From an investment perspective, I think the idea of being against the idea of home ownership is that you are basically buying at the very peak or relatively peak point. Can it go higher? Perhaps... but can it duplicate the some growth we have witnessed the last decade?? I have my doubts and all the indicators point to that we won't.

Not to mention the liquidity, transaction and maintenance costs of such "investment".

I never said it was a bad idea to buy. I said it's a bad idea to buy RIGHT NOW. I don't really need to respond to the rest of your post since it's all been discussed in great detail already.

This is false, under the BC RTA it is very difficult for a landlord to kick out out a tenant. If you are a good tenant and pay the rent on time, the ONLY 'typical' reason they can kick you out is if themselves or their family member decides to live in the space (i.e. occupy the unit in good faith), or if they sell and the new buyer decides to live in the space. Landlords cannot kick you out willy nilly if you are a good tenant, the RTA favours heavily on tenants.

What's stopping them from saying I am moving in and putting the rental unit back in the market say a few months later? And your so call typical reason I have kick tenant out before. Give them a month notice and they have to pack their bags and go after that. Or they can drag it out till the contract is over and they don't get a good reference or leave in good terms and get a good reference.

Nope, even if you are on month-to-month (i.e. no contract) they can't kick you out if they have no valid reason to.

And if you have a suspicion that they put it back on the market you can have the RTA investigate and get compensation.

This.

The bank ain't going to tell me to keep the music down, that I can't work on my car in the driveway, that I can't build a shed in my backyard, etc... I'll also never have to worry about the bank deciding to one day sell my house and forcing me to move.

Even though I had good landlords, I am a very independent person and I hated the fact that I could not control my own living space.

This whole benefits of owning vs renting is beaten to death throughout history and is pointless to argue/discuss in this thread. There are definitely pros to owning but you definitely pay for those benefits out of pocket. Renting is the opposite, financially it is cheaper but you are more restricted. Again, this has always been the case.

The preference of one to another is subjective and based on each person's individual priorities, and even changes in an individual depending on where they are at in their life.

My explanation of reasons for landlord ending a tenancy were merely facts in response to wild hypotheticals; once a discussion gets into hypotheticals it becomes less a discussion and more an argument. It is pointless to try and argue your own case when others have different priorities.

do you mean bad idea as a first purchase?

or would you say even upgrading is a bad idea? if you're looking to upgrade from say a 600k home to a 900k home, would you say it's better to hold off b/c if there is a decline/crash, there would be greater fluctuation in the 900k home due to higher cost (more value to fluctuate) than a 600k home (lower value so less fluctuation) and then the differential of the upgrade which would be lower?

It all depends on how much equity you have in the $600k house, how much money you are putting down on the $900k house, if the $900k house is a "good deal" or is selling for more that the rest of comparables in the neighborhood. You should be able to do the math fairly easily.
Posted via RS Mobile

Ok that's what I figured.
Posted via RS Mobile

As much as people say this issue is beaten to death, for many people, this may be their first time hearing some of these arguments. For the experienced members or members that are more knowledgeable on this aspect, it may sound like a broken record, but there are some that find this information valuable. Even though i consider myself pretty knowledgeable, there are some things that i have never considered before and i have an open mind and am alway open to new ideas.
Posted via RS Mobile

Listed below are valid reasons...

Number 1 is probably the most valid reason. The tenant can chase the landlord if they think he has lied regarding his use of property. But by then the tenant will most likely have found a new place and moved on with life. It is up to the tenant to check to see if he/she was unjustly evicted. I could see a tenant having the time to investigate because they had nothing else to do... like work at a job.

Can anyone clarify how long the unit must be occupied by the landlord before he is legal allowed to put it back on the rental market?

Number 5 is another easy one if your place is more than 10 years old. Blame it on renos for items that are long past their warranty. The landlord just has to state that they doing a complete reno of major appliances/utilities to ensure safety due to expired warranty. It may be true that not everyone replaces the furnace or windows every 10 years. But the landlord could argue these renos are preventative maintenance and may be allowed to evict. If you the read the wording for #5, it is pretty vague.

The RTA does fight for tenants rights, but its not always a guaranteed win. :makeout:

Information for BC Tenants Facing Eviction

i've rented for the last 5 years. never once have i had the risk of having to move out. laws in BC and many other places in the world are very tenant friendly, and it takes a lot of work and time to get rid of a tenant - it's REALLY hard if you're a good tenant, as they have no standing to evict you, and can only raise rates so much each year. In fact, i've never had a rent increase b/c my landlords have wanted me to stay, and to stay happy as I am keeping their investment in good shape by living in it, keeping it clean, not breaking anything, as i would in 'my own home' - oh wait, it is my home.

that aspect of your argument is a fallacy.

we are on this earth for about 70-90 years, do we truly own anything? we are merely borrowing it until we die, then if we 'own' anything it goes to someone else, we don't take it to the grave.

the only time you may have to move is if the owner sells, but usually if you're not a dick, you should know when that's coming, and even then, you have a good leeway period.

i can more understand your point with kids as school and friends is important to them, but as a young, non-kid professional, my ability to up and leave is way more important than some non-existent fear of being kicked out of a place that i pay for in full.

i'm not trying to pick on what you're saying, just adding a healthy counter point:

less control - fine, i don't need control over my place, however there is more risk for the landlord, anything goes wrong, they have to pay for it yet i get the brand new replaced item (for example my washing machine is broken, i get a brand new one today - that's actually happening, before i moved in, i said 'i want a tumble dryer (not guaranteed in europe like in NA), boom, brand new one installed before i moved in, my wifi isn't fast enough, landlord doubled the speed of the plan - i pay nothing extra for it)

also, if a wall falls down, windows leak, etc. i ain't paying for that, and in vancouver with the condos there, that is a real concern in the past 15 years and future 20 years.

the whole 'i have no mortgage to pay' arguement is also moot. If you took the difference in your rent and your mortgage payment + all the other home ownership costs and invested it in a diversified, well managed portfolio, factually, based on historical performance (which i know is no guarantee of future success), you will have more net worth after 10, 15, 20, 25 years. AND at that, rents don't increase over inflation, another fact (plus or minus a small amount) based on historical results.

the problem here is that people don't invest that money savings by renting, they blow it - but they're idiots, and shouldn't be helped or saved. But i hate the saying 'buying a house is like forced savings'- if you're that stupid, you don't deserve to share this planet with me.

again, not arguing, just presenting the other side of the story - i tend to find people who are more financially literate are those that don't own and rent, shouldn't that tell you something? the masses buy, but the ones who rent either do so because they can't afford anything else, or those who go the investment route. it's not always like this, if i were in the US, i'd buy, no question (outside of SF) as renting is more expensive than owning, but we're in a short term phenomenon where renting is WAY cheaper than buying, the difference won't be as much as it is today for that much longer, and no, not because rents will suddenly sky rocket (quite the opposite given the impending investor owned inventory that will hit over the next number of years)

well that's just stupid - why would they do that if you've paid your rent on time and aren't a problem?

granted you might be talking about basement suites, but i think that's disgusting anyways (having a stranger live on your property whilst you live there, i love my privacy on my land - 'my land' is either rented or owned, the land i live on, i should say) - but for a condo, why would this happen, unless you're some idiot bigot who just wants to get rid of someone becasue of the colour of their skin, or religion or something, but if that's the case, there's no helping you

^^ you said it yourself your landlords wants to sell/wants the unit back, have relatives live in etc etc... you have 1 month to pack your bags and go vs owning you don't have to deal with it. Nothing to do with you being a good tenant. If I want my unit back I will get it back. Too bad Dino isn't on here anymore but like she said if a tenant wants to screw the landlord there are tons of ways for the landlord to screw around the tenant as well. I have kick my tenants out before because I want to sell my unit. Sure they are nice and they just moved in for a few months. Not only that they have to free every sunday for me to do an open house something I am sure they didn't like. But since they are renting they have no control over it. Also if your landlord is an asshole they are request to come and see the unit once a month which means you have set aside that day for them.

To you yes maybe you want the freedom to move but to me and maybe others as well, want a place where we can home, where we don't have to deal with the fact that we might have to month because the landlord wants their unit back for whatever reason.

As for the part why so many people rent in Vancouver. Well because we have a ton of people who can't save for a down payment. Is roughly 10% at least for a down payment so say the unit is 300k, you need at least 30k save up. A lot of people simply don't have the savings, sure they can afford their mortgage but not down payment. And yes some do invest but how many people in Vancouver are smart enough to invest and let their money grow instead of wasting it?

is it a month or is it 3 months?

to be honest, i reckon its 3 becuase you could just refuse to leave for 3 months, not pay rent, and i don't believe you can be touched until those 3 months are over - but someone should look into that.

i don't really see an argument here unless you're talking about basement suites, but i'm not talking basement suits as i see them as a vulgar part of vancouver's subculture

Here's another thing to think about when buying a condo... special assessments from your strata... here's a real life example of some people I worked with...

They have a 822 sq ft condo in a building which was built in 1988 and is located in Kits. Their assessment value on the unit is currently at $399,000. They purchased the unit back in 2010-2011 for $429,000 which was considered a "good" deal at the time. They put down as much as they could afford, which was 10% or $45,000 at the time.
So here they are, with a $385,000 mortgage, paying $1,800/month for "owning" a condo. They could have easily rented the exact same unit for about $1,500 but decided to buy because they didn't want to pay someone else's mortgage.... (sound familiar?)

Fast forward to 2014.

Here's what their current situation looks like

Year Total Paid Interest Paid Principal Paid Balance
Year 1 $21,926.40 $11,367.75 $10,558.65 $375,541.35
Year 2 $21,926.40 $11,048.63 $10,877.77 $364,663.58
Year 3 $21,926.40 $10,719.82 $11,206.58 $353,457.00

So now they've got a place, for which they owe $353,457.00. Current assessed value is $390,000. Someone in the building gets sick. They investigate. Found extensive mold damage in that person's unit. They call in a building envelope engineer. After a thorough investigation it is determined that the entire building envelope needs to be replaced. Cost of the repairs? $2,845,000. There are 60 units in the complex. Each unit gets their share of the repair bill, based on the square footage of their unit. These people's share is 2.04% or $58,038.00.

So, now they have a real issue on their hands. They owe $353,457.00 on their mortgage. They owe $58,038.00 to the strata. Current assessed value of the place is $390,000. They can't sell the place without paying off the special assessment. Even if they could sell it today for $429,000, less the special assessment ($58,038), less their mortgage($353,457), less realtor's fees($25,000), they would be in the negative $429,000-$436,495= -$7,495.
Now don't forget their initial down payment of $45,000 and $65,779.20 they've paid in payments over the last 3 years. That puts them in the MINUS by almost $120,000

Compare that to renting the SAME unit for $1,500/month for 3 years ($1,500 x 36) = $54,000
Interest they could have earned on the $43,000 down payment in a GUARANTEED fund 3% per year for 3 years = $3,870
Cost of renting, just over $50,000. And they would get to walk away from the unit and rent another place and not have to deal with the ongoing repairs.

Now would you rather be in the minus by $50,000 or by $120,000?

And this isn't a one-in-a-million situation like some may think. Leaky condos are all over Vancouver. Buying in a strata opens people up to all kinds of special assessments that could originate from a number of places, a roof that needs to be replaced, a building envelope issue, piping in the building needs to be done, etc.

yeah, but no one can tell them to leave with 1 month's notice!!!!

i would never own a condo. in my old building, some drunk renters (those scum of the earth - thought these ppl were) decided to see what happens when you tamper with the sprinkler system. luckily they were on the 3rd floor so only did hundreds of thousands of flood damage to 3 stories of the building - that would suck. the building was never hte same after that, constant problems (and this is a concrete mid 90's downtown build)

or my friends, who rent in a brand new downtown condo, whose walls in the hallways aren't straight, door frames crooked... they've had 2 floods in the last 6 months, currently living in another rental apartment whilst their place gets fixed (no cost to them thanks to insurance - in reality it's no cost to them as renters, as they'd just move if they didn't have insurance).

the ONLY reason to buy real estate is to own the land, i think we can all agree that people are idiots, so why would you want to own something that these idiots can actually mess up for you

^^ That's why some agents I talk to always advice stay away form condos/apartments built in the 90's or even early 2000. You can also check the starta history to see what things have been fixed and what haven't........

My sister bf is looking to an apartment and we can across an apartment where the starta fees is pretty cheap but looking at the logs nothing have been fixed at all in the last 10years or so. From what we could gather the area is mostly for retire resident so my guess is that these resident voted no to put in any money to fix anything up(since they are retire they don't want to spend extra money unless they have to), if something broke down it will be major and it will cost a ton.

So there are things people can look at to see if the apartment needs lot's of maintaince fee down the future or if the stuff have been fix already so nothing major will break down in the future.

Depends on the builder and the area. That's where common sense comes in? Is that area shaddy? Is it is a more upsacle area? is the builder good or do they have bad rep? Always, always go check the area where you want to buy during the day, at night and even on weekends to see how traffic is, is there any shaddy people around, is the neighbourhood good, is there parking space............

even in nice buildings you will still get 1 bedroom apartments that rent for $1500 or so, some construction working hick can afford this, get drunk with their surrey friends on weekends, play with the sprinkler system - you can't keep idiots that may flood an apartment out with the relatively low rents Vancouver charges

best building in the world won't help you when a fucktard floods the place

Beware of cheap strata fees. New buildings always have their initial strata fee set to a low amount. Some, even guarantee not raising strata fees for 3 years. Of course, at some point the strata notices that it isn't enough to cover maintenance of the building, and then the fees get jacked up. Worse still, there's no contingency fund or very little contribution to it, and when unexpected bills to the property happen, it'll mean everyone gets to chip in for a special levy.

Yeah, I bet you have the crystal ball that foresees everything that will happen in the future. :suspicious:

Hindsight is always perfect. There is no point in laughing at this couple's misfortune now. The only meaningful question to ask is, at the time of purchase, had the couple hired an experienced inspector to check the unit and the whole building out? If they did, they took reasonable measures to mitigate their risks, and they still lost, so no blame is really be directed at anyone. If they hadn't, then certainly they bear more responsibility to their misfortune now.

I don't think that's true anymore. I seem to recall that the provincial government has legislated that all stratas must now maintain some sort of contingency fund -- my strata passed a motion last year or the year before to beef up the contingency fund, and I remember the rationale was some sort of provincial legislation for it. Still, this contingency fund is managed by the strata council, so how well funded it is depends on both the strata council members, and the home owners themselves.