this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
150 points (99.3% liked)
Canada
9681 readers
672 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Give'r Gaming (gaming)
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have a much more clear cut policy:
Occasionally someone has a big place and someone has a small place, but this would solve way more issues.
It really wouldn't.
A) It prevents renting at all except for basement suites. So no more rental buildings, which make up the majority of rentals available. Renting is an important housing option, as not everyone wants to own, nor should they have to. Move to a city to go to university, and you have to buy a house just to live in for 2-4 years before you have to sell it to move elsewhere for a job? Have a job that requires you go somewhere else for a few months while you , too bad hotel for 6 months instead of being able to rent an apartment.
B) If you do the math and even take out dedicated rental buildings, there really aren't that many homes that are owned as a second place. It's about 15% of the total market, and a large chunk of that are cottages and lake houses away from the cities where people actually want to live.
The big place/small place issue is actually more of a problem than the the double ownership you're talking about. There are more total bedrooms in Canada than there are people, and once you account for couples usually sharing a bedroom, there's actually a ton of extra bedrooms across the country. The problem is that they're not distributed properly across the population, 4+ bedroom family homes that were bought to raise children are being kept for decades by empty-nest couples who don't want to downsize.
That's true, rentals are important. So how about instead mom and pop landlords can rent a couple/small number of units, but anything above that you must register as a corporation and the tenants union gets to be on the board, and there are strong incentives to turn you into a housing cooperative. Let's throw in some more tenant protection legislation for good measure.
Basically, treat housing as a right, not as a financial asset, an investment, or a profit-driven enterprise.
I agree with you on the second part, but even allowing a single home still keeps housing as an investment/profit generator.
You have to actually do something to force every owner to lose(or at least never make) money. Hence my original suggestion to heavily tax homes and return that to citizens equally.
But zero rentals is a feature, not a bug. Its the point. :)
Everyone gets a grace period, say 18 months, to sell their excess properties, and after that the state expropriates. Or landlord can opt in to expropriation during the grace period. The reimbursement they will get for the properties decreases during the grace period to incentivize people to do it earlier. Maybe almost nothing by the end. Then the state can run them directly or parcel to some structure to administer and fund for maintenance. Existing tenants get to stay where they are if they want.(
Presto chango we have massive public housing.
Idk about making old people move. Its really hard to do. Usually a terrible drama in their lives when forced. Where do you think they should all go?
I think if you were going to do it by bedroom, each person should get 1 room even in a couple because it isn't just about sleeping. A lot of people will appreciate an office or hobby room or something. It isn't healthy to be stuck in a room with another person all the time. I don't believe in penalizing people for being partnered. Welfare programs do it a lot and it really fucks with peoples lives. They have to chose between being "officially" partnered and getting full benefits as individuals, in which case their romantic relationship constitutes fraud. It also really enforces abusive situations because it enables control in bad situations. Imagine if your job could just cut your pay by 70% because they find out your in a LTR.
Canada is fucking huge we have enough space for each person to have 1 room.
My suggestion to add significant property taxes essentially does the same thing, since you're "renting" from the government when you pay those. Then it applies properly to everyone, and it's not some half cooked system that people can exploit.
"You think? I mean I'd rather high taxes compared to the status quo. But in my version there is the "let us take it off your hands" option, where it ends up in public ownership. Yours just has the properties swirling around some private market.
In most jurisdictions, the landlord tenant relationship includes duties on the landlord with regard to services, standards etc. In Ontario they have to keep the unit a minimum temperature, fix the roof if it leaks, provide safe electricity etc. It also offers the landlord the remedy of eviction should the tenant fail to pay rent for a while.
There is nothing at all like that with paying taxes. The government hardly even enforces the regulations on the landlord. And I've never heard of anybody getting evicted for non-payment of property taxes. So I dunno what you are on about.
I'll admit my idea is half cooked, I'm no policy wonk.
Rent is inherently exploitative: the landlord is forcing people, usually with less wealth/power, to pay them a fee to avoid being evicted. The fee is greater than the costs incurred = profit. My proposal doesn't completely eliminate that but would substantial reduce that. If provides no new avenue of exploitation that I can see.
People should be allowed to purchase the rights to control land and buildings, it allows them to make more serious changes (construction, renos, landscaping) that they care about. It also allows for long term stability in terms of not getting evicted.
In my system for renters, the duties of a landlord are still taken care of by landlords, since it would still be perfectly legal to own a property and rent it out. It's the same as now, except instead of the landlord making a profit off the month rent AND the property inflating in value over time, they can only make a reasonable profit off the monthly rent and even then only if they're using the land efficiently. It's not the concept of renting that's broken the market, it's the fact that instead of just being a value added service (taking care of the repairs, utilities, etc.) the current market has made it a long term investment. Force it back to just a value added service (like renting cars) and it will be fine.
Governments force the sales of properties all the time over unpaid taxes.
No it isn't, that's only the case when the market fails like a situation with a finite amount of land in a specific area. There's nothing inherently exploitative about renting cars to people, or renting a garden tool you only use once a year, or renting a paddle board for a trip to the lake, or renting a hotel room while travelling.
Once you push the land efficiency aspect via taxes, the land limitation drops off significantly and we can go back to having apartment/home rentals just be something landlords do to earn a little bit of money for providing a service, rather than it doubling their investment every 5 years.