Saskatoon Milroy Apartments tenants seek judicial review of council’s condo conversion decision
Tenants at Saskatoon’s Milroy Apartments served notice to civic administrators Friday of their intentions to seek a judicial review of council’s recent decision to approve an application for a condominium conversion at the downtown apartment building.
Represented by fellow tenants Martin Been and Barbara Henderson, Milroy residents will ask a Court of Queen’s Bench judge to overturn the decision and to grant an order prohibiting the city from issuing an approval certificate “unless and until the City of Saskatoon determines, upon evidence” that the conversion meets the requirements of Saskatchewan’s Condominium Property Act.
One section of the Act states the following with respect to condominium conversions:
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.
The most recent Rental Market Report released by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation placed Saskatoon’s vacancy rate at a record low of just 0.6% following a busy year of condo conversion applications in the city of Saskatoon. Through 2007, over 1,500 rental units were approved for conversion, more than we’ve seen in the last ten years combined.
Councillors Bob Pringle, Pat Lorje, Darren Hill and Charlie Clark all voted against the application for conversion because of concerns over the tight rental market and the impact that a conversion would have on the buildings tenants.
I suspect that the city will argue that the Milroy tenants are interpreting the Condominium Property Act incorrectly. They’ll argue that this section of the Act provides municipalities with power to reject applications should they choose to do so, but does not limit their authority in granting applications under any circumstances which they deem appropriate.
Related articles include;
City of Saskatoon to consider proposed changes to condo conversion policy
Milroy Apartments in Saskatoon will become condos
Saskatoon City Council approves condo conversion policy change
NDP calls for “freeze” on Saskatoon condo conversions
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
38 comments so far. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I’m interested to see where this goes. A few weeks ago I got a letter under the door saying Been and others had found a lawyer but I’m surprised anything has actually come of it. I definitely have to applaud him for standing up for what he believes in.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Norm,
That sound! Was that a crack in the ice or the thud of boots at city hall?
Let’s hope the people read your earlier post. This is the time for these folks to shine and the city boys and girls to be stand-up politicians and start negotiating the B.C. – ooops. The “Fisher Fundamentals of Fairness Condo Conversion Policy”.
Nice ring to it I think. .>)
May 20th, 2009 at 2:34 PM
didn’t receive any notifications under my door but I agree with McDuck – they seem to be putting lots of time and effort into fighting this decision. Not sure if the end result will change but they should be recognized for putting forth their 2 cents worth. Only thing I’ve heard is Viking is supposed to take over April 1.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:35 PM
oh yeah, meant to say congrats Norm on your anniversary. this is a great site for Stoon RE with lots of great conversations and contributions from all sorts of people and you do an outstanding job of moderating. Keep up the good work Norm and all contributors!!
May 20th, 2009 at 2:35 PM
“ii) the conversion will not create significant hardship for any or all of the tenants of the existing premises.”
…means nothing in a world driven by greed.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Waste of time and money which would be better spent finding a new home.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:37 PM
callum,
Go crawl back under that rock you came out from.
I’m glad the Milroy tenants are standing up for themselves! Good luck to them. Even if they don’t accomplish their goal they’re sending a ripple through Saskatoon that make’s everyone aware of how little this city cares for it’s citizens.
If we don’t at least try to fight against injustice we will certainly be taken advantage of. I love Canada, but we’re so damn spineless! Nobody takes the time or the effort to try and change their circumstances, they just roll over and accept it. Slowly but surely the people of this nation are losing their voice and entrusting others to protect them. The people who have the most power (and money) have NOBODY’S interests in mind but their OWN! Smarten up Canada.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I’m going to have to agree with Heather here. By your reasoning Callum, just about everything is just a storm to be weathered.
I love how tolerance is massaged and implied into productive submission.
I think it’s sad that the going theme in our society has to be acceptance for the sake of these snub nosed profiteers.
“Waste of time and money which would be better spent finding a new home.”
What an arrogant and inconsiderate statement – no wonder you don’t post with your real name. As if people are obligated to find new ways to live a normal and prosperous life without needing to adapt to all the different ways greedy snobs pull the rug out from under them.
I think the definition of capitalism seriously needs to be revisited in this day and age for the sake of all those not in a position to leverage their wealth against others.
Canadians have lost their backbone.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:39 PM
100% agree with callum! They tenants need to suck it up and get packing. Heather and Alex have forgot a key point: the tenants don’t own the building whatsoever, and have no claim to one square foot of the building or what happens to it. Hopefully the city gets it right and encourages the wealth creation that comes from the conversion.
Rather than keep the Milroy as apartments I think that council should force Heather and Alex to rent their homes.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Jake,
That’s rather inane. On what basis do you think that? Spite?
You’ve got a rather antisocial view on things. Not only do we have people assaulting the very nature of a home by turning them into tools for greed, we now have you coming on here saying that really nobody should be entitled to somewhere to hang their hat.
You might be fishing just for a laugh, but you’re also completely off.
The only wealth created in your world is for the rich. And why should you care, your sanctimonious nonsense pollutes our country making people think like wealth is a birthright.
It’s no wonder snobs congregate around real estate, it is badly in need of regulation to normalize out the influence of the rich.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:41 PM
The question I have for Heather and Alex is should the landlords run THEIR business like a social system, or like a ‘for profit’ business?
If it’s ran like a ‘for profit’, and the business is successful, hopefully it will attract more too enter the business. So, I am hoping to find ways to make being a landlord attractive. In my opinion government constraints will make being a landlord less attractive.
I don’t like to see business being ran as a social program, which is what I see happening here if the government put a stop to condo conversion, or put rent controls in place. I don’t like the $10000 fee either for each condo unit. I think it will make matters worse.
Oil companies, mining companies, banks… make huge profits, Are you against all companies that make a huge profit? Or just landlords that don’t want to operate a social program versus a ‘for profit’ business
May 20th, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Jake,
Your post is so preposterous I’m reluctant to even reply. It’s funny you should mention renting out homes, our joke-of-a-mayor Atch suggested this very thing when our vacancy rate was becoming a problem last year. Since you have the “convert everything and screw renters” attitude, maybe you should step up to the plate and rent out your home? Nothing says “cozy” like a couple of roomies!
Carl,
I understand your concerns, and I think this is also the point Jake was attempting to make. No, landlords should not be forced to run their business like a social program but there are other circumstances that need to be considered – such as the wellbeing of our citizens. When a company’s profits interfere with the best interests of people, the community will suffer. Simply put, I am not against companies that make large profits, providing they are not stepping on everyone’s toes to do it! While it may seem like an oxymoron to some, it IS possible to make a profit while still abiding by ethical business practices. If a landlord can’t fathom paying $10,000 to own a unit in a fast-growing city (which is given back to the community), then perhaps it’s for the best these people don’t buy here.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Heather D. said:
“callum,
Go crawl back under that rock you came out from.”
Ok, but you know I’m right.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Carl,
Heather took most of it out of my fingers, you have most of your answer from me there.
If I could add anything, it’s that there is a level of depth that you need to internalize to this discussion.
When we look at profits, what’s happening with them? Are they being skimmed? Divided amongst investors? Shipped overseas?
I focus a lot on both the housing and rental market, but I also think it’s important to keep the wages discussion onboard here. Are the efforts, long hours, moves and talent of Canadians actually earning them more?
Whether you live by statistics or by logical observations, you’re going to get “no” for the answer.
Now, going back to the corporations you mentioned – do I think they should be making as much money as they do nowadays? I sincerely doubt it. I think all corporations in this day and age are guilty of siphoning towards the top the long overdue pay raises Canadians deserve (we work, we pay our taxes, just like every wealthy individual does as well). The only reason why wages haven’t gone up is because we have a system that rewards those with wealth with more wealth.
The cost increases in every industry we see are unfounded nowadays and based on the opportunity to gouge for more – not the need to sustain or grow. This includes housing.
To tie this all back to the investors… I don’t think they need the money. They’re rich enough to buy property and dole it out one at a time to ensure maximum profits. They can go do something more productive with their redundant dollars than add more pressure to the strained finances of Canadians.
The values that keep homes skyrocketing in price are just part of the larger package of greed polluting our economy. If you’re going to invest in homes, use your money to build new ones, not assault the used home market to take advantage of buyers.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Alex/Heather: The fact that my suggestion (council forcing you to rent your homes) was in your opinion laughable is, to quote Alex, “sanctimonious nonsense”.
You want to force the owners of the Milroy to rent their property while you find the suggestions of someone forcing you to rent your property outrageous. Contradiction anybody?
Alex, homes in Canada are priced exactly where they should be: at the equilibrium price! If a home is too expensive, it won’t sell. When selling a house the price should be set at the point where you have one buyer interested; if you have zero interested you’re too high, if you have many you’re too low. Obviously as Norm knows, there are many pricing strategies, but they all have one goal: get the maximum price.
The beauty of the free market is that every single transaction is an agreement between two parties that is mutually beneficial otherwise the transaction wouldn’t occur.
Heather, I don’t have a “convert everything and screw renters attitude”. I’m 100% for rental properties that the owner of the property wants to rent (sans Grover style shacks, but that’s an entirely different subject). Renting is fantastic, but forcing someone to rent… not so much (remember what you thought about being forced to rent your home by our Mayor?)
If it’s too expensive in Saskatoon for someone they should consider moving elsewhere. Saskatoon is no longer a cheap place to live. Look at the largest, most prosperous cities (Tokyo, Vancouver, London, New York), none of them are cheap. Saskatoon is a place to be right now and they are more homes wanted than there are homes for sale.
ÄLEX SAID “The cost increases in every industry we see are unfounded nowadays and based on the opportunity to gouge for more – not the need to sustain or grow. This includes housing.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
I”ll agree with you that prices are not based on the the need to sustain or grow. I export organic grains for living and I can assure I price our products at the highest price that our sellers will pay. If that’s gouging (it’s not). What do you do for a living Alex? Do you sell your work for cheap to help your company grow or do you try to get as much as you can?
Very nice having a friendly debate with both of you.
Best regards,
Jake
May 20th, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Jake,
Primary vs. secondary residence status should be considered in your argument. Also, (supply / demand) doesn’t really seem to fit in real estate anymore. Demand is being manipulated through media boom articles and banks/cmhc policy changes to loosen credit availability and increase buying power through extended amortization. An overdue correction, therefore, is not happening.
J.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Johny, I agree that primary vs. secondary should be considered. It really depends on how much “we” value property rights. What do you think?
The beauty of supply/demand (in a perfectly competitive market, which real estate is very close to) is that it always fits, although not always for the right reasons. I, like you, believe that the media hype is increasing the demand for Saskatoon housing.
The local media is essentially advertising for Saskatoon housing, and therefore increasing demand. When Apple advertises ipods they are effectively increasing the demand. Should the local media be pumping the market? Not explicitly! — there is a fine line between reporting on what’s happened and influencing what’s going to happen — often they are one in the same.
Banks/cmch is really just creating demand as well. Making mortgages more readily available can be good provided we can maintain decent lending standards and not let them degrade to the point that we saw in the U.S. Some people shouldn’t qualify for a mortgage. I’m very curious to see if we can learn from the U.S.
It will eventually come down if there really are enough people moving/living in Toon Town to justify the prices. If not, we’ll see the prices start to fall.
Jake
May 20th, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Well, I don’t know that immigration is playing as big a role as we think. I think that speculation is playing a huge role which brings us to the primary vs secondary residence argument. My thoughts are, those buying a home to live in should always get priority… which isn’t really the case in saskatoon. That fact is creating a huge strain on both affordability to buy and affordability to rent. The consequences of that imbalance are being seen in vacancy rates.
On the banks/cmhc issue. The apple example doesn’t really apply unless apple had previously arranged financing deals with the banks. If demand went up and supply went down, to the extent that they needed to increase prices to narrow demand pool then maybe… and the example would only specifically apply if in their price increases, the bank readjusted their terms to effectively pay more for the ipod over an extended term thus reintroducing those pushed out of the demand pool (based on previous lending terms) back in… traditional supply and demand theories just don’t seem to play in Real Estate anymore.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Jake,
My home (which I don’t own) is in FACT a HOME. A profitable business is not a home, so there is no comparison or contradiction on my part. My valid points regarding this subject were addressed to Carl in my last post if you care to read it. You may theorize that our real estate is at equilibrium based on your supply/demand theory, but that’s just a convenient excuse for what’s really happening in the market. No, I don’t agree with the city standing idly by when our vacancy rate is below 3%. (this is the cut-off where the $10K proposed fee would come into effect) I guess this is just something we’re going to have to agree to disagree on.
“I export organic grains for living and I can assure I price our products at the highest price that our sellers will pay. If that’s gouging (it’s not).”
Sounds like gouging to me. I wonder if you’re also in cahoots with the oil companies? They like to push the limits to how much people can afford, which means less Hummers and SUVs on the roads, which is just fine in my books. Of course fossil fuels are non-renewable, but so what? How much do you suppose a family is willing to pay for their 4L container of milk? $5? $10? Perhaps $20??? Let’s see how much they are willing to dish out! Afterall in North America we have a LOT of stuff we can give up so we can afford these basic necessities that are priced at “the highest price that we will pay”. Again, this is maybe not such a bad idea. Less high tech gadgets, plasma TVs, and gas-guzzling cars being bought… maybe more people will actually get off their asses and start DOING things! And for the record, I consider a home a necessity.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Heather,
I think Jake would agree that “the highest price we will pay” might be better expressed as “what the market will bear.” Obviously there are many factors which must be considered in setting a price. If I try to get $10 for four litres of milk when my competitors are selling it for $4, my milk will spoil and I will lose my entire investment.
This tends to be a concept that most people understand.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Norm,
Yes maybe Jake misworded that part, but I’m not sure it’s entirely free of ill intent towards the consumer. When the majority of a market is owned by like-minded individuals it can become an opportunity for extortion. Case and point: Many landlords took advantage of the extremely low vacancy rate by hiking up rent an unreasonable amount (in my mind) knowing that renters had no other choice but to pay it. For this very reason there needs to be some regulations in place to protect the people when it comes to basic necessities, such as residence. This is why I don’t feel that 10K fee for landlords is unjustifiable.
There are SOME people in this world that choose not to take advantage of others simply because supply and demand are in their corner.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Heather,
“There are SOME people in this world that choose not to take advantage of others simply because supply and demand are in their corner.”
I hope I get to meet one or two of them someday.
As I’ve said before, I have yet to meet a seller that didn’t want a little more, or a buyer that didn’t want to pay a little less. Not one!
Most people feel the pinch of the cost of living and will gladly take “what the market will bear” when it’s time to sell, or to rent a revenue property.
It’s the world we live in. It may not be right but the fact is that Jake buys his grain from farmers who charge him what the market will bear and so on, and so on.
Having said that, I can’t disagree that the rent increases over the last year haven’t been completely opportunistic. I’m glad that I’m not in the business.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Johny,
You’re right!
There are still people moving here but my sense is that the market is being driven by speculative investors once again. I’m getting a few inquiries most days. “Hi, my name is Blah, and I’m from Torawna. Torawna, Ontario!”
I swear some of these guys think we don’t have a clue where Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary are. I once had a guy tell me that Toronto is in Ontario and in Canada.
I’m doing my best to send them all to Phoenix where there’s a good selection of under priced houses for sale. Saskatoon would be about the last place in the world that I’d buy a revenue property right now. Can’t figure it out. Ever heard of the “buy low, sell high” strategy?
May 20th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Norm said:
“I think Jake would agree that “the highest price we will pay” might be better expressed as “what the market will bear.” Obviously there are many factors which must be considered in setting a price. If I try to get $10 for four litres of milk when my competitors are selling it for $4, my milk will spoil and I will lose my entire investment.
This tends to be a concept that most people understand.”
—-
What if all the media and the grocers who sell milk create a sense of panic by telling people that milk is a bargain at $10, and that they better stock up now because it could hit $15 by next spring? To help make the milk more affordable, they even are generous to let you finance your milk payments over forty years! In a situation like this where people take what the media says as gospel, you will not only find people paying $10 for milk, some will even feel that they are getting are bargain for this price.
I just wouldn’t want to imagine the stench of that stockpiled milk when things start to go sour.
Norm, quick question I was hoping you could help me out with. Do you happen to know if mortage payments are fully tax deductable in Quebec? i was talking to a friend last weekend and he said that it is his understanding that both interest and principle are allowable as tax deductions as compared to the interest only in the rest of Canada. I did some digging online and couldn’t find anything to back this up.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I quote Alex
“What an arrogant and inconsiderate statement – no wonder you don’t post with your real name. As if people are obligated to find new ways to live a normal and prosperous life without needing to adapt to all the different ways greedy snobs pull the rug out from under them.”
Arent you the one who hid their real identity on here all of last year??
I think landlords are taking advantage of the market but perhaps some of you people who rent dont simply understand what type of energy and costs goes into a property? Take a property you paid $150,000 for a year ago and put 20% down…you would pay $780 a month in mortgage, $75 in insurance and $175 in property tax so your BREAK even point would be $1030 a month. A year ago paying $1000 – $1100 for a house would be getting a VERY good rent…you would BARELY break even and hope for modest 5 – 6% return on your investment. Now let’s thing about a landlords expenses (This is after just doing my taxes on my properties this weekend)
There are all annual costs
- Advertising ($100)
- Maitenance
– Flooring ($5000)
– Painter ($3000)
– Doors ($1000)
I could go on and on…Furnace cleaning annually ($150)
How about Shingles every 15- 20 years, $2500?, Furnace $2500, Plumbing leaks $100 a visit, Appliance repairs $100 a visit and replace every 5 years, Vacant Month $1000, Midnight move outs $1000 ++…ever consider that when a tenant skips town in teh middle of teh night trashes your house and your left with a MEASILY $1000 damage deposit…in case you’ve never called 1800gotjunk that can be an easy $1000 just to HAUL away the junk never mind cleaning the carpets, repairing and any holes and scuffed paint….I could go on and on I’ve had this happen twice in teh past 2 years and i only own 10 properties…couldnt imagine the big companies…. but for YEARS us landlords have been limited in what we can charge for rents…now that $1000 a month house we can get $1400 – $1500 for…sure that can be a 40% increase on rents but I’d like to see someone take my reins for the last few years before the boom and then look at their NEGATIVE profit at the end of the year and scratch their head and go why am I working for free again. Simply but Boardwalk has raised all their rents in town here from $750 for a 3 bedroom townhouse to $1050 on lease renewals…most ppl are a little bit shocked and upset about it and I would be too but when you walk a mile in the other parties shoes of being teh SOLE person responsible you would understand too when payday is on friday and the paycheck you had just earned went to go fix someone’s ignorance. I know your going to say I’m lumping everyone into one category but I’d say its a 60/40 split…60% are decent renters and take care of things to a rental standard and 40% just simply dont care or dont know any different because that’s how they’ve always lived.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Jason,
Now you’re just being silly.
I can go with you on the idea that “grocers” aren’t likely to cause a boom (Northstar isn’t fueling this) but you’ve got to agree that the media has influence. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “so I hear prices are going up 28%,” like it is some kind of a pre-determined fact. When the SP prints, “Prices to rise” people believe it. Sad but true. By the way, if it ever goes the other way, the media will influence it down further than it should go as well.
I’m sorry I can’t help with the Quebec question. I’ve never heard this before either.
Thanks for reading Jason.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:00 PM
The self regulating market theories are readily debunked as not suitable for a society structured like our own. They oversimplify and generalize a process that is comprised of an almost endless combination of factors. This is guaranteed because in the theory of a free market, prices are determined by prices taken. This means the breakdown…
Person 1: I have this.
Person 2: I want that, take my money.
Person 1: Take this, thank you.
…is way too simple.
You cay say “the market will bear what it can bear”, but that is a handy little way to distract from reality. Economies go way deeper than laissez faire and to think it is that simple and that easy. Give me a break, you know better and are hoping a flat perspective will hamstring any disagreement.
All it proves is you don’t want to look deeper into the issue because you’re on safe ground.
Self regulating markets go wherever they would like and people have always been more than willing to accommodate increased costs.
It’s the sick libertarians and greedy capitalists who then take that as justification to do so.
People who believe in free markets also appreciate the ratcheting power of inflation and use it to their advantage.
I admit, there is no shortage of poor consumer habits, it is proven in every single market, including housing.
How much do you want to ignore about the United States before you accept that we’re simply following in their footsteps? It is impulsive right the way through. Both sides need to prevent our economy from turning into a trainwreck. Business owners need to lay off the greed and be happy with what they have (it’s already a disgusting lot more than what many are getting). Consumers need to smarten up and show a little backbone.
Talking about Saskatoon just not being for everyone anymore – that is a very elitist notion. I can’t even believe you would say that – it is as if you want to purify Saskatoon.
It’s like as if nobody wants to go into this with their eyes open. Any signs of warning get you taunted for being negative, or not able to cope.
Do you really want Saskatoon to be a city of “you can’t handle it”? I mean, let’s honestly think about what you’re implying by saying “If it’s too expensive in Saskatoon for someone they should consider moving elsewhere. Saskatoon is no longer a cheap place to live.”
I think what you want effectively shuts people out based on wealth.
These are homes we are talking about, not expensive sports cars or golf memberships. It isn’t unreasonable to think that everyone should have a shot at owning a home or if they choose, renting.
Another shortcoming of the rich: They just can’t put themselves in other peoples’ shoes.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Brett,
I really don’t know how you do it.
I recently sold a semi-detached that was built in 2005. I could have cried when I did my initial walk through. Tenant had just pulled a midnight move. I had no idea that people could be so friggin dirty. The house was disgusting. This was not a cheap rental. There were at least a hundred burns in the carpets. Appliances were totally shot. Almost every door had holes in it, knobs busted off of kitchen cabs. You name it.
I am obsessive about property. Drives my wife crazy when I park at the far end of the parking lot.
I couldn’t sleep at night with a stranger living in my place.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Define Rich Alex??
I am really curious to see what is Rich to you? Is it being able to wake up every morning not having to go to work because you have enough passive income coming in that you can do as you please? Is it driving Cadillac’s with spinning wheels and fancy mansions? Is it owning enough property for when you retire you dont have to count on CPP and false pension hopes they create in society today that are simply washed away in a downturn on the economy with poor fund manager decisions? Is it turning wrenches at a local automotive shop having a family who is happy and a house you own with a roof over your head and the ability to go out for a nice supper on a friday night without having to worry about how your going to make next months mortgage payment?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Well Sometimes I’m not sure either…to be honest my 1st midnight move out I will never forget, the tenant was $300 short on rent and said I could pick up the $600 she had and the rest on friday and being the good human I am I said no thats okay ill pick it all up on friday….called friday to arrange a time to pick up the rent and the phone was disconnected, went to the house and knocked on the door and all I heard was an echo…opened the door and yup my heart sunk right then and there, there was my 2nd rental property empty as can be with cat litter and bags of diapers and garbage all over….To say the least I cursed a few times, BUT i learnt my lesson, ALWAYS pick up rent when they have it and sask energy has a program where they email you as soon as a tenant applies for disconnect, so the NEXT time this happened I busted the tenants but not before they moved out, they made the mistake of going to mom and dad’s house they had listed as a reference on their application….the look on their face when I knocked on the door while their U haul was sitting in the driveway was PRICELESS LOL……”hi Chris” uhhhhh Ummmm uhhhh hi Brett….that time they left the place in a mess too but they did come and clean it up spick and span and I gave them the benefit of the doubt they’d go back and clean it the next evening like the promised after they had burnt me….and to my surpise on new years eve I walked in to my house being clean as a whistle….then 3 weeks later the new tenant moved in flushed the toilet and left the house for a few days to go back to their small town they were moving from to get the rest of their furniture and came back adn the toilet was plugged from the previous tenant and overflowed for 60 hours straight….now THAT made a guys heart sink…$65,000 insurance claim…but you know its kind of funny you USED to hear so many horror stories about rentals…now in the past year all you hear is I made this and I made that…but I am interested to see as things cool off in the next few years when you will hear the stories come back…i’ve had my share of them but from a guy who bought his first place 5 years ago with not a dime in his pocket to where things have gone today I dont think I would of done a darn thing different. The biggest advice I can give right now is make sure your rental properties are properly insured….SGI claims it would cost $92,000 at the time to rebuild that 800 sqft 1973 bilevel when it flooded, the contractor told me had it burnt to the ground it would of costed around $195,000 to rebuild and that was a year ago this month….SGI doesnt have guaranteed replacement cost on rentals so just my 2 cents to pass along to any clienst you have who may own a property or two to make sure their diversified in their retirement portfolio.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:09 PM
“”"”
Person 1: I have this.
Person 2: I want that, take my money.
Person 1: Take this, thank you.
…is way too simple.
“”"”
Arguing that a free market isn’t effective because it’s “way too simple” is weak Alex. Let’s see some real reasons as to why the free market doesn’t work.
“”"”"”"”"”"
Self regulating markets go wherever they would like and people have always been more than willing to accommodate increased costs.
“”"”"”"”"”"
Wrong. Let’s say that the cost of your Internet connection was going to increase to $650.00 next month. Would you accommodate this increase? There are many goods which are very inelastic and people will accommodate some price increases, but I can assure people do not accommodate all price increases. Price increases only happen when necessary. Why doesn’t Shaw increase Internet to 500.00/month — because they know that customer may use another provider or no Internet at all.
“”"”"”"”"”"”"
It’s the sick libertarians and greedy capitalists who then take that as justification to do so.
“”"”"”"”"”"”"
Alex, you are the greedy one! This is not a zero sum game. Just because I make money doesn’t mean it’s taking it from someone else. Wealth is created every second. You don’t have to begrudge others for doing well. I’m ecstatic that Norm can sell many homes, and I hope that you do well at whatever you do.
People who believe in free markets also appreciate the ratcheting power of inflation and use it to their advantage.
“”"”"”"
Inflation dilutes my investments on a daily basis; I can assure I don’t appreciate it.
“”"”"”
Talking about Saskatoon just not being for everyone anymore – that is a very elitist notion. I can’t even believe you would say that – it is as if you want to purify Saskatoon.
“”"”"”
I don’t want to purify Saskatoon of anybody. I wish that everyone will find great education and employment opportunities and succeed! If someone can’t afford living here though, they should look at alternatives. It’s the same reason I don’t live in Manhattan or in Whistler. Look at alternatives or increase your earnings. While definitely easier said than done, that is reality.
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”‘
Do you really want Saskatoon to be a city of “you can’t handle it”? I mean, let’s honestly think about what you’re implying by saying “If it’s too expensive in Saskatoon for someone they should consider moving elsewhere. Saskatoon is no longer a cheap place to live.”
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
Alex, you can’t handle the truth!
“”"”"”"”"”"
I think what you want effectively shuts people out based on wealth.
“”"”"”"”"”"
I’ve been broke and at those times I didn’t have the same opportunities as others. It’s how it works.
“”"”"”"
These are homes we are talking about, not expensive sports cars or golf memberships. It isn’t unreasonable to think that everyone should have a shot at owning a home or if they choose, renting.
“”"”"”"
Do you suggest we put in price ceilings?
“”"”"”
Another shortcoming of the rich: They just can’t put themselves in other peoples’ shoes.
“”"”"”
1.Alex, I’d put myself in your shoes, but I’d be a mile up *** creek and wearing your shoes.
2.As a 22 year old working student, I can assure you that I am not rich.
Alex, how do you propose we allocate the limited goods/services we have amongst everyone?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Brett,
While I understand the troubles that landlords encounter, it can definitely go both ways. I am a renter, and without trying to sound conceited I have always been an ideal tenant: clean, quiet, considerate, pays rent on time, etc.
When I was living in Winnipeg for a year I had the unfortunate luck of renting from a “slumlord”. The heat in the building would inexplicably shut off for a few days in mid-winter. The landlord could never be reached. There was nasty carpet in my bathroom and black mold on the ceiling of which I had to file a complaint with the health inspector in order to force him to renovate it. My car (and others) was snowed in for a week because he wouldn’t call snow removal for the parking lot. The list truly goes on!!! On top of it all when I moved out he didn’t even show up for the ‘walk-out’ inspection and tried to screw me out of my security deposit. It took ONE WHOLE YEAR with all of my records, pictures, receipts through the Rentalsman in Manitoba to finally get my claim settled and have my security deposit returned to me.
So there’s slum-tenants and slumlords and the only way you can try to protect yourself is by asking for references.
Jake,
The internet example you gave is a bit outrageous. If you’re trying to make a comparison, Saskatoon’s housing market inflated 47% over the past year. If a person is paying $35 for internet service that would bring it to $51.45 comparitively. People would DEFINITELY pay it if there were no cheaper service providers. But because there IS other competition, companies are keeping their prices reasonable. With a free market the dynamics are completely different! Everyone will keep hiking their prices and there’s no incentive for individuals to keep their prices low. (Which brings us back to supply and demand) People can live without home internet, but living without a home is much tougher. This is part of the reason why real estate in Saskatoon skyrocketed. People are pulling out mortgages beyond their means and/or with longer amortization periods, desperation is driving it.
“…how do you propose we allocate the limited goods/services we have amongst everyone?”
The only reason they may seem limited is because people in Canada and the U.S. are OVER-consuming! We’re like kids in a candy store with no adults watching! If we don’t start self-regulating it will ultimately lead to our demise. (In terms of a recession… and further down the road the collapse of government)
May 20th, 2009 at 3:10 PM
We need sustainability!
http://www.wearemanyfestival.com/
May 20th, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Heather,
Well when you moved into this unit was it not in the shape you described or did you live there for many years. If things were that bad why wouldnt you take it upon yourself to do the renovations yourself and deduct it from your rent. Snow removal I guess that depends on your rental agreement but most rental agreements do not stipulate any snow removal in them so I guess One has to get out their shovel or call a bobcat company just like any of us home owners. I beleive most people rent as they have short term uncertainty in regards to relocating or personal situations or the convenience of not having to worry about major expenses. If your not happy hand in your 30 days notice and move to the next location, if your in a lease, sub-lease your unit…I’m not sure why anyone would stay somewhere they are not happy to be in?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Brett,
When I was in Winnipeg there weren’t lots of rental units available, especially for a price I could afford or I would have moved out. No the unit wasn’t in very good shape when I moved in, but when there are health violations they need to be dealt with by the landlord. I didn’t realize when I moved in that the bathroom could affect my health. Of course I would have done the renos myself if I didn’t think it would have resulted in an eviction notice because of refusing to pay the full rent. I know you’re defensive being a landlord yourself, but this guy was a true slimeball, he used all sorts of dirty tactics to avoid any financial responsibility for his rental units.
I agree some people might rent based on uncertainty of location, or not having to worry about major expenses or grounds upkeep. (Of course the latter two points can be mostly absolved by owning a condo) But I know a lot of people who rent simply because they can’t afford to buy a property. From what I observe this is the majority.
If you say that most rental agreements don’t stipulate snow removal, does that not also include grounds upkeep? Then why do any of the apartments I have lived in bother with yard maintenance, or snow removal? Do they do it out of the kindness of their hearts? I doubt it. BTW I shoveled plenty of snow out from around my car and in the main pathway in anticipation that it would get plowed. It would have taken me a few hours to dig the rest of the path to the exit. That’s unreasonable and much more than the average home owner shovels.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Why do they up keep the grounds in summer? Simple…Property Value….if you let your lawn go it grows weeds and its a city bylaw to have your lawn at X height….Snow removal isnt and if you start doing the math of what those buildings cost to run and upkeep if a guy can save himself $3000 over winter by not doing snow removal I dont blame him…alot of these owners this is their income…and the whole condo thing about not having to worry about majoy expenses is the worst i’ve heard yet!! Are you aware that if your reserve fund is under funded and a major repair comes up or the majority vote to do a renovation you have to pay for this all in 1 shot usually. I know of a complex here that every owner was given notice jan 1st to pay $2000 by june 30th so they can put new vynyl siding on over the original 1980′s cedar siding and if you ask me theirs nothing wrong with the current siding however majority rules…condo’s definately have their down falls. I still beleive that any rental unit is your own property and you choose to maintain it to preserve it’s value and of course charge a higher rent. If someone agrees to live in sub standard apartment and of course would be paying a sub standard rent why should the landlord be obligated to do repairs? about 75% of our houses have been fully renovated in the past 3 years and the tenants pay a premium rent to live with that…the other 25…well I can say that they arent nearly as nice however the rent is much lower and therefor the tenants get what they pay for. I guess to the moral of the story if someones willing to pay x amount to live somewhere they will always get what they pay for. We live in the land of opportunity and I beleive the only reason people dont go out and EARN more to live to a higher standard is comfort or lazyness….we’re all created equal are we not?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:12 PM
ALL of the tenants living in rental units this is their HOME! Are people not entitled (equally) to a home that is free from black mold, and is heated during the winter? I was never implying that aesthetically pleasing properties should be available at a low cost, DON’T put words in my mouth! It is my understanding that in Canada when a person is renting their residence they have rights to basic needs… but I could be mistaken.
As far as snow removal goes I DO blame the landlord for not clearing the main pathway in parking lots. But hey, if it’s not enforced in the bylaws ultimately it’s the city’s fault for not stipulating it.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I hope the people read your last post. Council should force Heather and Alex to rent their homes.
John Philips
Best Apartments In Alabama