The landlord had told them he wanted to raise the rent to $3,500 and when they complained he decided to raise it to $9,500.

“We know that our building is not rent controlled and this was something we were always worried about happening and there is no way we can afford $9,500 per month," Yumna Farooq said.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    Isn’t there another similar unit somewhere you could buy, then? You’re right, it sounds like your landlord isn’t serving much of a role here.

    • jcrm@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      There is not. An equivalently sized apartment in my neighbourhood is on the market for $1.6M at least. Because the only things being built are “luxury” units made for investment, not housing people.

      Also, I wouldn’t qualify for a mortgage equal to my rent despite the fact I’ve been paying rent at that rate for nearly a decade.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        And you think your apartment is worth a lot less? I don’t know if I buy that, honestly, unless it’s an absolute tear-down. I’ve played with markets enough to learn that there’s never an easy shortcut.

        • jcrm@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Alright, I’m done being nice here.

          Yes, it is worth less. I know because they just did a valuation of it a week ago. A mortgage on it would be affordable for me. I don’t care what’s “believable” for you. Fuck off.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, I know, because the banks also have to make money. So then OP can’t actually pay a mortgage for the same price, if you include downpayment and all those sort of things.

        • jcrm@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Why do banks have to make money though? What purpose do they serve that couldn’t be served better by an entity that doesn’t need to make a profit?

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            No reason, there are credit unions too, my riding association uses one, and I personally bank with my province. They still function like banks, though, and when they give out loans they expect interest in turn for not having the money to use themselves (basically), and various other things to ensure you can actually pay them back.

            If you’re wondering why we can’t just give houses out freely, it’s because the construction workers have to do tangible work that sucks and will want to be taken care of in turn. The only convincing way I’ve seen to ensure that in a complex industrial society involves currency of some kind, and then you’re right back to banks.

            Now, you could ask why landlords get to have so much more money than their tenants in the first place, and I’d say dunno, seems dumb. I never said I loved capitalism, I’m just not sure why landlords are worse than all the other Guys That Own Things.

            • jcrm@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I understand how banks work, and that labour has to be compensated, but thanks for being condescending and somehow taking away that I want to abolish currency?

              First: We could absolutely be giving homes away and still compensate the people that build them. Finland has been having huge success by (in some degree) giving housing away, or providing it at cost.

              Second: saying there’s bigger evils out there doesn’t mean landlords get a pass. Especially in Canada where our housing costs are skyrocketing DIRECTLY because of landlords, corporate or otherwise. Them being any better or worse doesn’t matter when they’re the biggest problem RIGHT NOW.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                but thanks for being condescending and somehow taking away that I want to abolish currency?

                I don’t actually know you that well, and there’s no shortage of people who do want to abolish currency on Lemmy so it’s good to get ahead of. Sorry if I came off as condescending, I’m actually enjoying this particular sub-chain, you’re bringing up lots of important stuff.

                First: We could absolutely be giving homes away and still compensate the people that build them. Finland has been having huge success by (in some degree) giving housing away, or providing it at cost.

                Well, yeah, the government could buy housing and then give it away at a loss. That could be an effective form of wealth redistribution, but we wouldn’t have more houses as a result, which brings me to…

                Especially in Canada where our housing costs are skyrocketing DIRECTLY because of landlords

                I don’t think that’s really accurate. They might be contributing a little, but we actually just have measurably too few houses for an economy of our size and development level.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              You’ve said things that are objectively true and I can’t refuse, so I’m just going to angrily downvote instead.