- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Nothing succeeds like success and if the newly minted rentals commissioner is anything like as productive as Building Commissioner David Chandler, the
[See the full post at: Rental commish has pet bans, evictions in sights]The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
-
Replies
-
I am totally opposed to allowing pets in rental apartments. It must be left entirely to the owner to decide if their tenant can have a pet or not. .Ido believe the pendulum has swung too far towards tenants rights, the owners must retain some control over their investment. I do agree some control needs to be on rents, though unsure what or how. And all for eventually removing gas stoves for induction..anything that will help stop emissions.
There are several pets (dogs and cats) in our building, and the pet owners have not applied for permission to keep them. Probably because the application to keep a pet (under our by-laws) requires a tenant to provide evidence the owner of the Unit consents to their keeping a pet. When questioned, the tenants say the pet isn’t theirs, but is just visiting their Unit. Under current strata laws, the pet must constitute a real nuisance, for the Owners Corporation to take action. And the pets are mostly well behaved.
It is fascinating to watch governments announce legislative means to address problems that emerge from commercial realities in the hope the punters will overlook the more difficult (i.e., costly) remedies that would make a difference. So a tight rental market, caused in part by governments abandoning their role in providing public housing is met with adding to the regulation of the private rental market. Action taken—next problem!
According to https://tinyurl.com/22cvjsmo the private rental market is broken. And if more rentals will be needed in the future, where will the investors come from when, apparently, more investors are leaving the market than joining it?
If the new commissioner’s passion is the homeless, is this the time to favour those with homes already?
The market is the best controller of rents. When the legislature intervenes, it is favouring one party or class of people over another. How is this justified? If a prospective tenant is prepared to pay more rent at the end of an agreed term, why should the current tenant be preferred?
The market is the best controller of rents. When the legislature intervenes, it is favouring one party or class of people over another.
I see your point but isn’t allowing market forces to dictate rents favouring the fortunate over the unfortunate?
Yes. But whose job is it to level that playing field? Do the same expectations apply to sales requiring a vendor to accept less than the highest bidder is offering?
How about if, at the beginning of every financial year, landlords who wanted to take advantage of negative gearing agreed not to raise their rent in the next 12-month period? And if they didn’t sign up for that, then “market forces” would determine their rents (provided they took Airbnb out of the equation).
In a market with many buyers and sellers, “market forces” determine the price all the time. Politicians seeking your vote may tell you otherwise. But measures designed to prefer one class of constituent to another usually backfire over time.
Two months before each lease expiry date, the practice of an agent I know is to offer a rent increase of $x if the tenant signs up for a similar term or $2x if they don’t commit to a term. That seems less cumbersome than tying the figure to any sort of tax deductions administration complexity.
Given the increasing burden of land tax, not to mention the opportunity cost of not putting or keeping the money in the bank, contrary to what many people think, all the tax concessions do is attempt to keep private landlords (are there any others?) in the market. Keep sticking pins in them and see what they do.
attempt to keep private landlords (are there any others?) in the market
There are corporate landlords. A few years ago, during the Global Financial Crisis, Meriton started letting apartments that they found difficult to sell. And Mirvac, among others, are major players in the build-to-rent sector.
Major, but not dominant, as they are in Europe especially given the amount of money super funds have that need a home and the nature of their long term liabilities to fund members. There must be a reason they aren’t bigger players. Are they myopic about good deals? Is land tax the problem? I understood Mirvac’s offerings were more like resorts, hardly a major need presently.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.