No end to vacancy decontrol in new bill
Province's new rent bill finally ready, Toronto Star, 29 April 2006
The legislation, to be introduced by Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen, is meant to fulfil a Liberal election promise to restore "real protection" for tenants.
But the legislation may not go far enough to satisfy tenant advocates, while going too far for landlords.
Specifically, sources say the legislation will keep "vacancy decontrol," the policy introduced by the previous Conservative government to allow landlords to jack up rents on vacant apartments to whatever level the market will bear.
On the other hand, the legislation reportedly restores many of the tenant-friendly provisions from the NDP government's Rent Control Act that were repealed by the Conservatives.
Additional press: Globe and Mail.
Posted by Greg Smith @ 10:28 p.m.
3 Comments:
The Ontario Tenants Rights website has some choice things to say here about the new Ontario Rental Tenancy Act.
What we need are what is demanded in their Ontario Housing Policy Recommendations page.
The Toronto Star editorial today is supporting the new Liberal law and attacking rent controls.
Editorial: New rental rules find right balance
May 5, 2006. 01:00 AM
Few relationships are as fraught with potential conflict as those between landlords and tenants. There often is little middle ground between the two, and governments that have waded in to try to resolve disputes almost inevitably please one side at the expense of the other.
By that measure, the Ontario government's proposed Residential Tenancies Act is a reasonable compromise that rolls back some of the excesses of the previous Conservative government, while protecting the health of the residential rental market. Landlord and tenant groups don't like the new legislation, but that may mean Queen's Park got it mostly right.
To the displeasure of tenant groups, the government is keeping one of the most controversial parts of the current legislation, namely the ability of landlords to charge whatever the market will bear for newly vacated apartments. Fortunately, this should not be a major concern for most tenants, given the current high vacancy rate. For existing tenants in most buildings, rent hikes will be limited to the rate of inflation. And as in previous legislation, rent controls won't apply to buildings built after 1991.
Historically low interest rates have encouraged many former renters to buy houses or condominium apartments, pushing vacancy rates to their highest levels in recent memory. In Toronto, the rate stands at 3.7 per cent. That has prompted some landlords to woo prospective tenants with special inducements, such as free rent for a month or two. According to the government, the market is expected to remain soft until 2009.
Such assurances may not placate renters, who make up almost one-third of Ontario households. Many still remember the late 1990s, when vacancy rates plunged and affordable apartments were rare.
Clearly, low-income renters have difficulty finding accommodation within their price range in any market. But that is not a reason to re-introduce wholesale rent controls. Rather, it is a compelling argument for the government to build more affordable housing across the province.
By rejecting total rent control, the government is allowing landlords to rely in some measure on market forces, which they contend will provide an incentive to build and maintain rental housing.
Also welcome are changes that would allow landlords who upgrade buildings to raise rents for only as long as it takes them to pay for the improvements. The proposed reforms also prevent apartment owners who fail to maintain their properties from raising rents at all.
Tenants should be pleased with a reform that would scrap the summary eviction of tenants without a hearing if they fail to respond to an eviction notice within five days. In his 2003-2004 report, then Ontario ombudsman Clare Lewis worried such evictions were having "disproportionate and oppressive consequences for vulnerable tenants."
The new law would give all tenants facing eviction the option of a hearing or mediation. This should help protect elderly and low-income tenants from possible unwarranted evictions. But the process must be written so there are no loopholes that let scofflaw tenants abuse the system.
Obviously, no one ever thought the proposed law would end all of the feuds between landlords and tenants. But with this bill, the provincial government has struck the right balance between the two sides.
Today's Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1148593811405&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Why lack of full public hearings?
May 26, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Tenancies Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Dalton McGuinty promised during his election campaign, in his first year in office to abolish the Tenant Protection Act, because he needed the support of Ontario's 4 million tenants.
On May 3, McGuinty's housing minister, John Gerretsen in his third year in office, finally introduced his government's Residential Tenancies Act for first reading. Then hurriedly passed second reading on May 17.
Now with less than 4 weeks since the surprise introduction of Bill 109, they are holding public hearings starting Monday May 29, to total only 8 hours and only in Toronto, which historically is quite unusual.
These public hearings apparently were never publicly announced. There is no announcement of these hearings on the ministry's website nor apparently any press releases about them.
This lack of notice prevents many from having the time to do a full and thorough analysis of this Liberal law and its possible impacts on this province's 4 million tenants. And only holding hearings in one city further silences the voices of tenants outside Toronto.
More typically, the procedure for a new law is what the government of Mike Harris did, having first reading of their Tenant Protection Act in 1996, followed by extensive public hearings in August of 1996. This was followed by second reading of the Act in 1997, followed by more public hearings.
Even the Harris government held hearings in 1997 in 7 Ontario cities, over 8 days, totalling 49 hours of deputations, questions and answers, in addition to their extensive hearings in 1996.
Why the lack of real and full public consultations? Because McGuinty intends to claim he has consulted with citizens and pass his new law before Ontario's 4 million tenants can understand what is going to happen to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Levitt, Webmaster, Ontario Tenants Rights, Toronto
Post a Comment
<< Home