New accommodations facility at CFB Esquimalt and plan to build more homes on military bases

[childs56]

Sounds to me like they should have been denied.

Making a poor investment (i.e. paying too much for a rental property and mortgage) doesn’t mean you should be allowed to price gouge your way out of it.

That is one way to look at it. The other way is intrest rates have gone through the roof why is it acceptable for the owner to take the loss?
Cost of renting that property would be x amount of dollars based on cost to borrow the money. Expecting the owner to take a loss is not in the best intrest of all involved either.

When they bought the property they should have known what the rent was. They should have done a cost/profit risk analysis to see if it was worth it. If they can’t afford it they can sell to someone else who can, even if it means they take a loss, thats how it goes. Nothing says in business you should always be making a profit.

From reading the article the intrest rate hiked significantly and the cost was reasonably passed onto the customer.(consumer)
The home owner nor the renters can control the costs associated with inflation. The government sure can and they don't.

Poor arbitration decision, that could have negative impacts on all sorts of renters.

I disagree, it was an unfortunate outcome for the renter. But the cost is the cost and it was an unreasonable intrest rate (again governments control these) that caused the significant increase.
Expecting the land owner to absorb those costs is unreasonable.

 

[Booter]

Not so long ago, they issued a contract to refurbish the Seaforth Armoury. Apparently they neglected to included any telecommunications installation into that contract. The Seaforth's were delayed moving back into, till a contract could be issued and completed to install working telecommunications.

Is this a heritage building issue? Like you’re allowed to repair the building but implementing new tech or expanded capacity is an issue.

I’m in the car but I feel like this was an issue in updating the messes in heritage buildings for PRES when I was still an officer.

So you keep certain contracts really sharp because it’s such an ordeal to get a….fax line

 

[Furniture]

That is one way to look at it. The other way is intrest rates have gone through the roof why is it acceptable for the owner to take the loss?
Cost of renting that property would be x amount of dollars based on cost to borrow the money. Expecting the owner to take a loss is not in the best intrest of all involved either.

From reading the article the intrest rate hiked significantly and the cost was reasonably passed onto the customer.(consumer)
The home owner nor the renters can control the costs associated with inflation. The government sure can and they don't.

I disagree, it was an unfortunate outcome for the renter. But the cost is the cost and it was an unreasonable intrest rate (again governments control these) that caused the significant increase.
Expecting the land owner to absorb those costs is unreasonable.

27%... Interest didn't go up that much, so there was a lot of poor planning that lead to a rate hike that high to keep the owners head above water.

 

[childs56]

27%... Interest didn't go up that much, so there was a lot of poor planning that lead to a rate hike that high to keep the owners head above water.

I have co workers and friends whose mortgages payments doubled over the last couple years.
It's possible

 

[Quirky]

Oh, I’ll go!

Because the health care system in Manitoba couldn’t take the strain?

How about Moosomin?

Town near Manitoba-Saskatchewan border offering $30K to new residents - Winnipeg | Globalnews.ca

A small town just west of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border is looking for new residents, and according to the mayor, they're willing to make it worth your while.

globalnews.ca

15 doctors apparently.

 

[dapaterson]

I have co workers and friends whose mortgages payments doubled over the last couple years.
It's possible

They accepted the risk of rates changing rather than locking in.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Is this a heritage building issue? Like you’re allowed to repair the building but implementing new tech or expanded capacity is an issue.

I’m in the car but I feel like this was an issue in updating the messes in heritage buildings for PRES when I was still an officer.

So you keep certain contracts really sharp because it’s such an ordeal to get a….fax line

More of a case of totally neglecting to contract for the reinstall of all the phone and internet lines back into the building. thereby making it "unsafe" to occupy for another 6 months.

 

[suffolkowner]

They accepted the risk of rates changing rather than locking in.

5 yrs new rate no matter what. 2025 and 2026 will be worse probably

 

[Fabius]

They accepted the risk of rates changing rather than locking in.

And if the costs of providing a service or product increase businesses generally increase the cost to consumers for those services and products.

 

[Eaglelord17]

And if the costs of providing a service or product increase businesses generally increase the cost to consumers for those services and products.

Most services or products are optional, housing isn’t. We have laws dictating in most provinces how much rates can be raised based on inflation, which is a fair way to do it. As a business you would expect them to know and understand that as it’s a key part of your profit model.

That is one way to look at it. The other way is intrest rates have gone through the roof why is it acceptable for the owner to take the loss?
Cost of renting that property would be x amount of dollars based on cost to borrow the money. Expecting the owner to take a loss is not in the best intrest of all involved either.

From reading the article the intrest rate hiked significantly and the cost was reasonably passed onto the customer.(consumer)
The home owner nor the renters can control the costs associated with inflation. The government sure can and they don't.

I disagree, it was an unfortunate outcome for the renter. But the cost is the cost and it was an unreasonable intrest rate (again governments control these) that caused the significant increase.
Expecting the land owner to absorb those costs is unreasonable.

So its reasonable to expect the renter to take the hit instead? A property owner has options, such as selling, etc. Who knows the exact details, maybe that building has increased in value and they can sell at a profit. Maybe it hasn’t and they take a hit. But thats the risks of speculative buying.

They had the option to not buy the building in the first place. They had the option to save and not have a mortgage. They had the knowledge of what the interest rates were and the risks associated with variable rates.

Someone renting doesn’t have the same abilities. If they can’t afford the rent they don’t get to go to the tenant board and ask for a reduction in rent because they can’t afford it, they get kicked out on to the street instead.

If you can’t afford to pay the mortgage off the rent, maybe you shouldn’t have bought that investment property. If you failed to learn what the laws were regarding it you shouldn’t have invested a ton of money into it. Like any investment it can go sour, and it shouldn’t be up to everyone else to bail them out.

 

[Fabius]

Interestingly enough, every single renter is dependent on someone willing to allow them the use of THEIR property in exchange for a certain fee.
Very very few do so simply out of the goodness of their heart. Given the various regulations and constraints that exist on property owners vs tenants it’s impressive that there is still significant rentals available. A bad tenant can utterly ruin the financial capacities of an owner.

Housing maybe not be optional and some may state that it’s a right but without someone owning the property and willing to rent it out, it’s irrelevant whether it’s a right or non optional.

There is a balance between the owner and tenant for sure but we need to be careful we don’t tilt too far to the tenant. That will only hurt all tenants when the rental units all disappear.

 

[KevinB]

5 yrs new rate no matter what. 2025 and 2026 will be worse probably

Down here you can actually lock your rate for 30 years. Upside is that if you buy at a good time, you get a solid rate on your mortgage while your house value goes up and up.

Downside is you also can get stuck paying more if the market downturns.

My wife and I got our house built in 2020 (well moved in, in 2020). So we got a very very nice rate — buying now would result in our mortgage being almost 4x due to rising rates. The only crappy thing is rising prices raise our property taxes - while the services don’t change.

 

[YZT580]

Interestingly enough, every single renter is dependent on someone willing to allow them the use of THEIR property in exchange for a certain fee.
Very very few do so simply out of the goodness of their heart. Given the various regulations and constraints that exist on property owners vs tenants it’s impressive that there is still significant rentals available. A bad tenant can utterly ruin the financial capacities of an owner.

Housing maybe not be optional and some may state that it’s a right but without someone owning the property and willing to rent it out, it’s irrelevant whether it’s a right or non optional.

There is a balance between the owner and tenant for sure but we need to be careful we don’t tilt too far to the tenant. That will only hurt all tenants when the rental units all disappear.

Well said.

 

[suffolkowner]

Interestingly enough, every single renter is dependent on someone willing to allow them the use of THEIR property in exchange for a certain fee.
Very very few do so simply out of the goodness of their heart. Given the various regulations and constraints that exist on property owners vs tenants it’s impressive that there is still significant rentals available. A bad tenant can utterly ruin the financial capacities of an owner.

Housing maybe not be optional and some may state that it’s a right but without someone owning the property and willing to rent it out, it’s irrelevant whether it’s a right or non optional.

There is a balance between the owner and tenant for sure but we need to be careful we don’t tilt too far to the tenant. That will only hurt all tenants when the rental units all disappear.

so is that how we want to organize our society? Is it working? Since there is so much problems with rentals why do we encourage so much of it?