Development of CIP for Affordable Housing Continues

Despite the pandemic and the difficulty of getting public input, the Town of Cobourg is continuing with a Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to assist with providing affordable housing.  Initiated in the Fall of 2019 and originally scheduled for completion in May 2020, draft recommendations were submitted to the Planning and Development Advisory committee on June 16. It’s about process and not the budget to be allocated. Once in place, it will permit the Town to spend money assisting developers with grants and loans for development charges, application fees and/or property tax reductions. This is despite that fact that the County is primarily responsible for the provision of affordable housing. No timetable has been set for completion of the study by the consultant but it was originally hoped that it would be in time for 2021 budget deliberations.

86 Munroe St
86 Munroe St

When the project was first proposed, it got a lot of attention but it has faded into the background somewhat. In September 2019, an affordable housing building was opened at 86 Munroe Street – photo at right. Nevertheless, the problem has not gone away and the CIP will likely be approved by Council this summer and spending amounts will no doubt be proposed for 2021.  Approval of the program would only approve the process, not any spending. Council would then have to allocate a budget amount for small projects; large projects would come to council for individual approval.

Re-Cap:  Why a new CIP for Cobourg?

The consultant’s presentation says that “increasing the supply of affordable and rental housing was identified by Council for a number of reasons:

  • Opportunity to diversify Town’s housing stock
  • Cobourg has a very low rental vacancy rate (average 0.04%), even reaching 0.0% for bachelor and 3-bedroom units
  • Average market rents are among the highest in Northumberland County (average $1,051)
  • Households who rent tend to have lower incomes than households who own
  • Affordable and rental housing identified as a key issue at both the local and County level”

Based on public input received in a January open house, the objective of helping affordable housing has been prioritized into two “focus areas”:

  1. Increasing the supply of purpose-built rental housing
  2. Promoting the development of second units [e.g. coach houses]

Programs proposed.

Thirteen separate programs are proposed – see the executive summary in the links below – but for the two focus areas, these can be summarized:

Purpose Built Rental Housing
  • Rental Housing Planning and Building Fee Waiver Program
  • Rental Housing Development Charge Grant Program
  • Rental Housing Property Tax Grant Program
  • Rental Housing Cash-in-Lieu of Parking Reduction Program
Second Units
  • Second Unit Planning and Building Fee Reduction Program
  • Second Unit Renovation and Construction Grant Program

The “presentation” provides more detail but a typical grant would be 50% of costs with $10K limits. These would be approved by the planning department with a limit per the approved budget.  Larger projects with larger amounts would come to Council for approval on a case by case basis.

Another “public meeting” is required but no date has been set – it would likely have to be virtual.  Stay tuned.

Links

Print Article: 

 

49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deborah O'Connor
6 July 2020 8:43 pm

So many myths out there. If you’re just one day late paying your rent the landlord can serve you with eviction papers. If the rent is still unpaid after the landlord’s chosen deadline is reached he/she then files for a hearing in front of the Landlord/Tenant tribunal. (They’re held in the Best Western and are open to the public). If the tenant chooses they can file a counter claim to be heard the same day.Filing these forms cost $$ for both sides. It is not prohibitively costly to do so.

Half of the work at the North’d Legal Centre is on behalf of tenants. Most get advice and a few get representation at these hearings. There is a legal clinic in Toronto that advises landlords in all of Ontario, it’s called the Landlord Self Help Centre.

Leweez
Reply to  Deborah O'Connor
6 July 2020 8:48 pm

So if you don’t pay your rent on time, there is no late payment fee?
Isn’t that odd!!!

Kevin
Reply to  Leweez
7 July 2020 8:11 pm

Yes, no late penalty. However a tenant can be evicted if “You have persistently paid your rent late”. Which is quite a serious ‘penalty’. In most cases tenants pay rent and landlords make repairs. Of course this does not always happen and is why a law is needed. The law is an attempt to achieve a balance between landlords and tenants. It often seems to favour one group or the other depending on the situation and your point of view.

Dubious
Reply to  Deborah O'Connor
6 July 2020 9:12 pm

“If the tenant chooses they can file a counter claim to be heard the same day.”

What are the possible bases for a counter claim?

Eastender
Reply to  Dubious
7 July 2020 6:26 pm

Cockroaches, in-adequate heating/cooling, unsafe premises, unfair rent hikes, failure to maintain a safe and livable residence, etc.

Kate
5 July 2020 4:56 pm

On a somewhat related topic, does anyone happen to know why Densmore Meadows has not proceeded? There appears to be several fully serviced lots that have been ready to go for at least three years. I believe these were to be affordably priced condo type townhomes to start off the development.

Eastender
4 July 2020 6:23 pm

This is great news! As we are all part of the great Cobourg community, we should make sure our neighbours and friends have affordable places to live. Our dollars
insure we have clean water and sewer, public works and
policing, all towards the common good. (And speaking of
policing, let’s encourage a lower police services budget
and use those savings towards community housing as well). We should also instruct Council to streamline
approvals and cut red tape in buildings permits. Affordable
housing is a local issue, so let’s have a local solution.

Canuck Patriot
Reply to  Eastender
7 July 2020 8:14 pm

Affordable Housing is a joint federal/provincial responsibility for funding. Locally in a two tier municipal system, the County or Region is responsible to deliver it. In our case, the Town should not be involved in either funding or delivery.

It is also wrong to waive Development Charges, which are needed to help offset the costs of new residential builds. If the feds and Queen’s Park are the true funding sources, then they need to fund all the costs.

There are too many cooks in the kitchen and none of them are doing a good job. Governments love to blur the lines. Take credit when it goes well and blame somebody else when it doesn’t.

Council needs to rethink where it’s going with this before it gets too far along. The County must be told by all its Mayors in no uncertain words to live up to its obligations.

And certain members of Council need to park their pet projects, virtue signalling and personal self interests at the front door of Council chambers. Focus on the hard municipal services that the Town needs to deliver to run on a daily basis.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Canuck Patriot
7 July 2020 9:12 pm

Cobourg taxpayers are funding local affordable housing to solve a critical problem in Cobourg. Who will occupy the new units? Could they, for example, go to someone currently in Hamilton Township? Could they go to someone currently in Belleville?

Eastender
Reply to  Canuck Patriot
8 July 2020 6:32 pm

It’s always easy to pass the buck, isn’t It?
If we live in a community, and are a part of our community, it IS our responsibility to provide
decent, affordable housing for our friends
and neighbours. These ARE “the hard municipal
services that the Town needs to deliver to run
on a daily basis”.

Gerinator
4 July 2020 2:49 pm

I just don’t get why Cobourg Council feels the need to make up for the Counties failing. Further instinctively don’t like the fact that Cobourg taxpayers are funding developers, gawd I was having trouble enough with the notion of funding landlords. I sincerely feel that Council has shifted from the original intent of CIP (heritage, aiding in the rehabiing of downtown properties, etc). Also feel that the doling of funds to developers is setting a bad precedent; lining us up for other developers, and others, that do a great job of ‘marketing’ how they will assist the less fortunate.

Dubious
Reply to  Gerinator
4 July 2020 4:51 pm

Helping developers is probably the objective. There are considerable rewards to being developer friendly! Some of our more compassionate Councillors want to further their ambitions in provincial and federal politics and it is always a good thing to help those with deep and appreciative pockets.

perplexed
4 July 2020 9:17 am

These Rent numbers are wrong == in previous articles the town suggested that the average affordable rent number was in the area of$1600. per month no idea if that included any utility parking etc The average county wide rent may be but that take into consideration area like Harwood , Warkworth , Colborne Not only that but I had attended one of the community meetings that was put on by Councilor Beatty a prior to the lock down and again these were not the average rents They may be the rent numbers suggested by others in attendance as being affordable targets as in other communities like Bellville or Peterborough etc but certainly not in Cobourg Further more it was clear that Councilor Beatty had No demographic market in mind Affordable was just another Buzz word like sustainable that politicians through around with know idea of how to achieve it or how it applies to the real world community Aged , Handi Capped or sick , single parent , family with children , now unemployed are all different and different Price points with in the rental market place . This town has done nothing to address affordability and get it to… Read more »

Ken Strauss
Reply to  perplexed
4 July 2020 10:52 am

Housing affordability is a huge problem for many. However, it is not Cobourg’s responsibility to solve; it is the county’s responsibility. Why do we insist on adding it to our already very high town property taxes?

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
4 July 2020 5:48 pm

Ken. I only have a cursory knowledge of the structure and Province mandated responsibilities of County and independent Town governments but I believe I’m accurate in saying the following. Cobourg has just under one quarter of the Countys’ population while at the same time it has a much higher % of those unable to find adequate housing. Cobourg is the only Town in the County and as such its’ form of government is more directly responsible to its’ constituents and therefore more prone to act. Through zoning and regulation it can encourage new forms and combinations of housing types. Lane-way housing and granny-flats; apartment additions to a single-family residence; relief or deferment of fees such as development charges or site requirements such as green space setasides; mix of market price and subsidized rental units within one building or project. Cobourg can wheel and deal with a developer to make the necessary adjustments to its’ housing stock, and has done so within the last year on at least two if not three housing projects now under way that will shortly add over a 100 new rentals. Encouraging but hardly a dent in demand and waiting lists many years long. Considering the… Read more »

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Keith Oliver
4 July 2020 6:08 pm

Ken
Let me add the following as an example of efficiencies and cost reduction of a system approach to housing.
There is nothing more wasteful of all resources as the construction of a full-height basement capable of supporting the structure above and being occupied. As promoted in a government document almost 20 years ago. Instead of forming the walls in place with panels that need to be delivered, placed, rebar installed, filled with poured concrete, then have panels removed and returned, concrete walls can be panalized, reduced in weight by at least 75%, insulated, delivered and dropped into place at one go. Simple, doable and ignored.

Last edited 1 month ago by Keith Oliver
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
4 July 2020 6:58 pm

Keith, I have no doubt that the costs of building could be dramatically reduced. Due to zoning, building codes, fire codes, electrical codes, lending rules and the preferences of purchasers little has changed in the last hundred years. In 1899 Thomas Edison patented and demonstrated a way to cast cheap housing of concrete. We still don’t do it that way!

In a capitalist, free-enterprise economy there would be no pent up demand. However, we do not have such. Governments continually tinker with rental rules to the detriment of landlords. Current purchaser expectations, construction rules, labour costs and high land prices makes it unprofitable to build desirable housing that is affordable for everyone.

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
4 July 2020 8:11 pm

Ken Governments put restrictions on landlords, tinker as you say, in an effort to control rent increases, maintain half decent unit conditions, limit landlord efforts to achieve evictions by turning rentals into condos, all as a consequence of the point I was trying to make which is, without question, the lack of housing which is affordable to all, either through rental or purchase, and in sufficient quantities as to create competition among the suppliers. I agree that Government interference in the market, as presently exists, is counter productive, but I disagree with you on the cause which is the lack of supply. In the recent effort by the Trudeau government to make it easier for young first time buyers to purchase a home, the net result was an increase in buyers competing for the same housing stock and therefore more upward pressure on prices. Along with the lack of any real effort to increase the housing supply there is the matter of the cost of land, which is an entirely separate matter. And by the way without increasing supply and lowering the cost of construction there is no way governments can satisfy demand through subsidies. It’s impossible, unending under present… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Keith Oliver
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
4 July 2020 9:14 pm

There is no obvious solution. A few of the reasons for the lack of affordable housing: Investors will not build rental units without an expectation of profit; the inability to set rents, evict poor tenants, sell units, etc makes that very difficult. Existing homeowners don’t want to sacrifice their property values by allowing inexpensive building nearby. Towns don’t want inexpensive buildings that compromise property tax revenue and more services. And…

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
4 July 2020 10:27 pm

Ken
Your concern over “inexpensive housing” having a negative effect on surrounding property values is entirely misplaced and has nothing to do with design or the social class of the occupants which you seem to suggest. I’m trying to explain the source of the present crisis in housing as a failure of the free-enterprise system to supply enough variety and quantity to the point where real competition between the suppliers, to the benefit of the consumer, exists. Isn’t this what we expect our economic system to accomplish amongst all other types of products … so why not housing?
In the Olde Towne area of Cobourg (approximately south of the RR tracks) you will find a greater variety of housing and mix of social and income groups than in the new development areas, the former a result of how original large lots were suddivided over time. Same variety in the older parts of Port Hope. The result is better, healthier neighbourhoods and little to support the fear of declining property values.. But I digress! Back to … If only we could correct the supply problem!

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
5 July 2020 8:26 am

Keith, I believe that you are misunderstanding. Consider a hypothetical situation using entirely arbitrary numbers:

A house built conventionally currently sells for $500K.

By using prefab concrete or other technology one can profitably build very similar new houses for $400K.

What happens to the value of the house previously worth $500K? What rational person would pay the $100K premium for essentially the same house?

Last edited 1 month ago by Ken Strauss
Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
5 July 2020 10:25 am

Ken
The issue of implementing long overdue technologies to reduce the cost of residential construction, which is only apart of the value represented by a residential property, can and will happen once the market gets back to normal. Only question is … why is it taking so long especially at the expense of normalcy in the lives of so many people and families (which now includes many to have achieved a middle income.).
Your fear of the loss of property values will be accommodated as change takes place. Your point is a valade one but only one of many to be considered. It is common for people to fear and resist change. That is no excuse for not moving forward. Not to do so is to invite even more chaos than already exists in the housing market today.
As the late nineteenth century British PM Benjamin Desraili (sp?) once said “The castle is not safe if the cottage is unhappy!)

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
5 July 2020 11:28 am

Keith, I don’t fear the loss of value of my current home. I don’t fear new technology but embrace it; my working life was devoted to implementing new technology. My comments were to explain why resisting technology that might reduce construction costs is entirely rational for many.

I believe that it is “Disraeli”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ken Strauss
cornbread
Reply to  Keith Oliver
5 July 2020 11:37 am

To Ken & Keith…I think it best if governments build this type of housing where the JOBS are…we don’t need housing like this if we have no half decent paying jobs

Keith Oliver
Reply to  cornbread
5 July 2020 3:53 pm

Cornbread Regarding your concern about half descent paying jobs. One of the deficiencies in our present economy, illustrated by current events, is the underpayment of workers at the low end of the wage scale. A capitalist free-enterprise economy is at its best when money circulates as quickly as possible and increasing low wages has this effect. To our credit the minimum wage is on its’ way to 15.00 an hour.. When the goal was announced many predicted the sky would fall in. Somehow adjustments were made, inefficient business were either forced to change and become more efficient or they closed. The increase in wages was spent on needed items and the overall economy benefitd. Several cashiers at No Frills told me what the extra 2.00 an hour essential workers short lived extra pay meant to them. I was embarrassed. Headed by Galen Weston, the wealthiest man in Canada, whose income is many times more than it takes to finance even his lavish lifestyle, Loblaws cut the bonuß but kept the screens that protect the cashier’s. If the pay came down signaling an acceptable level of risk had been achieved why don’t the screens come down? Paying folks at a rate… Read more »

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
5 July 2020 4:54 pm

Keith, a few comments.
Galen Weston may have far more than he needs but many thousands of much poorer folk, myself included, depend on Loblaws dividends to fund their retirement pensions. If paying cashiers more reduces Loblaws profits then it equally reduces pensioner’s incomes.

Raising the minimum wage may be a temporary benefit to some but, as you mentioned, things adjust. Businesses close putting people out of work, prices rise to pay the increased wages and soon everything is back to normal except savers and retirees in fixed incomes have lost.

Attractive as they may sound socialist policies hurt us all.

cornbread
Reply to  Keith Oliver
5 July 2020 5:11 pm

You hit the nail on the head…if your business was not efficient and had to close…too bad. By the same token, those who dropped out of high school…did not get a good education and who now don’t earn enough to afford a house etc. should not expect others to contribute more to make up their shortfall. Socialism does not work.

Canuck Patriot
Reply to  Keith Oliver
5 July 2020 8:36 pm

Ah yes. The infamous McGuinty/Wynn debacle known as the guaranteed annual minimum wage.

Darn right there was no debate. None was needed. It was a brain dead socialist idea then and still is.

Pay people to sit home and find their inner space. Sounds to me like a few Cabinet Ministers at that time had too much inner space between their ears.

Last edited 1 month ago by Canuck Patriot
Keith Oliver
Reply to  Canuck Patriot
5 July 2020 11:29 pm

Ken, Cornbread and Canuck Patriot … Here we go again. Any suggestion that represents any kind of progress is dismissed not by a solid counter argument but by labeling it “socialist”. For one thing what do you mean when you use the word? Is our National Healthcare System socialist? Are transfer payments to the Provinces as a means of contributing to a state of equity at the national level socialist? What about the CPP? or Old Age Security Payments, or Child Benefit Payments, or government subsidies that cover over half the operating cost of all public transit systems? What about the CERB program which is helping to keep our economy from crashing during the pandemic.? And that Is just a small sample. I started this thread by arguing that the residential housing market is in a state of chaos with prices increasing by 10-15% annually, that many citizens and their families are suffering as a result and that our capitalist free market economy is not responding as it should. I wondered why this is happening and why we are still building housing as we did in the dark ages. And now you’re throwing around the word “socialist”. I suppose that’s… Read more »

cornbread
Reply to  Keith Oliver
6 July 2020 8:22 am

The question is…when does it end??? With total socialism or com munism. I would rather have invested my CPP contributions myself…I would have had a pool of money set aside that would more than equal my current monthly benefit…and when I die there would be money left over for my kids. The way it is now, the govt. gets the balance.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
6 July 2020 8:42 am

Keith, your litany of government programs that take money from Peter to give to Mary to ensure her vote are excellent examples of what most would call “socialism”. Government mandated redistribution of resources is the antithesis of “a capitalist free market economy” that you keep mentioning as having failed.

Canuck Patriot
Reply to  Keith Oliver
6 July 2020 8:46 am

Keith…
Think back to the Parable about The Ant and The Grasshopper if you want an easy to understand description of socialism.

I will always offer a hand up so somebody can build on and use their skills to achieve success. A handout will never improve the quality of one’s life and commits a person to a life of poverty and sorrow.

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Canuck Patriot
6 July 2020 3:37 pm

Ken, Cornbread and Canuk Patriot …
This thread has gone completely off track and I’m sure others are getting bored with the usual diversion so often introduced concerning taxes and creeping socialism. Next time, when it comes up, as I’m sure it will, give your audience a explanation of what you mean when you use the words “socialist” and/or “socialism”.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
6 July 2020 7:03 pm

Agreed. But there is no need for me to explain what is meant by “socialism”; your earlier list of asset redistribution schemes appears to be adequate.

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
6 July 2020 7:56 pm

Ken
Is it fair to say you are against the items on my list of what you refer as “asset redistribution schemes”? Also in a dialogue if a participant is against what another has proposed then the first individual has an obligation to offer an alternative. The lack of doing so undermines the benefit of meaningful debate, a problem that is obvious during Question Period in both Federal and Provincial Parliments.

If your statements are to be taken seriously and you use the word “socialism'” as an important part of your argument, there definitely is a need for you to explain what you mean by using that word and not just use it to hide behnd. Left, Right, Middle, Liberal, Conservative, Socialism, Libertarianism, Populism, Fascism, all these terms are virtually meaningless as societies and economies become more complex. We use them freely oblivious to the fact that each individual has their own definition … and so the need to explain!

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
6 July 2020 8:43 pm

Yes, Keith, the mentioned words have become almost meaningless. However, the phrase “asset redistribution scheme” seems clear. The alternative to an untenable action is not performing the action.

sandpiper
4 July 2020 8:30 am

Delays from the Town ???????????? No Kidding I had my name in for a new unit 3 yrs ago! I am glad you mentioned that and why are we paying for studies if its the County issue unless its to cover up promises the Town has already committed to and yet to be justified . I know of 2 other projects being held up by the town One is the 80 ++_ unit apartment building not Condo on Elgin next to the YMCA Perfect spot It appears that the usual red tape has tied them up . apparently for 3 yrs now the Builder after completing all studies and submitting plans and Pre Consultation meetings at the beginning was just recently advised by Engineering Dept that they are not sure if there is adequate sanitary sewage LINE capacity and THAT ITS THE DEVELOPERS OBLIGATION to advise the Town if there is in fact capacity at the street to service the project Really Does the town not know this a Now the town wants the land owner do studies to prove that capacity is even exists or available to this development property Boy I would be careful buying real estate in… Read more »

Kevin
Reply to  sandpiper
6 July 2020 6:17 pm

If I understand correctly the developer was only recently notified of a potential problem after 3 yrs of planning. This is exactly the type of delay that I am referring to. In sandpiper’s example it seems that the developer has to show that there is adequate sewer capacity. To know if there is enough capacity the size of existing sewers and the number of houses and other buildings connected to them would have to be determined. Then it would be possible to calculate if the sewers are adequate or need to be increased in size. Does the town provide drawings of the sewage system for the developer? There should be drawings of all the underground services. That is not always the case. Last year 3 or 4 town employees were trying to find out how a catch basin on private property was connected to a storm sewer. I gave them the information they wanted, asked a tenant to move a car, so they had access to the catch basin, and talked to a contractor while they verified what I told them. One guy pushed a camera into the drain, one watched a monitor and one waited at a manhole to… Read more »

Kevin
4 July 2020 7:10 am

One of the problems is the length of time it takes to go through the approval process to build an apartment building. There is a current project for a 71 unit building on University that will include affordable housing. Construction is a year behind schedule due to delays from the town. Maybe some of this is necessary but demolition and fence building can happen even if some details to the actual building need to be changed. This apartment building is to have geothermal heat. The wells could be drilled now. The building permit process should be looked into. I have read that the construction of a hotel is being delayed. It might be the same situation. Unnecessary delays increase costs to the developer. The sooner an apartment building is completed the sooner the landlord will be paying higher taxes to the town.

Mrs. Anonymous
3 July 2020 5:26 pm

I wish town council would stay in their lane. It seems they struggle with issues in their area of responsibility already. Why not stay focussed on Municipal responsibilities and attempt to do those things well?

As John Draper writes, this is a county issue. Therefore, it needs to remain the county’s issue to address and for which to take responsibility and share costs.

Leweez
3 July 2020 3:37 pm

Maybe a little more leniency for granny flats/ in law suites would help
it seems a lot of grown children are still living with their parents

Leweez
Reply to  Leweez
3 July 2020 11:04 pm

😂can’t imagine how there are 2 thumbs down.
i guess you don’t really like your children

JimT
3 July 2020 3:21 pm

I suspect a lot more rental units would be built were it not for the “you don’t have to pay your rent if you don’t want to” situation that currently prevails.
It’s a no-win situation for the landlord.

Kevin
Reply to  JimT
4 July 2020 6:58 am

I am not sure what you are referring to exactly. The main responsibility of tenants is to pay rent on time, most do. If they do not there are legal steps the landlord can take. It can be a lengthy process. For a landlord with a small number of units (maybe 2 in a duplex) it can be a big problem. It is a small number of tenants that cause the most problems. If you are referring to the current pandemic situation in which some people wanted landlords to allow differed rent payments I do not think there are any legal grounds for this. Currently, due to emergency measures, landlords may not be able to evict tenants. I would encourage tenants and landlords to talk to each other to try to work out some kind of payment plan if necessary. Covid does not care if you are a tenant or landlord. People from both groups can be put in a difficult situation.

JimT
Reply to  Kevin
4 July 2020 9:01 am

If you stop paying your rent, your landlord will have to go through a lengthy and expensive procedure to get you evicted. Meanwhile, you continue to live rent-free while the landlord has ongoing costs but no income, and the legal bills pile up.
It has been that way for decades. So long ago that I can’t remember when the laws were changed.

Rob
3 July 2020 3:12 pm

I suspect the average market rent is higher than what is being suggested above. I quickly looked at rental properties on Kijiji within Cobourg and the average cost without utilities was $1,777/month ($1,250 – $2,300) – they may have included shared accommodation situations in the presentation. I hear the wait time for geared to income rentals in >5 years. I do believe there is a housing crisis and the new mortgage rules certainly won’t help young and/or first time buyers achieve the dream of home ownership.

I applaud the effort and hope all levels of Government step up to address the issue.

Kevin
Reply to  Rob
4 July 2020 6:45 am

Market rent and asking rent are two different things. Most apartments do not have new tenants moving in each year. In such cases rent can only be increased by the guideline amount. The asking rent for a vacant apartment can be any amount the landlord wants. In a low vacancy market the increase in rent for a new tenant far exceeds the guideline amount (with or without renovations). Market rent is calculated using rents for all apartments.

sandpiper
Reply to  Kevin
4 July 2020 8:07 am

Yes Market rent is much higher
in many cases last yr it was a Bidding war and I had even heard that word if you can pay in cash at many locations

Kevin
Reply to  sandpiper
6 July 2020 7:00 am

There is a shortage of housing so I am not surprised about bidding wars. The rent a landlord expects for an empty apartment, is much higher than the average rent of all apartments. Some tenants have lived in an apartment for over 10 years. When rents of all apartments are averaged the $1,051 amount is obtained. This is confusingly called the ‘market rent’. Confusing because it is currently much lower than the asking price in the current rental market.