this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
201 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
343 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
201
3 landlords among largest real estate holders in Ontario owe $144M, under bankruptcy protection: documents (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 9 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A small group of landlords who own hundreds of rental properties across the province have run out of money, owe over $144 million in unpaid loans and face dozens of lawsuits from creditors, according to documents filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Dylan Suitor, Ryan Molony and Aruba Butt are behind 11 now-insolvent corporations that face a "liquidity crisis" with only $100,000 in the bank, the documents say.

The landlords and their corporations are based in the Hamilton area, but specialize in buying, renovating and in some cases relisting "distressed residential real estate in undervalued markets," said a court factum.

Those markets are in Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, as well as smaller communities, including Kirkland Lake, Temiskaming Shores and Val Caron.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why not ban corporate ownership of any residential real estate that is in legally-habitable condition?

Because that’s becoming a massive problem when corps come in and buy up entire neighbourhood, only to jack up rents to the maximum the market will bear.

Better yet, make any personal ownership of homes beyond a certain amount - say, 5 rental units, not just homes - be classified as “landlording as a business”, and therefore ineligible for residential home ownership of anything other than their primary residence.

People who upgraded from a home and held on to it, or are renting out a “mortgage helper” suite in their basement aren’t the problem here… tens of thousands of these people competing against each other is what will make a marketplace competitive.

The problem occurs when someone with deep pockets runs out and buys 5, 50 or even 500 “investment rentals” and then parasitizes off the backs of working-class Canadians. These capture the market, limit/reduce competition by dramatically reducing players, and hold it ransom to the highest bidder, severely hurting working-class people.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

I would be in favour of limiting how many properties/parcels one corp can own (as long as there's a limit to how many corps one person can own). But outright bans would probably be detrimental.

Lots of areas need to be bought up by corps in order to densify areas, like buying up 10 detached houses in a downtown area in order to merge it and build a large apartment building which can house 200 instead of 20.

It becomes a problem when one person owns ten corps each of which have a house each to rent out, or when one corp owns 300 properties.

[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Thank you for the deeper explanation. I've seen a lot of "landlords are all evil" being dropped around on various platforms, I think here you capture the difference pretty well (oligopolistic tendencies, limited liabilities, maximizing profit, major companies with leverage vs micro-landlords with 1-2 rented apartments).

Only thing on top of this would be how REIT is a way to make rentals more like an investment even though there's not a central investor but managed centrally like a business.