🚀 go-pugleaf

Elat Lerner wrote:

> 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

my statistics may be off particularly in respect of small building/accommodation
but the key fact remains: tenants have more political clout and vote-hungry
politicians do listen
there will be politicians overturning fair rules (if any) at a push in future just
to buy votes
tenants are deemed to be the underprivileged and  improverished  underdog
thus they need to be saved by the benevolent government

daniel
toronto