- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Why does occupancy even matter in terms of the amount of rent? You’re leasing the space. Maybe the argument is “wear and tear,” or if utilities are included? Even so, $600/mo is a ridiculous amount even for an additional permanent adult tenant.
Something tells me that there might be more to this story. It sounds like the landlord wants these tenants out of the residence, and doesn’t want to (or can’t) go through an eviction proceeding. This nonsense amounts to “constructive eviction.” Why does the landlord want these tenants out?
I could see it for wear and tear, and also to discourage subletting maybe? Makes no sense for children to count if it’s the second one
If you want to discourage subletting, you put a clause in the lease that forbids subletting. Sure, an additional adult would generate some additional wear and tear, but certainly not $600/mo worth. Besides which, the wear and tear cost would come in the form of post-tenancy cleaning, carpet, paint - and none of those have a real difference in cost whether you have two or three adult tenants.
It’s more than those things.
It’s more cycles on the laundry machines. You cook more so the stove might wear out faster since things seem to break easier nowadays.
Damage just happens as well in a tenancy, maybe you drop something big that damages the hardwood floors. The security deposit will cover that, but the more people, the more chance for more expensive damage, and you aren’t getting a bigger deposit.
$600/m is still nuts though.
B.C.’s Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, told Global News Monday that this couple’s landlord should “give himself a head shake” but he is in a legal position to do this.
“I mean, this is the challenge that we have with sometimes landlords and tenants. Most landlords are good people and they operate in a good, transparent way. But this is a situation in which reminds us that we need to continue to find ways to strengthen the rules to ensure that the tenants are protected when they move into new places,” Kahlon said.
I really don’t understand why people keep perpetuating the belief that vast majority of landlord are anything but for profit investors and society should treat them as such.
This loophole has existed and been used unfairly for a long time now I really don’t understand why they haven’t amended the RTA to at least cap the extra occupancy increase and exempt a reasonable amount of children.
‘This is complete bullshit, but what on Earth could the government do about abusive business practices?,’ Kahlon said.
Sounds like the baby is going to need to get its diapered ass down to the employment center on day one. Ain’t no free ride here.
Where did my mans find the money to buy diapers?
I am totally against biting landlords. Absolutely. I condemn people clawing landlords faces. Landlords are human beings that definitely shouldn’t be punched in the face repeatedly, because they’re not parasites.
Chairman Mao redistributed the land of 700, 000 landlords to those who had none, and executed them, and personally I think thats just taking things a little bit too far.
I absolutely completely agree! If given the position I would not do exactly the same. I wouldn’t make money unnecessary and even completely pointless. In that, I’m a lot like Trump! I’m not even being sarcastic saying so.
B.C.’s Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, told Global News Monday that this couple’s landlord should “give himself a head shake” but he is in a legal position to do this. “I mean, this is the challenge that we have with sometimes landlords and tenants. Most landlords are good people and they operate in a good, transparent way. But this is a situation in which reminds us that we need to continue to find ways to strengthen the rules to ensure that the tenants are protected when they move into new places,” Kahlon said. “I mean, having a child should not mean that all of a sudden your rent should be going up 300, $400 over a short period of time. And so we’re going to be looking to make changes into the future.” Kahlon said in this case, he urges the landlord to do the right thing and make an exception for this couple. “But it’s a reminder that we have to make more protections for tenants because in the environment that we’re in right now, moving when you have a child is simply unacceptable,” Kahlon added.
This is infuriating. You are the fucking minister. Don’t just nod along saying “we need to do better”. DO BETTER. If the rules make no sense to you, get new rules. Yesterday. It’s your fucking job.
Lol he needs to find a way. If only there was a solution lol. If only there was somebody who could do something. Capitalism is a mental illness
Our current politicians have almost completely been sold out. It’s just empty words now as they sell off the country.
Why are children being considered occupants?
Probably because, with the cost of housing nowadays, a baby can grow up and stay with their parents in that apartment until they’re 40 years old. That would mean there’s an additional adult in that unit.
Then the question would be, at what age a child should be considered an additional occupant?When they are done school and working full time, they are an occupant.
Probably because they occupy space and utilities.
The space is already paid for and utilities already scale with usage.
And how exactly does that justify charging extra rent on a space that is already paid for?
Its to prevent a family of say 2, moving in 6 more people with same rent amount. a large amount of residents does increase wear on a unit. The baby needing to be accounted for is just bullshit though.
Even the excuse behind the rule is bullshit. I can see how more people can equate to more utilities, but not additional rent on the unit. If people are clean and respectful, who gives a shit how many people are living there? Wear and tear is just a lame excuse to make a money grab when the unit isn’t being brought up to new standard in between each tenant.
It happens though, carpet wears out faster, more people means more potential wall damage, appliances are doing double or triple duty cycles…and will fail sooner… Have you ever been to a single uni dorm vs multiple tennanted? The more people the less everyone takes onus of the place and it gets trashed. The law ahould have a cap, so it is not extortion, and landlord should consider how low or high risk the temnants are. For example there are affordable rent housing, city owned buildings, in some cities. The tennants for whatever reason (drugs, mental health) tear off moldings, pull sections of drywall off, remove fixture items. The more people in a unit like that the more chance it will get destroyed. I don’t think everyone is like that ( i remted for 10 years and treated it as my own home) but it does happen.
I like how you simply give an answer to the question and get downvoted. It’s not like you’re defending it. This website is full of idiots.
Looks like this would be illegal in the USA: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/ASIAN_FAMILY_BLUE.PDF
Why in the world they didn’t change the name of that PDF is beyond me.
hahaha I wonder what other options were presented. Maybe GAY_COUPLE_GREEN.PDF or MIXED_RACE_BABIES_SO_CUTE.PDF
Smart parents would have been collecting sublet rent for nine months from the fetus and investing it in Bitcoin.
Just say the baby is a pet primate. Problem solved.
That’ll be an additional months rent security deposit, and $200/mo pet fee.
deleted by creator
Since when has there been an expectation that all jokes should be politically correct…?
I dont even see how the joke is politically incorrect.
You can just feel the hate dripping off that one, can you?
I don’t think they’re the tone deaf one.
“We also told them that my mom is coming to visit. The son said that my mom is going to be considered an occupant,” Maynard said.
It comes down to this:
- read your lease agreement
- don’t assume your provider is your friend
Also:
- Don’t volunteer information to the landlord.
I had (my opinion has changed) what I imagine is an unpopular opinion that people with dependants should be taxed more heavily (except in cases where they’re already under the poverty line), not less. I’m from the US but a quick search indicates that Canada works similarly. Feel free to correct this ignorant American if that’s inaccurate (not /s)
But I’m also incensed by this article. I realize that this is greed of the rentee and not government taxation. But still, going after a couple financially for wanting to start a family rubs me the wrong way. So my opinions need adjustment, I think.
Yup, that’s an unreasonable opinion you have there buddy. In fact, here in Canada, people with kids get the Canada child benefit (CCB).
Yeah, they do. I’ve thought this for… years. But I’ve never actually put it to words. Now that I have, I feel like a self interested asshole. But I’m capable of change.
And that said, CCB seems like a pretty good system. It makes me think of earned income tax credit here. Not the same thing, but it’s fairly sizable tax credits for those with low income and dependents.
This will literally never happen because economies need babies and population numbers to sustain themselves. It’s why countries like Japan and to some extent the US are freaking out about declining populations.
Why do you think people with dependants should be taxed more heavily? Is it an overpopulation thing?
Overpopulation is a genuine concern of mine, and I would probably focus on that point if I were explaining it to someone face to face so as to hopefully not come across as an asshole.
But there’s a selfish reason as well. I get taxed pretty hard, and it occurred to me that people with dependants consume more while contributing less per person (assuming similar income levels). Which frustrated me. But like I said, I’m rethinking this. I want a more socialist society, and that line of thinking does not fit.
Hmm… As to the second point, I’d argue that people with dependants are contributing, by having dependants. Giving them a tax break is sort of like paying them to take care of things that the state would have to take care of otherwise, in the form of orphanages, daycares, food banks, public nursing homes, etc. At that point, it’s just an efficiency question: is it better to tax parents less (so they have to work fewer hours and can take care of their kids), or is it better to run more after-school programs (so the parents can work while someone else takes care of their kids)? Should we tax them less so they can buy food and shelter, or just give them food and shelter? The answer isn’t cleanly one or the other, but falls somewhere between “give them money (by taxing less)” and “give them stuff” for each thing that people provide for their dependants.
As for overpopulation, once people are already born, it’s too late. Incentives should prevent people from being born in the first place, but not punish the parents of the already-born (and the already-born themselves). To do that you could do normal birth-rate-reducing things like comprehensive sex ed and ensuring easy access to birth control, or go at it from the other side: streamline the adoption process and incentivize people to adopt rather than procreate.
Those are great points and well stated. I hadn’t looked at those things from those perspectives. In particular these hit home:
is it better to tax parents less (so they have to work fewer hours and can take care of their kids)
Taxing families and single parents more effectively robs them of time with their kids. I don’t want that.
And the general idea behind your overpopulation statement. Punishing those that have or want children financially isn’t the way. Making societal changes is.
Overpopulation is a genuine concern of mine,
Developed countries have fewer children than necessary to maintain their population. If overpopulation is your concern, you have to look elsewhere, and the measures you need to prevent it will be different.
But the whole idea of tax is… Why even pay tax if you only get to use it based on your income? You legend
You’re right.
My income is higher than average for my area (not by a lot), and so of course my tax contribution is higher. That makes sense and is how it should work. That in general never bothered me.
I’m trying to think of what triggered my irritation specifically for tax breaks for those with dependants in the first place and I’m coming up empty. Regardless, I was wrong to think that way.
I don’t really know, but having a kid is already a big financial stress and you pay taxes on everything you spend on your kid, it’s not like it’s tax free. So you shouldn’t think it’s not fair, it really is pretty hard having kids
Your opinions do need adjustments. I have two kids and if I get taxed more, I’m literally majorly fucked. Life is hard as is with the current tax system, and taxing me more would make it hell. God damn, you stressed me out 😂
Sorry to have caused you stress! I hope for more breathing room financially for you and yours.
Thank you.
