Someone bought a century home in Saint John and is allowing it to rot. The buyer apparently lives in Toronto and doesn’t care that the building is falling apart.

This is shitty. Someone has the money for “an investment”, which means other people don’t get somewhere to live.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, landlords suck fucking ass. They’re a bunch of greedy dickbags who want money for doing no work, by definition.

    All non primary residences should have a massive tax slapped on them, not just these dumb foreign home buyer / vacant home taxes that nibble away at tiny edges of the problem instead of the core issue.

    If we’re having a housing crisis then why are we allowing people to hoard more than 1 home?

    • sbvOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is no landlord. This property is empty. Nobody is living there.

      • ☆Luma☆@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Took awhile to interpret what you meant here. I guess I never thought about it but by definition the noun landlord is tied up in some capacity with tenants paying a rent.

        Intuitively, landlord sounds really simple. Lord being a ruler of a household and land in this context being a territory marked by political boundaries i.e ‘someone’s yard’, you’d think they’d mash up easily to become ‘Ruler of the house on the land’ i.e landlord, but it’s entirely more than that. In all definitions I’ve found it’s tied into tenancy.

        Kinda weird and I don’t like it.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I meant it more collequially and was including real estate investors squatting on land in the same category since it doesn’t really roll off the tongue

    • Bondjimbond@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Vacant home taxes can work if they are serious numbers. I want to see a vacant home tax at 25% of the property value annually.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No issue there, but why just vacant homes? Why are we not taxing all non primary homes when so many people who want and should be able to afford a primary home, cannot?

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Any tax that targets landlords will simply be passed on to the tenants, making rent more expensive.

          Vacant building taxes seem to me to be a more effective tool to increase housing availability.

          In Winnipeg there are some very visible buildings that have dozens of apartments that have been boarded up for years. The owner is a speculator in another city who refuses to do anything with the buildings. It’s just sitting there falling into disrepair.

          • PenguinTD@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            the pass off to tenants are simply not true, there is a threshold and after that threshold buying a home is cheaper than renting. And not occupied rental unit is actually “expensive” to the landlords, so they will be forced to sell.

            There are many things that affects how that would be applied, and the fall out of how you implement such tax.

            • you can’t design the rules only for big metropolitan cities.
            • remote region does benefit from ownership cause the owner pays property tax to help maintain some basic local infrastructures.
            • need serious loop hole check so you don’t ended up having companies gobble up everything “on sale” cause regular human landlords can no longer afford extra units.
            • buying a place should come with responsibilities to maintain that place, if left to rot or damage heritage site, government should be able to take over and bill the owner.
          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Any tax that targets landlords will simply be passed on to the tenants, making rent more expensive.

            Simply untrue, if a landlord has to pay more tax on a non-primary residence, they’re going to have to rent it out for far more than a mortgage payment would cost a first time home buyer, meaning that the first time home buyer will have an easier time justifying outbidding them at sale time.

            Also impossible for a landlord to pass that on in any property that is rent controlled with long term tenants, likely forcing them to sell their second and third homes, putting more on the market and driving prices down.

        • Splitdipless@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not a bad idea, so long as the secondary property has utility. I’m thinking cottagers and those with Cabins in the woods can be taxed out of their long weekend/summer stays, but it doesn’t add to where homes are needed.