this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7200 readers
380 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PenguinTD@lemmy.ca 2 points 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.