🚀 go-pugleaf

juj (40OOO@0O0.OO00) writes:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:30:00 -0500, Daniel TONG
> <danielchtong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>even  if the legislation is improved, no one can guarantee its continuance as
>>politicians will cave in to demand of tenants who enjoy at least 100:1 
>>advantage in terms of votes

As far as a ratio of tenant to landlord of 100:1 you are way off.

In the 1996 census there were 10,820,050 households in Canada.
(http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Families/famil66.htm)

There were 11,364,149 occupied houses, of them 7,184,901 owned and
4,179,253 rented.
(http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/Economy/Manufacturing/manuf04c.htm)

According to rev can there were 1,174,290 individual with rental income
in the same year. That makes 1,174,290 landlord households if
we make the reasonable assumption that only one person in the 
household has rental income.

We then come up with following ratio:

homeowners / tenants ratio 11/4
landlords / tenants ratio 1/4
 
> I dont see it that way...if it were true there would be even better
> legislation for tenants (All thought I could not really imagine what
> that would be) <<<and significantly less housing for them>>>>>and rent
> control as it existed would have remained.
> 
> The TPA it seems benefits the large landlords and property management
> companies and they got what they wanted.....politicians arent funded
> by tenants....or private landlords
> 
> Rents are too much but they are relative to the cost of the building
> and land and maintance....
> 
> A house that has all rental units is only worth the multiples of the
> rent that they get out of them....which tends to devalue them....at
> least in the toronto market.,,,,where a single family house in
> original condition rules
> 
>>> >The fact is that the people who dream of a
>>> >return to traditional social housing will have to just
>>> >dream on. The last social-housing program
>>> >was cancelled in the 1990s simply because it was
>>> >extraordinarily expensive. Nothing has changed,
>>> >except the costs are even higher. And now there
>>> >are 14,000 families in Ottawa on the waiting list
>>> >for social housing.
>>> >
>>> >The Munter proposal suggests that 200 apartment
>>> >units might be created to begin with. But the
>>> >number could be in the thousands if it catches
>>> >on with builders and prospective homeowners. Let
>>> >the apartment construction begin without delay.
>>>
>>> "Big business in Disneyland" ....."The  worlds a stage and the people
>>> are its........"
>>> "Nobody ever lies, its just they dont tell the truth either."
>>>
>>> How about "Stackable mobile homes"??????
>>> in an urban environment?  What a concept?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>agreed
>>
>>that was a joke only
> 
> But workable????
> 
>>
>>daniel
>>toronto
>>
--
Donate blood
http://www.bloodservices.ca/Ontario/Ottawa/index.html