the winnipeg sandbox
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

Province changes apartment rules to protect renters

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

By: Bruce Owen

The province introduced sweeping changes to today to protect apartment renters from condo conversions.

The new rules will be phased in over the coming months and will give renters more rights against excessive rent increases and unfair eviction, Consumer Affairs Minister Gord Mackintosh said at a news briefing.

The new rules will spell out for landlords that if they want to upgrade a building, and qualify for whole-building rehabilitation approval, they will have to improve two major building items, such as plumbing and heating, instead of just one, and will have to spend more on a per-unit basis.

Another change is when landlords apply for a rent increase above the provincial guideline, they will have to recover the cost of major repairs over eight years instead of the current six.

That will save renters money as it will be paced over a longer period of time.

For instance, on a $100,000 roof and foundation upgrade to a 12-unit apartment building, which would allow an owner to increase rent above the yearly guideline, each tenant would pay almost $350 less in increased rent each year under the new rules than under the old ones. On a $50,000 upgrade to a 12-unit building, each tenant would pay $172 less in increased rent each year under the new rules.

Other new tenant rights, such as tenure rights, would also be introduced to protect tenants who are evicted for renovations in cases where units are re-rented after conversion to condominiums. The province is also working with students and universities to develop more rights for students living in residences, and with landlords on a package to allow more renters to live with pets. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Province-changes-apartment-rules-to-protect-renters-122178724.html

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Is it any wonder developers and investors are reluctant to really invest in this province?

People whine about there being inadequate housing available yet the ndp keeps stacking it up making private investment more and more challenging. We can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

If the province wants more affordable housing make it EASIER for investors to make a dime. Mandate that 10% (or 5% or 15%) of every development MUST be made available to low income earners. Then we don't have those gang-infested gulags festering in every corner of the city.

Let positive peer pressure go to work.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

tenure?

WTF? really?

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

In the ndp, yup. Own the building? Too bad. That tenant has TENURE... So Frick you and Frick your ability to get a decent return on your investment.

You get what you vote for...

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

Triniman

Triniman
general-contributor
general-contributor

So much for the NDP willing to do anything to get re-elected. At this rate, they'll be lucky to form the official opposition.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

Triniman wrote:So much for the NDP willing to do anything to get re-elected. At this rate, they'll be lucky to form the official opposition.

HAH!!... Take one 20 unit apartment.

That would be 20- 60 people voting for the NDP and 1 to 3 against ( owner and family)


Too bad most renters dont vote though.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Triniman wrote:So much for the NDP willing to do anything to get re-elected. At this rate, they'll be lucky to form the official opposition.
Poetic justice. The federal election surely sent a message to Manitoba provincial parties. Maybe selinger heard and is now sel(ling)er out. McFadyen is totally oblivious to everything it seems...

JT Estoban

JT Estoban
major-contributor
major-contributor

Tenure 'eh?

...in this case I'd postulate that it's just another word for "squatters rights" (aka "adverse possession")

straight from the euphemism department.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

How about this for a rule.. Will solve everything

Apartment building owner A wants to sell to apartment buyer B. B and A agree on a price, conditionally B states he will be doing X to the apartment block. Renters in said apartment block have 45 days to come up with the amount (plus 45 days interest) that B has offered A PLUS a 2% fee to B for his time and trouble making the arrangements. IF apartments renters cant or dont want to come up with the money.. the B gets the apartment block and can do whatever he wants provided he follows the current rules.. ie X days notice and such.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

The ndp would never accept that. Socialists want what is best for the lowest common denominator which means pandering to the lowest common denominator. In this scenario just one person may not be capable of anteing up the coin and everyone loses the opportunity.

Mostly though owner A and potential owner B will spend nothing improving the building because it'll take them 33+% longer to get their money back. EVERYONE loses. Way to go socialists...



Last edited by grumpy old man on Wed May 18, 2011 4:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

"In this scenario just one person may not be capable of anteing up the coin and everyone loses the opportunity."

Not true.. in this scenario the group takes care of the person who cant ante up.

Aint that what true socialism is?

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

I say let the unions buy those buildings...

Smile

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

well of COURSE!

all union members investment funds of whatever type will be mandated to first and foremost give apartment buying people loans at 1% below prime to enable them to purchase these buildings.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

"and with landlords on a
package to allow more renters to live with pets"

holy shiat!.. missed that little tidbit. So what are they going to do? Pay the landlords to allow people pets?

sheesh

darkwind

darkwind
contributor
contributor

I do feel badly for the people who are limited and can't have pets because of where they live.

Although I used to live in a building that was extremely strict and vehement about the no-pets policy if you asked or if you got caught, but they were so hypocritical because so many people actually had cats in there as to make it laughable.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

I'm downsizing from my house. I have three cats and a dog. I am only allowed one pet in the new apartment. And the damage deposit is an additional 50%.

I don't mind paying that deposit at all.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

EXACTLY!!

pay extra deposit and its good to go. You realize that although your pet is well behaved, there is a chance that they will do more damage then someone who does not have a pet.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum