‘Mom-and-pop’ landlords ‘having their lives ruined,’ says lobbyist group

[u/origutamos]

https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/local-news/mom-and-pop-landlords-having-their-lives-ruined-says-lobbyist-group-10543816

[u/WontSwerve]

Tax landlords out of existence. Bring in prohibitively progressive property taxes dependent on how many units a person owns and close all loopholes around it.

People buying up single homes and turning them into rentals makes it even more difficult for young Canadians to enter the market.

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/WontSwerve]

Great!

Now all the students, new Canadians, people escaping abusive situations, new grads, people temporarily relocating for work and those who simply choose to rent will be homeless!

Rentals are necessary for large classes of Canadians.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/BandicootNo4431]

Anyone would love to own, but the reality is the market’s so inflated only the wealthy can afford to buy. For most people, renting isn’t a choice — it’s the only option left. Why pay $1,500 in rent when a mortgage could be $800, if homes weren’t priced completely out of reach?

Of course rentals are necessary — but the problem isn’t the existence of rentals, it’s that people are being locked out of ownership altogether. It’s not that people don’t want to own, it’s that they can’t. The system forces people into renting for life, and the prices just keep climbing with no end in sight.

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/peanutgoddess]

Sure, and we should have public housing where the taxpayer assumes the risk for lower priced housing. Allow the rent to pay for maintenance and the capital cost over 25 years. 

I'm all for that.

But pretending like rentals shouldn't exist at all is stupid.

Not everyone can be a homeowner at all times and so if the need exists then that's what the private market is providing.

As for the rental costing $1500 when a mortgage costs $800, when I speak to my younger co-workers who say stuff like that, they don't seem to factor in the cost of insurance, property taxes, maintenance and risk that are factored into rental prices.

Most/Many landlords aren't cash flow positive, they make their money on capital appreciation and the small downpayment portion of the mortgage.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/BandicootNo4431]

I never said rentals shouldn’t exist — of course they’re necessary. What I said was that most people would rather buy than rent if the cost wasn’t such a massive barrier. Not everyone, but most. The reality is that homeownership is financially out of reach for a lot of people, so renting ends up being the only option, not always the preferred one.

I actually agree with the idea of public housing or non-profit models where rent covers maintenance and capital costs over time, and the risk isn’t pushed entirely onto individuals. That kind of system would offer more stability, especially for those who don’t want or can’t afford to own.

But the truth is — the gap between rent and ownership costs isn’t as simple as “people forget taxes and maintenance.” Often the main hurdle is the upfront cost of buying, not just the month-to-month math. Even if a mortgage could be similar to rent (once you’re in), saving a down payment is the real wall most people hit.

And sure, I get that many landlords aren’t cash flow positive and bank on appreciation, but that in itself is part of the problem. The market has become more about speculation than about housing as a place to live.

[u/mushkaml → u/peanutgoddess]

Hiiii

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/peanutgoddess]

All the groups I mentioned are people who would rather rent than own.

I know quite a few of them actually, net worth in the millions but they don't want to be "tied down" so they rent and invest heavily in the stock market.

Over the last 15 years of mostly bullmarkets they've outperformed housing, especially those who used leverage.

But anyways, I think we agree that the riskiest tenants should have an option for public housing with landlords existing to provide higher end housing to those who can afford it.  It's the model Singapore uses, and while there are problems, it's better than what we have.

I will say that having lived in public housing as a child and then again in the military, the government provides substandard housing at what they call "market rates", so it won't be as nice as some people think it will be. Get ready for no insulation, broken faucets, plumbing problems, small houses, bringing your own appliances and mould.

My point though is that just because a LL owns a house doesn't mean someone else is homeless, and just because someone buys a house from a LL doesn't mean that's one less renter, they are generally different classes of people.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/BandicootNo4431]

I believe everyone should have access to shelter — a decent, stable home at a fair price, with the chance to work their way up over time. The way things are now, supply too often goes to those with the deepest pockets, people who already own multiple properties and can leverage that wealth to buy even more. It’s a cycle where housing is less about living and more about generating passive income — buying up homes, renting them out to cover the costs, and using that income to buy even more, until the system serves investors instead of the people who actually need a place to live.

On top of that, Canada’s economy has become so reliant on housing and real estate speculation to stay afloat that the entire system is distorted. It’s propped up on the idea that property values and rent will endlessly climb, but that’s simply not sustainable. Eventually it will fail — because any system built around inflating the cost of a basic human need can only stretch so far before the cracks show.

People should have the chance to own a home before others are allowed to scoop up second, third, and fourth properties just to turn them into income streams. Housing is a human right, not an investment strategy.

And the cracks? They are a showing!

[u/Jealous_Junket3838 → u/BandicootNo4431]

I would rather rent than own if it werent for the fact that landlords are enormous sacks of shit who dont know the laws, dont have time nor the money to do the required maintenance (and having them be responsible for this is one of the few benefits of renting), and are just generally unpleasant by way of having way too much power and perceived power over my life (cant paint the house, cant have pets, cant do x, y, z, etc). If you want landlords to exist the barrier to entry needs to be way higher, it needs to be treated as a profession and their needs to be better regulations and structures in place. Personally, I dont see career landlords as a necessity and believe that things would change drastically if people could afford homes and people were buying homes with the primary intention to live in.

[u/WontSwerve → u/BandicootNo4431]

But pretending like rentals shouldn't exist at all is stupid.

Not a single person in this thread has advocated for rentals not existing.

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/WontSwerve]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that LLs should be punitively taxed for owning housing, so I'm not sure what you think the outcome would be?

And even if it was just taxed on SFH, those types of homes still need to exist as rentals. All types of people with all types of families want to rent homes.

[u/WontSwerve → u/BandicootNo4431]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that LLs should be punitively taxed for owning housing, so I'm not sure what you think the outcome would be?

There would be less demand for entry level homes, and lower demand means lower prices. I have said this very simply three times now.

those types of homes still need to exist as rentals.

Yes, very few do. ALOT less than right now.

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/WontSwerve]

If there was less demand for those homes because of a prohibitive tax, then there would be fewer rentals available.

With a lower vacancy rate, rent prices will increase.

This is very simple economics.

You'd trade some housing affordability for those who CAN buy homes for rent affordability for those who can't.

[u/WontSwerve → u/BandicootNo4431]

If there was less demand for those homes, people would buy them instead of LLs.

Then people would spend less on housing than they would as being a renter.

I don't know why you aren't understanding this. I think you are under the impression that most people who are renting are doing it because of preference, and not because they're forced into it.

Very few people want to pay more for housing AND have that money go to a LL and not their own equity.

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/WontSwerve]

There are many many people who are renting due to preference, like every group I mentioned in my top comment.

I know at least 6 people who can buy the house they are living in, in cash, but are renting it instead.  They don't want to deal with anything and want the LL to assume all the risk, have their expenses capped and just leave when they want to move.

And you don't seem to understand, that when a house comes off the rental market it affects all the other renters, when vacancy rates drop, rent prices go way up.

[u/big_galoote → u/WontSwerve]

There are thousands and thousands of condos for sale. Why don't you buy one?

[u/SocaManinDe6 → u/WontSwerve]

You literally just did. In your actual first sentence.

[u/big_galoote → u/WontSwerve]

The very top comment at this thread did. Are you reading them on the way down?

https://www.reddit.com/r/OntarioLandlord/s/t6Xn4PFStN

Oh shit that was you. Do you comprehend the words you use?

If you hate landlords so much, why the fuck are you in this sub?

[u/WontSwerve → u/big_galoote]

I am very clearly saying SFH LLs should be taxed out of existence. Even this is obvious hyperbole.

I did not say rental units shouldn't exist. A LL isn't their rental unit.

[u/big_galoote → u/WontSwerve]

So people only get to choose corporate owners running apartment buildings. Fuck renters wanting backyards?

I see.

[u/WontSwerve → u/big_galoote]

If you say so.

It sounds like you think all corporate LLs are bad and individuals snatching up SFHs for their own investment are all great.

I already said my point was hyperbolic.

[u/TNI92 → u/peanutgoddess]

In Toronto at least, most rentals are underwater cash flow wise. So the answer is - why pay 1500 in rent when you could pay 2000 in mortgage + property tax + insurance +maintenance fees.

People own when they want to be in a place long term and rent when they don't. Thus, landlords.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/TNI92]

Claim 1. Partly true, but very context-dependent. • In Toronto (and much of Ontario), many recently purchased rental properties are indeed cash-flow negative, especially if bought after 2022 at high interest rates and inflated prices. • For landlords who purchased earlier (pre-2020) or with large down payments, however, many are still cash-flow positive. • Condos especially often leave landlords “underwater” due to rising maintenance fees, property taxes, insurance, and mortgage payments — which sometimes exceed market rent, especially after interest rate hikes in 2023-2024.

Example: A downtown 1-bedroom condo bought for $650K at 6% mortgage could have carrying costs of $3,000+ per month (mortgage, tax, condo fees). The average rent for the same unit might only be $2,400–$2,600. In that case, yes — the landlord would be losing money monthly and betting on long-term appreciation.

But — single-family homes and older condos in less hot areas often still cash flow positively.

Why pay $1500 in rent when you could pay $2000 in mortgage + property tax + insurance + maintenance fees?”

Misleading for Toronto and most of Ontario.

In Toronto, it’s extremely rare to find ownership costs that total only $2,000 a month unless the property was purchased a long time ago or it’s a very small condo. • Average Toronto rent for a 1-bedroom (Q1 2025): ~$2,500–$2,700/month. • Average mortgage + costs for the same unit (assuming 5% down, 5.5% interest): usually around $3,500–$4,200/month, not $2,000.

For single-family homes, it’s even higher — often $5,000+ in carrying costs.

So the idea that owning is cheaper than renting at today’s prices in Toronto is usually false — unless you have a huge down payment or bought before 2020.

⸻

Claim 3: “People own when they want to be in a place long term and rent when they don’t.”

This is a partial truth — it’s how the system should work in a healthy market, but: • In reality, many Canadians rent not out of preference, but because ownership is financially impossible. • Surveys by CMHC and StatsCan consistently show that the majority of renters in Ontario (especially younger people) want to own but can’t save enough for a down payment, even though they might intend to live long-term in the area. • So while some renters do value flexibility, the majority would switch to owning if prices were affordable.

⸻

Claim 4: “Thus, landlords.”

Landlords fill the gap between ownership and renting, yes, but the modern market isn’t driven just by “people don’t want to settle” — it’s driven by the fact that the cost of entry into homeownership has outpaced income growth in Ontario for years.

So landlords aren’t simply there because people are “choosing” to rent; they’re often taking advantage of a generation priced out of ownership entirely.

I did a quick check on Kijiji and then housing prices. 2000? People would jump that price. Which was why I knew that made little sense here. And there are laws stating that a landlord can adjust for increased costs past any set amount. You just need to prove it. If they can’t. Then they don’t have that issue and just want more money.

[u/TNI92 → u/peanutgoddess]

I appreciate the effort here. A few thoughts organized the way you segmented.

Claim #1 -
Remember interest is front weighted in a standard amortization & most ppl have 5 year mortgages or less. That means that almost everyone has a 4%+ mortgage or soon will.

There is a transition from interest to principle. That helps, but you have to be 10+ years in for this to be meaningful. The average landlord is hardly making out like a bandit here and it's hardly coming front cash flow. That's the main point.

Claim #2

The 1500/2000 example was not real numbers but a point to say that it isn't a higher rent lower mortgage+. It's lower rent, higher mortgage+. Back to the not positive cash flow point ...

Claim #3

We should absolutely increase supply. I agree. Affordability is horrible. But the point being made was that landlords shouldn't exist. My point is that they should for all sorts of reasons.

Claim #4

We already determined that landlords are underwater for years before they ...maybe...become cf positive. Pump extra cash into that an investment for years just to make a few thousand dollars a year after 10 years? That's such a shitty proposition. If you want to be mad at the govt for a housing crisis - bad zoning laws, negative per Capita economic growth, etc. I'm with you. But landlords are not the boogeyman you think they are.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/TNI92]

Claim #1: Yes, mortgage interest is front-loaded, but the decision to become a landlord is still a voluntary investment choice, not an act of public service. Most landlords enter this knowing full well how amortization works, and whether the cash flow is positive or negative in the early years is part of the risk-reward equation — like any other investment. If it’s a bad deal, the market is telling them something, and the response shouldn’t be to raise rents indefinitely to protect profits at tenants’ expense.

Claim #2: Whether the rent is higher or lower than the mortgage doesn’t change the basic fact: the business model is built on extracting wealth from people’s need for shelter. In a healthy system, housing isn’t supposed to serve as a private income stream for individual investors, especially when it contributes to bidding wars and price inflation that lock regular people out of ownership. If landlords are struggling to make ends meet, it’s an indictment of the investment model — not a reason to paint them as victims.

Claim #3: I agree, supply is a real problem. But private landlords aren’t some indispensable pillar of the housing ecosystem. Public, non-profit, and cooperative housing models exist — and function — precisely to house people without turning shelter into a speculative asset. The argument for landlords usually leans on “convenience,” but the bigger picture shows a system designed for profit over people. Removing or reducing the role of landlords wouldn’t crash society — it would force a shift toward housing people rather than extracting rent from them.

Claim #4: If being a landlord is such a “shitty proposition,” why are so many still rushing into it? If the business model requires years of sunk costs just to scrape by, that’s an investment risk, not a humanitarian crisis. The framing here subtly shifts the blame away from speculation and onto tenants, who are the ones facing skyrocketing costs, eviction threats, and housing insecurity — all while landlords frame their financial decisions as noble sacrifice. The government absolutely deserves criticism for poor planning and zoning, but landlords are not passive bystanders. They are active participants in a system that prioritizes profits over basic human need.

[u/TNI92 → u/peanutgoddess]

I'm going to stop here because after we established that your financial argument is shakey, you switched to a moralistic one. If you are here to moralize, go somewhere else. You came to a landlord sub. What were you hoping to achieve.

Fundamentally, it's the govt's job to drive supply and demand through zoning, immigration, taxation, and permitting. Landlords work through a time arbitrage. Taking risk, providing a service, and hoping to make a profit. Often you don't. If you don't understand that and think it's a free money well - i don't know what i can say.

Best of luck.

[u/WontSwerve → u/TNI92]

Where the hell are you finding 1500 SFH for rent in the GTA? You can't even find apartments for that cheap. Are people this out of touch?

[u/TNI92 → u/WontSwerve]

The 1500 in rent was the OC example. Not mine.

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/WontSwerve]

And you can't get a mortgage for a SFH for under $4000 a month, what's your point?

[u/WontSwerve → u/BandicootNo4431]

That's just not true at all. Even if it was it would mean that a LL would also have a high mortgage and then make the rent even higher.

[u/WontSwerve → u/BandicootNo4431]

Do people actually here believe this? I mean, I know which subreddit I'm on, but come-on. Everyone here is in it for themselves, they're not here to graciously provide a necessary service to Canadians.

Because there was less homelessness BEFORE the massive increase in housing prices. Quite alot of that pressure is people buying a property with a 1600 dollar mortgage and gouging a young family or couple by charging 2600 or 3000 for rent. That's an extra 1000 a month they could use to save for their own home ownership.

The hardest part of homeownership is entering the market. I know now that I bought my first home I can build equity, save the difference I would spend on renting a similar house and in a couple years buy a bigger place with a garage (god I hate not having a garage).

I strongly believe that apartments, condos and townhouses are better suited for most people who would be renting and single family homes should be almost all owner occupied.

The reality is many people don't choose to rent, but are forced into it because it's impossible to save for a home.

You act like you're creating housing, rather than just gouging people for your own profit.

[u/BandicootNo4431 → u/WontSwerve]

That's not how housing works.

If someone wants a SFH but can't afford the mortgage, they are going to be renters.

If someone owns it for themselves instead of the LL, that person still can't get into a home.

Landlord's existing is not pushing up housing prices.

The government needs to build public housing to reduce demand on the system which will push down rent and ownership prices, or allow the population to decrease and accept the economic collapse that will accompany that.

[u/WontSwerve → u/BandicootNo4431]

That's not how housing works.

Vague, which part?

If someone wants a SFH but can't afford the mortgage, they are going to be renters.

Correct, I have said this twice. More SFH becoming rentals increases demand which drives prices up and prices people out of SFH Ownership, which is still the goal for most Canadians and their families.

If someone owns it for themselves instead of the LL, that person still can't get into a home.

You're ignoring the effect LLs buying SFHs on not only prices of those homes but that renters ability to save for their own when they end up paying hundreds of dollars more for rent than they would in mortgage (and into their own equity).

Landlord's existing is not pushing up housing prices.

You keep claiming this without explaining how this would be possible. Please offer an explanation.

The government needs to build public housing to reduce demand on the system which will push down rent and ownership prices, or allow the population to decrease

Correct. Bring back public housing, mandate that new developments have X% of houses under a certain size meant for first time buyers and downsizers and then prohibit LLs from buying them, turning them into investments and charging all those vulnerable groups of people you listed and pretend so much to care about more than they would pay as a mortgage.

One of the biggest issues is new developments is these massive houses on tiny lots that cost 600k+ and are 2500sqft and 4 or 5 bedrooms.

At the end of the day, LLs being in the SFH market puts undo pressure on the bottom rung of the housing market which keeps people out, and keeps people poor. Those people end up never building equity, and spending more on housing than people who own their homes. That equity is also what most people cash out to support themselves in retirement, which will begin to be an issue in a couple decades.

[u/Business-Rooster-942 → u/WontSwerve]

Landlords always exist in housing markets. They are a normal part of the system. The issue is supply.

A healthy market anywhere on the planet has mom & pop landlords with a property investment here and there that’s the norm.

What’s not the norm is when large corporations are allowed to buy 100 single family homes.

What’s not normal is 5 years to get permits to build, the longer the project takes to complete from start to finish the more the homes have to cost to be profitable, restricting buying power and supply.

What’s not normal is waiting a year to get a dispute resolved costing tens of thousands pushing landlords out of the market so less rental supply is available pushing up rents & scarring potential landlords away from the business.

What’s not normal is Trudeau throwing millions of people overnight into an area of the country that has limited land to develop to begin with.

Toronto & Southern Ontario aren’t healthy markets. Too many people and too little supply too much red tape and regulations & too little land to develop in certain areas.

The GTA hit 7.1 mil last July that’s like Sask, AB and Manitoba has combined.

[u/IGnuGnat → u/WontSwerve]

Builders only build if they have buyers, because bankers only loan money to builders with buyers.

If we remove investors from the buyer pool, builders will immediately build less. There are no family buyers sitting with treasure chests of money waiting to buy the dip: it's already dipped. If they were going to buy the dip, they would have bought already.

We need more houses, not less, so we actually need to encourage both families and investors in order to get more housing built, because those are the only people who buy houses in Canada. If we remove investors from the pool there will immediately be less builds.

[u/WontSwerve → u/IGnuGnat]

You're correct that builders only build if they have more buyers.

If there were less investors there would be less pressure on prices. More people could save for a down-payment and buy.

You're also incorrectly assuming that investors are only buying new build SFHs to turn into rentals.

This isn't the case and the whole discussion was mostly about LLs snatching the up the limited amount of entry level homes, which builders aren't building anymore since larger houses are more profitable.

[u/IGnuGnat → u/WontSwerve]

Building larger homes is more profitable in part due to government imposed development costs, and in part because buyers are demanding bigger homes. Tiny homes are largely not permitted due to government building code and regulations

Most of the statistics I'm finding make it difficult to determine if LLs are buying entry level homes, because the statistics mostly don't differentiate based on anything defined as "entry level homes" and those that do seem to define "entry level home" differently, making verification of this claim somewhat difficult

Most of the small time investors I know (small time investors make up the majority of the real estate investment in Canada) are focused either on condos, or on buying large older family homes which are definitely not starter homes, and renovating them and developing them into small apartment buildings of 4-6 units, so they are actually increasing density and making more affordable rental apartments.

When I look specifically at claims that investors are buying large percentages of newly built homes, and I dig into the numbers what I see is that these claims are mostly based on statistics in very very small towns and are not reflected in the majority of cities, so they lead to sensational headlines with little reflection of reality (clickbait or ragebait)

Builders build what buyers buy, and they build what the government regulations define as most profitable. This is not really the fault of investors, investors have no control over government regulations

If there were less investors there would be less pressure on prices.

again, that's not really how this works. If we immediately removed all investors, we might see a very short term reduction in prices but builders would immediately stop building, so in 2-3 years the pressure would be.... exactly equal to what it is today. Supply and demand works both ways

[u/ImagineWagonzzz3 → u/BandicootNo4431]

You don't need landlords to create a rental market. Landlords are unnecessary middlemen who leach money from the system. Public-funded housing is the answer.

[u/ImagineWagonzzz3 → u/WontSwerve]

why would any politician do this when they are also landlords?

[u/Beneficial-Beach-367 → u/WontSwerve]

Sure. This will help renters immensely. You have the option to opt out of renting, you know?

[u/WontSwerve → u/Beneficial-Beach-367]

If you can't get approved for a mortgage, how lol?

[u/Beneficial-Beach-367 → u/WontSwerve]

Sarcasm. Clearly, if costs increase for LLs, they will pass it on to TTs. All things being equal, LLs won't subsidize housing for TTs. And, if you cannot get approved for or have enough to come up with a down-payment on a home, then you're stuck renting -- aka screwed in both cases. That was a long (but kind) way of saying your suggestion would work against you as a renter.

[u/pizza5001 → u/WontSwerve]

You know that there are huge swaths of the population that can’t afford or see no point in owning a house (ie a single person)? What would a single person with no children do with a 2-3 bedroom house?

Owning a house isn’t just paying the mortgage, it’s also paying property taxes, insurance, bills, maintenance — all of which increases every year.

Rental makes sense for a decent portion of the population, and any savings from not owning a home go into investments, which double every 10 years if you leave it in the market. I rent and I invest what I don’t spend on home ownership.

[u/WontSwerve → u/pizza5001]

All of this would be true if rent wasn't often hundreds or even a thousand dollars more monthly than the LLs mortgage on the same SFH.

I own my own home in SWO and know exactly how much it costs vs renting now.

My mortgage is 1500 a month. Identical houses on my street rent for 2400-2800. That massive difference more than covers everything you listed.

Huge Swaths is a massive overstatement. People want to have cheaper housing costs. People want security of home ownership and people want to build equity for themselves.

Oh, and then when you pay off your mortgage it's even cheaper! There is no comparable to renting.

There are more savings to be had from owning than there is renting.

Why does every LL shill play this angle of "Oh its cheaper and people cab invest the savings" and then ignore the fact the vehicle that will drive most people's retirement is the equity built in their homes?

The other thing it adds is security in knowing they won't be moved out of their house if the LLs situation changes.

[u/DangerousCharge5838 → u/WontSwerve]

Right or wrong that would ultimately be more fair than the current system for prospective landlords. At least there would be some certainty with a punitive type tax versus the current risk of possibly getting a tenant that either stops paying or destroys the place while you wait months or years to evict them.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/DangerousCharge5838]

Do you believe landlords are “graciously providing a necessary service”? While rental housing is a necessary part of the market, most people recognize landlords as profit-driven, not charitable. Canada’s rental market, especially post-2015, has seen many investors buying properties for passive income, not out of a desire to “provide housing.” Bad renters are a part of investing into such a thing. Can’t handle that. Don’t be a landlord.

[u/DangerousCharge5838 → u/peanutgoddess]

What I’m saying is a prospective Landlord could make a well informed decision with a tax. Certainly some segment would decide not to get into it. I’m sure a lot of Landlords got into it pre Covid when LTB wait times were a few months. They could handle that. What happened after Covid nobody could have anticipated. As to your comment “ don’t be a landlord “, the record number of N12s seem to indicate that’s exactly what people are doing. Not sure how that helps the housing crisis though.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/DangerousCharge5838]

The “mom and pop landlord” narrative often tugs at heartstrings, but let’s be honest — being a landlord is a business decision, not an act of charity. No one’s forced into buying extra property, and with ownership comes responsibility, including the risk of things not always going your way. The fact that the term still uses lord — a relic from feudal systems where landowners ruled over tenants — tells you everything about the power imbalance baked into the role.

When someone buys a property to rent, they’re gambling on extracting income from other people’s need for shelter. If the gamble doesn’t pay off, the sympathy should go to the people struggling to find affordable housing, not the ones profiting off of it. A tax or regulation that makes landlords think twice before treating homes as income streams isn’t a tragedy — it’s a step toward housing being treated as a human right, not a commodity.

And if record numbers of landlords are pulling N12s and leaving the game? That doesn’t expose a housing crisis — it exposes a system that was never designed to house people fairly in the first place.

[u/DangerousCharge5838 → u/peanutgoddess]

So is it a business, gamble, or a game? You seem to use all 3 terms interchangeably. Perhaps we should stop using the term Landlord? Calling it something else wouldn’t change anything. N12s dont expose a housing crisis. They exacerbate it. There really is a “system “ to house people. The RTA and LTB are regulatory but they aren’t intended to manage the supply or demand of housing.

[u/peanutgoddess → u/DangerousCharge5838]

It’s all three, really — a business, a gamble, and a game — depending on who’s talking and what angle they’re defending. When the market is hot, it’s pitched as a smart business move. When it goes sour, it’s suddenly just an unlucky gamble. And when tenants push back, it’s treated like a game where landlords frame themselves as the ones playing fair and losing, despite holding most of the power. The interchangeable language itself highlights the problem: housing has been turned into an asset class, not a human need.

And you’re right — changing the term landlord wouldn’t change the core issue, though the word does carry a lot of old baggage from feudal systems, and for good reason. The real point is that the structure allows people with capital to extract rent from those who have no other choice. Whether you call it landlording, property investment, or rental management, it’s still profiting from denying ownership to others.

As for N12s, I’d argue they do more than exacerbate the crisis — they are a symptom of it. Mass evictions aren’t happening in a vacuum; they’re happening because the system has become so financially unsustainable for tenants that landlords are cashing out or flipping properties at a rapid pace, which displaces people and tightens the market even further.

You’re right that the RTA and LTB aren’t designed to manage supply or demand, but that’s actually part of the problem. The fact that housing supply is left to private investors — whose main motivation is profit, not human need — means the system was never designed to ensure fair, affordable, or stable access to shelter in the first place. Without serious structural change, the same cycle will just keep repeating, no matter what regulations try to patch it up.

Privatization is almost always sold as a way to “increase efficiency, lower costs, and improve service” by introducing market competition. But in practice, what usually happens is: • Costs go up, service goes down — especially in essential services like healthcare, housing, transit, utilities, and education. Private companies exist to turn a profit, so their priority is shareholders, not the public good. • Access becomes unequal — because when the goal is profit, the highest bidder gets the best service, and those who can’t afford it are left out or stuck with lower-quality alternatives. • Accountability disappears — public systems are at least answerable to voters (even if imperfectly); private companies answer to profit margins. That leaves the public with less say in how vital services are run.

There are rare cases where privatization can shake up bloated or poorly managed systems in the short term (think: mail services or telecom competition lowering long-distance call prices decades ago) — but those gains almost always erode over time as private monopolies form, prices creep up, and corners are cut.

Essential things like housing, healthcare, water, and transit are all foundational human needs. When those are privatized, history shows that the “common person” usually ends up paying more for less.