• BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.