Ontario Housing Shortage Predicted

Scary Fundamentalist Hits Nail On Head

Read what he has to say here: Scary Fundamentalist: Coming Soon: Critical Housing Shortage in Ontario

However, for those who have skipped hopping over and just want the Reader's Digest version, read on. SF as a small landlord had this to say about the Barb Hall Housing Policy promulgated yesterday:

"If Barbara Hall’s housing-rights policies are ever emulated out here in BC, you can bet that as soon as my current tenants move out, I will be shutting down my rental properties for good. I would imagine there are many in Ontario who are thinking the same thing as I am, which would engage the law of unintended consequences: a housing shortage in Ontario."

This is what I predicted the other day when I read that Her Highness was going to release her policy.

As SF says:

the new housing policy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission continues towards its ultimate goal of the abolition of private property. It is a draconian set of do’s and don’ts that crushes any remaining freedom of landlords, all in the name of fabricated human rights that bear little resemblance to the legislated Code.

He notes one of the stupider things in the policy that could only be written by bureaucrats who have no sense of the real world, and have no sense of even current events let alone history, like the current recession we are in. Read this:

For example, there is nothing in any legislated statute that prohibits discrimination based on income. The OHRC adds that ground, specifying that it is prohibited to refuse accommodation based on a “30% rule”, in which it is assumed that a person can afford the house if the rent equals 30% or less than their income. Considering that banks utilize this rule when approving mortgages, will Babs be mandating the NINJNA loans that ruined the economy in the States?

SF, being in the know specifically, tackles the advertisement discrimination part of the policy:

Another idiotic measure is the PC-sterilization of the phrases used in rental ads. A friend of mine advertised his basement suite, stating it “suited a working person”. This is now contrary to Barb’s Code, with the newly minted made-up right not to be discriminated on the basis of employment. The reason it suits a working person is because my friend lives upstairs with three young children, and the soundproofing is not very good – ergo, it would suit a person who is away during the day.

Duh! Barb and her Boobs just don't get it, and McGuinty obviously doesn't either. Him, we are stuck with for a few years. How can we get rid of her and not get worse?

I was almost bilious when I read the policy provisions about “Accommodating tenant needs” which contained this paragraph:

Sometimes a tenant who is unwell or who disrupts others (either because of a disability or due to that person being the target of discrimination themselves) may need help. You should assess your role to see if there are things you can do as a landlord to help the situation.

As SF responds with a landlords angst and concerns for his own family and livelihood:

Help the situation? Like turfing a “disruptive” tenant as fast as the Tenancy Act allows? No, that would be depriving a “disruptive” tenant of their human right to your property. Now it falls upon a landlord to determine if a disruptive tenant is doing so on the basis of a “protected” ground? Do they also have a duty to determine if rent non-payment is also caused by a “protected” ground, such as the new one recently invented: income?

He also points out this gem in the policy:

Landlords have a legal duty to accommodate tenants when legitimate concerns arise based on Code grounds. If tenants have special needs related to, for example, a disability, landlords may need to make changes to units, a building entrance, sidewalks or parking areas to accommodate the tenant’s situation. These types of changes can also improve accessibility for other people, including families with small children or older persons.

Hall billed this as letting landlords and tenants know what their rights were. Here is the skinny, short and sweet. Tenants can do what they want with your property. Landlords have NO RIGHTS. Start with that and you pretty much have the lay of Barb's land, and how Barb will lord it over you.

As SF says:

This, Hall says, is subject to “recourse” under a “undue hardship” clause. But you and I know who administers that “recourse” – the OHRT – and you and I know how much sympathy they have for landlords – ranking somewhere below a rodent’s posterior. Add to that the likelihood that a landlord would get his challenge funded – zero – and the likelihood that the tenant would be represented by the taxpayer-funded OHRC – quite likely.

He has a little bit more to say, and you can pick it up at the link at the top. I think I get what he really was feeling about this thing. He didn't hold back on this one. He's temporarily happy to be living on the Left Coast, but you know how things can change with the weather. Wait for it.