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.
It shows that “no rent control” basically means “your landlord can throw you out at any time without notice” by raising rent to a ludicrous amount. It completely undermines all other tenant protections. Even conservatives should be supporting at least modest rent controls to prevent cases like this.
Yes, rent control, our panacea.
Negative Effects on Supply: Rent control can potentially lead to housing shortages over the long term. When landlords are unable to raise rents to cover maintenance and operating costs or to generate a reasonable return on their investment, they may have less incentive to maintain or invest in their properties. This can lead to a deterioration in the quality of rental housing and a reduction in the overall supply of rental units. In some cases, landlords may convert rental properties into other uses, such as condominiums or commercial spaces, further reducing the supply of rental housing.
Inefficiencies and Reduced Mobility: Rent control can lead to inefficiencies in the housing market. Tenants in rent-controlled units may have less incentive to move, even if their housing needs change, because they want to keep their low rents. This reduced mobility can make it harder for new renters to find suitable housing.
Selective Impact: Rent control often applies to older buildings or units built before a certain date. This can create disparities in rent levels between newer and older housing stock, potentially discouraging the construction of new rental units and leading to further imbalances in the housing market.
A short term band-aid that causes long term problems. Government price controls are a tale as old as time.
Nice ChatGPT copypasta, bro
It was a lot faster than writing it myself
Sure, but it’s irrelevant. There’s no economical rigor behind those statements. They could be true, they could be hallucinated.
They must have really pissed off the landlord. It doesn’t say what they asked for in the lease agreement changes… Or what they said to him when they “complained” when he raised the rent initially by a smaller amount.
Still ridiculous that it’s legal to raise rent by that much, but oof, if you’re in one of those buildings, be nice to your landlord.
Edit: i think people are taking what I said the wrong way - I’m saying with the way things are, if landlords can get away with this, they hold all the power!
Edit2: I guess I’m the bad guy here, but I recommend you focus your rage on Ford who set this shit up in the first place.
raised the rent initially by a smaller amount.
You write ‘doubled’ funny.
Source on doubled? There’s no mention in the article of the initial rent
Edit: For all we know the initial rent increase could have been $50. But sure, I’m the bad guy for pointing out lack of info
Sisters Khadeja and Yumna Farooq say a Toronto landlord is raising their rent by $7,000 per month
Which means an initial rent of about $2500? So not doubled.
Good catch. And yet I’m getting downvoted 🤷♂️
Witch hunts on lemmy are even more indiscriminate than they were on Reddit. There’s just no in between.
You said there is no information on the initial rent, but there is. So why should people not down vote you?
