My tenants get 30% below market rate on rent. They get 24/7/365 access to maintenance calls for any issues. Every 4 years I renovate a room of their choice. I never get up on their business. Anyone else would say they have the best deal going. But here on Lemmygrad I am still the bad guy because of an investment I made 15 years ago, and decided to maintain in order to ensure my disabled son has a home. I respect your opinion, but I’m done defending myself on this site. No one here lives in reality. It’s almost comical. You have a great life. I sincerely hope whatever you are looking for in life you find. Cheers.

I pay for a property management firm to take care of all the problems that come up at the properties. They are the ones who originally found the tenants. The houses are in a different city, I guess I could reach out, but my life is busy enough. It is purely transactional at this point. But after 12 years I am guessing it’s at least acceptable. I do find it interesting the hate that landlords get on this site. I mean I used to rent and never had an issue. But back then renting and owning worked out the same after 30 years if you invested the difference between your rent and monthly house expenses. That sadly isn’t the car any more.

The boot licking is strong with this one.

Some people like the flexibility, some may not be in the area long term, some may believe the stock market has better potential. In our free market type society, that is their choice. You can rail against the status quo, but whether you like it or not, it’s the current reality. As shitty as it is.

Agreed, especially in today’s market. It wasn’t the case back when I bought the properties. 15 years ago, it was a renters market. Landlords were under pressure, but cheaper prices and low interest rates made it feasible. My first house that I bought was cheaper per month than the apartment I was renting previously.

There are many European families that I know in Canada that are financially able to buy but choose to rent.

Honestly? I went into it as an investment, from a capital appreciation stand point I have done very well. I’ve mentioned in another post that I basically charge minimum rent (30% below market). When I had kids I thought the properties would provide decent income for the kids so it would supplement what they earn in the long term. But then one of my children ended up with a life long disability. My properties are in a condo/town house community close to many amenities. It’s very possible they may end up living in one of the properties while the other parts for their expenses. If I had wanted to get out I would have done so last year. But as it turns out I may actually need the properties to ensure my kid doesn’t end up as a disabled homeless person. So at the end of the day, I’m not interested in making money off the properties, I just cover expenses. It’s probably who I’ve had the same tenants for 12 years. I literally don’t even remember their names.

It’s 100% true. You can not count on a supervisor BY DESIGN to violate policy whenever it may become necessary. Its a recipe for a fatality. In specific circumstances the supervisor should recognize when the situation no longer is covered by the intent of the policy and act. But expecting a supervisor to violate a policy BY DESIGN is inherently flawed, and hence will not translate into actionable legal accountability.

And honestly, today I agree with you (although I think there is some merit in a rental system as some people prefer to rent). I haven’t bought a property for 15 years and I see what the younger generation is going through. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have purchased rentals. But at the time the real estate market was much different. Hell there were decent properties for sale for 70k back then.

Most legal action will not involve the direct supervisor, and it probably shouldn’t. A direct supervisor could have stepped in here and possibly made a difference. However, the idea that a direct supervisor will by design know when to violate company policy in order to safeguard an employee is not feasible… The company managers and those who are responsible for implementing state laws for protecting employees need to be held accountable. Direct supervisors should be documenting the policy issues that are a problem, and helping the union stewards to get the policies changed. In a perfect world… Unfortunately most companies hate working with unions and managers are too removed from the issues that are harming employees. The current system sucks.

I just said I knew they were present, I didn’t say I specifically had a problem with them. I personally think that we’re don’t have enough unions. Any time corporations are against something, that usually means it’s good for employees and the environment. (I have no particular opinion on people’s political notions). It’s sad that people here on both ends of the political spectrum can’t voice their opinion without being jumped on. Honestly it’s worse than Reddit.

It’s shit like this. I’m just a normal guy, I have a job, kids, hobbies. I believe in less military spending, national healthcare, social programs, and support for our vulnerable population. I got into real estate because it seemed like a good investment. People on here make it seem like anything that doesn’t fit their idea of “left” or"socialism" just be part of the conservative machine. Jesus, my investment decisions are not politically motivated. I made the mistake of trying to be part of a discussion and ended up with someone telling me I’m garbage and that I should give my investments to the tenants. Lol.

I don’t know, I’m a pretty left leaning person. The vitriolic, almost violent responses to some of my comments is shocking. I knew Lemmygrad was a thing here, along with tankies, honestly it’s off putting to say the least. OP talks about Reddit being an echo chamber. I got news for you. This place is just as bad for lefty type discourse being regurgitated. My experience is that it has been anything but friendly.

Yeah, but that goes for and bubble that has roots in some sort of legislation. The tech bubble is probably most recent that wasn’t government related.

This is what a bubble looks like.

This is getting old. Regardless you said you inherited a house, fwiw. You live how you want. I live in the way I want. I admit my part in Canada’s housing crisis. But I couldn’t sell my children’s future for moral high ground. You come across as sanctimonious. You speak from an imagined high ground with the assumption that you know what is good for everyone. That’s your right. So you do you. Have a good one.

Because to start with, I invested and risked my own money a much less bubbled deal estate market with a significant amount of my available capital. You invested someone else’s money. I took all the risk, and you want me to give away all the profits from that risk. Even your “green” investments take advantage of workers, buy off shore parts, cost people their jobs. Why don’t you donate all your profits to those people. Your entire argument is so steeped in hypocrisy that it’s hard to even know if you’re not just a troll.

This is very much the problem with the Canadian real estate bubble. People are paying rental prices now that absolutely could have paid for a house 5 years ago. But now they are paying a dangerously high portion of their income. The problem is that their rental prices that they pay now wouldn’t make the payments on the house today.

I realize you aren’t going to agree, but these two situations aren’t the same thing.

I mean, I get what you’re saying. And perhaps if my financial situation was better I could consider the option to offer the houses to the tenants. But as you suspect I will not trade my children’s financial security just to be charitable. The rent I charge is 30%-40% below market value. I suspect if you were in my position you wouldn’t be so inclined to give away your wealth either.