANY PEOPLE went to that machine, and once aware of the situation they either kept the money, or some even went back to abuse the situation MORE!!! It went on for a good portion of the day, WHY didn’t ANYONE tell a manager what was happening? I recently found a wallet outside with $100 in it. I didn’t keep it. In fact I looked up the owner’s name in Canada 411, found his parent’s phone number, and called them up to find out how to return it. Once the wallet was given back to the young man he immediately looked inside the wallet to see if all the money was still there, to which my husband answered, “don’t worry, it’s all there.” Hah, I guess you can’t blame him, most people would have taken the money, and probably not bothered to contact the wallet’s owner and return his I.D., cards, etc. (which proves to be more valuable than $100 if you need to replace them)
All I’m saying is, I’m not a landlord, but I know I wouldn’t be taking full advantage of people if I were. There ARE a small handful of landlords out there that have only minimally increased rent. It’s not that they’re unaware that Saskatoon is in a rental frenzy right now, it’s because they choose not to use their leverage and cause others hardship. We saw a similar act of compassion (on a much larger scale) with the builder from Medicine Hat who has built homes for hundreds of families at a lower-than-market cost.
It’s like Norm said. (And I totally agree) There are too many people who talk like they care, but do nothing to help solve the problem. Don’t worry Norm, you have raised 2 children with your common sense and morals who will help to balance out this crazy world. ALL is NOT lost! ;’)
Jesse: Walmart is one of the worst offenders when it comes to abusing employees, taking unfair advantages when competing with small businesses (Did you hear about the tax break the city wanted to give the new Walmart in Saskatoon?! Why in the hell does a huge corporation like Walmart NEED the tax break??? Unbelievable.), and turning a blind eye to the sweatshops that are their main suppliers – I’m not talking about generic products that can be purchased anywhere, I’m talking about the Walmart BRAND! Sure most stores are going to be guilty of selling some products made in sweatshops in 3rd world countries, but Walmart is one of the largest chains and most profitable, they above all others should start showing better business ethics. I understand people who don’t have much money are subjected to buying groceries, clothes, products at Walmart. I for one am making “decent” money and have been protesting Walmart and McDonald’s (that’s another story but definitely linked) for over 3 years now because I can afford to go elsewhere. And might I add Walmart has SOME cheap prices for some things, but then other items are overpriced. It’s a trick to get you in the store, you have to be very consumer-savvy to get full savings. All-in-all I don’t condemn people for shopping at Walmart, but I do condemn that company, and I do think that people of middle to upper class should be more socially conscious… but they instead buy their jacuzzi tubs, gas-guzzlers, and 60″ high-def TVs. *sigh*
Wow, this blog has really sharpened my rambling skills.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Heather,
I am opportunistic, not a crook. Good on you for returning the wallet, I hope everyone would do the same.
When I sell things I don’t nessercially charge the most I can, however I loathe the thought of not having the right to.
Very nice “rambling” with you.
Jake
May 15th, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Heather,
Some good points and I appreciate the fact that you use “compassion” as the impetus for your argument. That’s what we really need right now.
Something to think about. If Jake takes $100 from his wallet and passes it to someone in need he is probably displaying compassion. If I take $100 from Jake’s wallet and pass it to someone in need, I am stealing Jake’s money. Even if I do a good thing with it, it’s still wrong.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Jake,
I like your example, but you forgot something – as is usual for free market idealists.
In a town that can have 80 people, should 8 of them be allowed to own three houses each further exacerbating the issue? Now instead of 20 people without homes, you have 44, a portion of them may rent and another portion may have been capable of owning – but now they can’t. Overall you have 44 people poorer and some of which may turn to crime or other ways of dragging the whole *society* down.
The lesson is, don’t simplify just to eliminate valid factors.
Society is important. Way more important than your money in my books – sorry. If only for the reason because it affects the people I share fences – or non-fences – with.
Something about this reminds me of Dr. Seuss and I’m sure if I had more time I’d word it appropriately!
It is not an opportune time to be opportunistic and you know it. It is decisively unconscious to come into a market already experiencing difficulties and compounding the issue further.
If you don’t want to take blame, so be it, you are acting within valid parameters. But that of course goes to what Heather is saying which is being socially conscious.
If that still doesn’t matter to you, then people should then look to the government to see the sense in throwing some water on what is obviously the inflation of costs by artificially constraining supply.
I moved to Winnipeg because I had no choice. Rent was going up, I was living in an apartment that affected my health, my employer knew I had no leverage and paid me as little as they could get away with and of course house prices were insane.
If you think those are good circumstances, why don’t we just go ahead and displace the entire country so investors can turn a profit doing little more than having more money than the rest of us.
Even if we did get more houses built, would you like to venture a guess as to how much they’d cost?
Would you like to guess who’d be the people to get first crack at them?
You’re not solving the problem by releasing more houses into the market at the inflated prices.
Also, Jake. The “mutual” nature of any agreement hardly holds weight when the only agreements available are ones that put you at a disadvantage. Mutual is just a nice way to window dress the complete lack of options people have these days.
Norm,
Isn’t that the principle behind taxes?
Libertarians are stark opposed to “the theft of their money” and often use wording like that.
Libertarian views are very antisocial and have no practical application in the world we live in.
Libertarians seem to think in their “every man is an island” model of things that they would still get all things public. Things like streets, law enforcement, day care subsidies and so on and so forth…
I wish we had a little simulator for free market boosters to try things out in. It wouldn’t take long before they realized they were living a rat race of inflation speeding out of control – more than it is now.
Maybe we have the simulator already! It’s called “look around”. The major changes (decreased affordability, increased debt, reduced buying power) in our country and economy have been due the libertarian ideal!
Now North America is faced with all these problems and we don’t question the greed infused values?! Give me a break!
There are countries in Europe who are – without any stretch of the imagination – running a lot more smoothly without this bloated theoretical nonsense.
Quite the opposite, some of them are not only very pro-social, but also world leaders in innovation! Ask a Fin, a Swede or a Swiss what they think about the dominating attitudes in our businesses today.
Why? Because the focus where they come from is people and skills…Not money.
Canada used to be like this until 2000 when almost overnight the ideas shifted.
You know, it really shows. In how we work, in how we live in what we get done. There’s no denying the decline in all the things our country was once renown for.
You can blame that on the Swiss army knife of modern greed: Libertarian theory.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Once again, another double post. But I did a quick search on google and came up with this:
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
It has some pretty good information. It addresses and supports just about everything I have come to explain with some evidence thrown in to help the incredulous.
I won’t even bother beginning to quote because there’s just so much in there.
Although I still say the best evidence is to look out your window and talk to people on the street.
My captcha has a fleur de lis…
May 15th, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Norm, couldn’t resist that one… the government “steals” my money every day!
…typed a bunch of other stuff here about our tiered tax system, sharing and distribution of wealth, delete delete delete. It’s relevant but not worth the sh_t it will disturb.
Heather you are one of the good gals, I hope we’ll meet some day! I fear you are wasting your breath though. Forcing a person to have feelings that don’t exist is not possible, you either have compassion for your fellow man (unconditionally, every one) or you do not. That IS what it boils down to. My grandmother’s best friend pays $2200.00/month for what is supposed to be a “care” home. There is little care involved and most days her supper is a sandwich.
Focusing your energy on something that’s actually possible will save you some grief – hope to see you Saturday.
OH and thanks for posting my phone number Robin, lol!
I received an email today from someone who’s rent increased from $595.00 to $920.00! A perfect example of why we need rent control in this province.
Yes landlords should be able to raise their rents. And you (whoever you are) may not be one of the greedy ones and raise it beyond what’s reasonable, but others will.
It’s the same concept as what I deal with in raising two teenage boys. One example is the games out there – fighting, rape, murder, they get extra points for it. Why are they allowed? Not sure. They say 18+ but I had a student in grade 2 who played it all day long when not in school. He “practiced” hurting, raping and killing all day long some days and bragged about it to the other kids. How powerful he must feel when playing that game. How does that all affect his developing conscience? Redundant question of course.
MY POINT – we may not actually perform certain actions ourselves but we need to have laws in place to protect the less fortunate. My kids are not into drugs and don’t steal but laws still have to be in place for those who do. Everyone is affected in one way or another. Don’t know if I’m getting my point across properly… hehe.
A super easy captcha today, yay
May 15th, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Yes, if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem!
“Booklet”
May 15th, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s a natural, normal and acceptable thing to look out for one’s personal interest. And no, jake, it’s not “greedy” to do what makes sense for yourself. I think the real issue, is, like Alex has said, that far too many people have gone “above and beyond” that point where it does reach into greed. Not every homeowner is a selfish money-hungry person… not by any means. But I do believe that people who snatched up as many properties as they could possibly afford, or people who bought homes and turned around within a week or two only to up the price $20-40K (with or WITHOUT any upgrades) are EXACTLY that. People who obviously have no concern for those of us who were not so fortunate to be in a position where we could buy a home. Where do you draw the line?
I would never begrudge somebody their rightful equity because they own a home… I respect that you’ve worked hard for what you’ve earned and you deserve it.
But what about the rest of us. Don’t we DESERVE to have a home to live in? Don’t we deserve to have a little money left over at the end of the month, so that maybe we can save ourselves a downpayment for a house? Don’t we DESERVE to have our interests protected as well?
It’s about balance. I dont want to deny anybody the right to make a profit. But why is it wrong to say “hold the phone here, we may have gone a little too far!” All we’re asking for is a little give… instead of all take, take, take!
Norm,
We should be so fortunate to live in a society as generous as you’ve described.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:15 PM
It’s kind of like if a cola company bought up the rights to drinking water and then repriced it inflating it however they feel beucase it’s either you buy it at that price or you go somewhere else where a cola company didn’t buy up the water.
Ah the ‘free’ market.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Shannon,
Thanks for your comment, but the “don’t waste your breath attitude” certainly doesn’t lend itself to a civilized discussion. More and more I see this attitude coming from the far left. Positioning people who don’t agree with everything you believe as crazy and lacking compassion is a cheap shot that divides.
I don’t support “rent control” for a number of reasons, primary among them is the negative impact that it ultimately has on the rental market and those who have little choice but to live in it.
As I said before, some of the landlords out there should be ashamed. The rent on the home my daughter lives in has gone up over $400 in the last year. I don’t like it but I don’t think it’s the landlords responsibility to rent it to her for less than the market will bear. He may be a total ass but that’s his issue to deal with, and not my place to decide how much he should be limited.
Compassion? As near as I can tell, I am so far the only one who has said I would be happy to pay some portion of the tab to take some concrete action to help people. Real compassion starts at your own wallet, not in your neighbours. I also recognize that service, such as the one you’re providing is a compassionate contribution.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Norm,
You are the epitome of all that is kind and generous
I don’t really know enough about rent control, or the long term impact that it might have, to say either way… though I would be interested in hearing a little more on that.
I also don’t know that I believe that rent controls are the answer either.
All I know is that whatever is going on right now is NOT working for me. If things keep going this way I very well might have to get myself one of those fancy cardboard boxes…
May 15th, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Leslie,
Lol! I wouldn’t go that far. Again, my point is that it’s just too easy to try to solve the problem at someone else’s expense and going that route usually goes nowhere fast. Anyone that thinks that the Sask Party is going to support rent controls is dreaming. This is a position which could have possibly been sold last year but it’s a waste of time right now. If we are truly concerned as a community then let’s raise taxes and do something about it.
I have a few appointments that I need to get to t I’ll be back to discuss the rent control thing. I’m not exactly an expert on the topic either but it’s been my experience that things usually get worse when they’ve been touched by government.
Talk to you later.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I remember my grandfather cursing the government up and down when he was forced to wear his seatbelt. Smokers protested when we proclaimed our right to breath air that was not full of toxins. Persuading people to agree with ideas that are for the good of all people is what laws and law-making is all about.
One of the basic human rights is shelter.
You have a crafty way of politely insulting people.
I guess when you voice your opinions you have to accept criticism.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Shannon,
I don’t think I complained about being criticized.
You haven’t heard me disagree with a single point you’ve made, except for the method of fixing the problem. Still, you call me crafty, and imply that I lack compassion and that I’m close minded.
With respect to a discussion, it was you who said, “you are wasting your breath.”
Me, well I once said I was against a policy that would limit condo conversions. Yesterday, I sent a letter to council asking them to consider doing that. I can be persuaded. You obviously prefer to close your ears and imply that those who disagree with you aren’t worthy to be heard.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Shannon,
Further, and to be clear, when I said, “I also recognize that service, such as the one you’re providing is a compassionate contribution,” I meant it. That is to say that I can see you’re clearly and sincerely concerned and I appreciate that you are active in trying to solve the problems that renters are faced with.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Norm,
I meant that I have to learn to accept criticism for the things that I say – sorry I wasn’t clear on that.
What I said about wasting your breath was wrong. I need to choose my words wisely, I did say “I fear” though… and my intention has never been to imply that you specifically lack compassion, sorry if I have. I don’t even know you, it would be wrong to imply that.
We all know that people have the right to express their opinions, I believe that too. I don’t think I close my ears to what others have to say, but like I said, I have to accept that I too will be criticized. I think it’s vital that all sides are heard, landlords don’t deserve to be screwed either. As a teacher you deal with many mini-dramas all day long. You hear from one side and then the other, that’s only fair and that’s what I try to do.
From now on I’ll stick to the facts and keep my personal opinions to myself
I’m not trying to solve problems, but thanks for that. I’m hoping that something that I say or do will be a part of a solution that will be fair for all.
It’s amazing how you think that you can keep a post short and then it ends up dragging on…
I think it’s awesome that you wrote to city council. Personal opinion or not – I seems pretty clear that now is not the time to put more people out into this mess. More housing is needed, but it being available isn’t even feasible until the fall or later.
I said earlier that the city has commendable initiatives to provide more housing. I’ll haul that info out tonight – I don’t think it’s fair that the city be blamed entirely for what’s going on.
I’m looking forward to more information on rent control. It would be nice to hear from an economist or someone who knows a lot about it in the 5 provinces who have it.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Shannon,
Thank you.
If I have read more into your comments than you intended to convey, it wouldn’t be the first time. If I’ve misunderstood, or overreacted, I apologize.
I do appreciate your passion for this issue and I respect you for being willing to put yourself out there in an effort to help. The fact that we may differ on how the problem is best solved is besides the point, at least for me. I acknowledge that it’s a deplorable situation for tenants and I agree that something needs to be done. I am with you on so many of your points and I hope that there is some room for respectful disagreement on methods.
I’m going to put my thoughts together on why I think rent controls have the potential to further hurt the renter. I’m not sure that I can get it done tonight as I still have a little work to do but I will come back to this as soon as I can.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I think not every tenants will be landlord or own their own property, but almost every landlord be a tenant for while at least. What I can’t understand is why some people in this blog don’t buy their own home and wait so long to see the market meltdown.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:23 PM
“my point is that it’s just too easy to try to solve the problem at someone else’s expense”
This is a classic situation where only the rich can get away with it. But when we suggest it go back the other way? Oh nonono, that’s being unmoderate again! Let’s get those fingers wagging.
Let’s look at house prices or indeed the bellyaching of landlords about their bottom line.
They’re solving the problem at the expense of the home buyer or the tenant.
I still can’t understand what it is about having lots of money that entitles you to make yet more at the expense of others?
Landlords have done nothing except the exact opposite to prove they’re going through a tough time.
People selling homes regardless of if it’s just the one they own or one of many are creating cataclysmic debt in our country by forcing the bar so high.
But it’s all okay, because hey – it’s a free market and so long as you agree to get screwed, you can get screwed.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Alex,
There’s far more to the rent control debate than who’s making the money, and legislation is the one solution which ultimately hurts the renter.
My promised comments on rent control quickly became a post, for those interested in exploring the potential downfalls of rent control.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:24 PM
I’m surprised this conversation is still going – I haven’t read all the comments to get caught up but I’ll post mine anyway. First, I live in the Milroy. Second, I think the current situation is very poor for renters and first time home buyers.
But I still think the free market will sort this out. I’ll be one example: I’ll move to a different city. My research has made it obvious that there are now several Canadian cities with not only lower absolute costs for rent and buying but also lower relative costs due to higher salaries. Once I leave the Milroy it will be a financially unsound decision to stay in Saskatoon.
That’s how the free market works – it hurts now but in the long run Saskatoon will either pay for the current situation in a lower population or things will reach a balance as more wealthy people move in. As for me I already loathe this cold, windy city in the middle of nowhere. Leaving isn’t even a downside.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Screwed McDuck,
Though it is a functioning aspect of a free market it is not a virtue. Displacing people is a cold and unfounded basis to justify the effects of a free market.
The free market “works” because of the complete disregard for the poor it creates. It is “working” because the people who say it is working don’t have the needs of people less wealthy for them in mind. So of course it “works”, everything is fine above the water line!
Ultimately belief in free markets is a belief undertaken with a large dose of ignorance. To even think that it works is to openly admit that the byproducts are necessary. Which they aren’t. Sorry, if these are the prices to pay for a free market, it is not the right theory.
I urge you and others to check out the following. It is a silver bullet to dismiss all the insanity behind free market and libertarian thought-disease:
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
May 15th, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Screwed,
I suspect yours is a story that we’ll hear many times over in the next couple of years. I hope that yours ultimately has a happy ending. Best wishes.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:26 PM
From our friend on the 17th floor of the Milroy.
A second offer from the developer to forgo renovations and the parking stall in exchange for a $39,000 price adjustment.
Might be workable for some of the seniors.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Go Milroys!
They’ve decided to appeal! I’ve blogged it (http://www.groovity.ca) and we’re going to help raise funds for their legal costs. They are accepting contributions (tax deductible) if anyone would like to help out.
I still need to do some reading here too, I’m sorry to see that people indeed will be forced to move as may have predicted.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Shannon,
Thanks. Sorry I couldn’t join you for the walk today. I hope everything went well. :’)
May 15th, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Norm,
A nice touch but that still does not make them affordable. Perhaps an attempt to display that they are sympathetic? Or might they actually feel compassion?
Screwed,
I’m going to check out that link when I’m not so swamped!
Heather,
Sorry you couldn’t make it
It DID – approx. 2000 people – wow! I put up a few of the pics I took, I absolutely loved all of the signs people made, wish I had just stood and taken pictures of them all.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Shannon,
No, that wasn’t the intended implication but rather an update on what’s happening over there.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Norm!!!
You read that wrong!!!
Or perhaps I wrote it wrong!!!
An attempt FROM THEM to display that they are sympathetic!
Or maybe they DO have some compassion after all!?
May 15th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Shannon,
WHAT?
I guess one can’t say that they’re not trying but I have a feeling this won’t be particularly comforting for most of the tenants there.
I’m assuming that you attended that meeting where the decision was made to appeal? Was it clear what the basis of the appeal would be? Any idea what it’s costing these folks to fight this?
May 15th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Norm,
I meant that the developer’s offer (Viking right?) doesn’t make the condos any more affordable to those tenants. I suspect that anything above the 200-250K range is out of their reach, but I could be wrong. I also meant that perhaps Viking is tired of appearing cold-hearted and wants to change that view? Or maybe they have indeed realized the hardship that they have put on people and now have compassion for them. Who knows?
I think many of us assume that seniors have large sums of money saved up because they have worked all of their lives… etc. This is not true!
I also want to comment on the attitude that is far too prevalent out there – renters should get their act together/get a job and buy a house. Renters are vital to our economy and society. Most everyone has a need to rent at some point in their lives. And should a person in their eighties be told to go out and get a job? After having worked, paid taxes and contributed to society in so many ways?
The developer paid 14 million for the building, will put 6 million into it, and sell the condos for a total of 50 million. That’s a profit of 30 million. This is the kind of money that is at stake here for the developers – no wonder they’re getting “a little impatient.”
Yes I was at the meeting and am so glad I was.
Wendy Weseen took notes at the meeting and passed this on to me through email:
First of all the judge had not done the math on availability rate and had was confused to the end about the difference between vacancy rate and availability. And, in her summation she quoted from a document she had actually denied entry to for the hearing. Andrew Mason, the lawyer, made a good argument for the appeal because he also feels that City Council is currently breaking the law with their continuation of rubber stamping permits. He quotes the law very cleanly that City Council can not bend the rules this way If availability rate is as it is right now, they are law bound to stop the development until rental availability catches up. It’s not that they have any choice in this – it is the law. It was decided at the meeting that the Milroy appeal is more than just about the Milroy now, it is also about whether a City Council can just do what they want and ignore both the law and their moral responsibilities. The issue of hardship for evicted tenants has not been fully addressed yet either in the courts or by Council. Andrew made such a gently passionate case for the fact that a city that does not ensure housing for all its citizens with varying incomes will eventually fall apart. City Council is there to represent all its people not just commercial and business interests.
To elaborate on one thing Wendy wrote, Andrew Mason feels that since the appeal will go to Regina, an outsider (the judges) will easily conclude that what has occured in this case is very clear – the City broke their own law. As well, the city has not put enough consideration into the hardships that are caused to the tenants. That as well must be (and should have been) considered under the law.
We do know exactly what the cost will be but that is top-secret information : )
Several people at the meeting committed their financial support and I know that with our fund raiser we will raise the money that they need in one day. Barbara Henderson has had HUNDREDS of phone calls of support. As Martin Been and Andrew Mason have said, this is no longer about the Milroy. This is about what is happening in Saskatoon regarding condo conversions, the low vacancy rate and a City Council that rubber stamps condo conversions without sincere consideration about what the effect will be on the tenants and the city as a whole.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I keep forgetting something…
I’ve looked at the agenda for Monday night. I am so incredibly pleased to see the number of letters submitted regarding the housing crisis, condo conversions and the vacancy rate. I commend you on your letter also Norm!
I see that I am on the agenda. My original intentions regarding what I have wanted to say to them has changed somewhat.
I will not need the entire 5 minutes to say what I want to say to them. If there is anything in particular that anyone would like me to say, please EMAIL me (don’t post it here please) and I will consider it.
Holy captcha batman!
May 15th, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Shannon,
This is great work. If I was still in Saskatoon, I would at least be attending. More people need to get involved in tilling over the lethargic municipal government in Saskatoon.
How much longer will indifference pass as a solution to a lack of desire in serving all of the people? It seems to me that none of the leaders in the Saskatoon municipal government are fit to represent!
May 15th, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Shannon,
My “WHAT?” was a bit of a joke. That was me constantly misunderstanding.
Thanks for the Milroy update. That potential profit seems almost unbelievable. Based on those numbers, they could sell them at two-thirds the prices, make ten million dollars and come off like heroes.
I wish the Milroy tenants the best in their appeal but don’t forget that Andrew Mason felt his case was pretty clear the first go round. I hope those folks aren’t sinking a big wad of cash into this. I read Justice Dovell’s decision and I don’t think she was confused about anything. She found that council had jurisdiction and discretion. I’m no lawyer but that’s how the law sounds to me as well.
The best hope for any change in policy will come by public pressure on the city. Council will need to be convinced that it’s in their interest to exercise their “discretion” to the benefit of tenants. Get your 2000 marching bodies out to the meeting on Monday night and it’s probably a done deal.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Alex, they may or not be “fit.” But they were elected and we are stuck with them. If the people sit back and do nothing but watch and complain they have no idea what people want, or should I say, what our tolerance levels are.
We need to get past, and rise above the finger pointing and the criticism. I know they’re not perfect, you know they’re not perfect, but what the hell? Who really cares anymore? There are huge issues to prioritize here. As Norm points out – and many others know – working people are sleeping in their cars. There WILL be tent cities this summer. There will also be more crime, and the effects on physical and mental health will be more than we can imagine.
As a community we have clout. When people speak up, especially together and take action much can be accomplished. We are fed up and won’t stand by while people, especially the elderly are booted out onto the street. I wouldn’t do that to my dog.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Norm,
OK I understand that you misunderstood that I misunderstood what you were misunderstanding. ouch.
I should have stressed that the law says that city council needs to consider what effect the conversions will have on the tenants, that it will cause hardship. That is part of the law. They also mush consider what effect the evictions will have on the vacancy rate and the availability of units.
Andrew made the point that the judge did not appear to understand the difference between the law’s reference to vacancy rate and availability of alternate units – and/or – how they relate to each other.
She also QUOTED a number, as partial justification for her decision… a statistic I believe from a document that she had already proclaimed as being irrelevant. That alone is argument that she was… let’s just say her decision was confusing, I don’t know how to say it without insulting her.
“they could sell them at two-thirds the prices, make ten million dollars and come off like heroes.” Ahh that’s music to my ears Norm. I wish : )
You are right Mr. Mason was indeed confident the first go-round, he even said that. If nothing else though, the support shown may prevent “the 9″ and others from the same devastating demise.
Don’t know how much interest their is for such a thing on Monday night. I’m hoping that the petitions and letters to council will make the difference. Perhaps council will delay once more until their review of the current condo conversion policy on the 14th. Hey it’s better than nothing : )
May 15th, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I understand that this was the bit of legilation which was argued. Unfortunately, it pretty much leaves the decision to the satisfaction of the “local authority. It’s pretty vague and provides no guidelines at all. Clearly, not all councillors were satisfied. I think we should have a policy that councillors must live in rental housing during their terms.
On an application for a certificate pursuant to clause (1)(b), the local authority shall direct the issue of a certificate if it is satisfied that:
(e) Where the application relates to the conversion of existing premises used for apartments, flats, or tenements into units:
i) the conversion will not significantly reduce the availability of rental accommodation in the area;
ii) the conversion will not create significant hardship for any or all of the tenants of the existing premises.
I’m just saying that I wouldn’t hold my breath thinking that an appeals court is going to overturn it. That’s fairly rare, but as you suggest, it does keep the issue at the forefront and in the media while we’re working through it.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:39 PM
So please tell me, not who wants to stay in Saskatoon, But who can afford too…? You either live at home. or pay 1000+ a month for rent on an apartment! but (And not to sound like an @$$) Where do all the low income housing people live now? I’m all up for change to this province! But it has to come in steps or you will roll over too many people and, yes the houses will be built but who will live in them? only people making $100,000 a year or more.. I mean come on Confed housing going for $150,000 + 5 years ago you could get a good house on the East side for that!
May 15th, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I lived at the Milroy in a 2 bedroom corner suite on the 12th floor way back when, hated the place! Emergency vehicle sirens, woke me up every morning. Surface parking provided me with a hot car in the summer and window scrapping and snow clearing in the winter. My mother before me lived on the 11th floor and still does, she loves the place. About the asking price, there are 2 distinct groups of people out there, one group can’t afford the asking price and the other group can afford it but refuses to pay it! That leaves a very small third group, but this group is smaller then the amount of suites available for sale at the Milroy.