BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[blankall]

Lots of good stuff in there for sure. A lot of it seems so obvious and should have been implemented many years ago. It seems like the anti density crowd has finally realized that stopping higher density won't keep people from moving in, and just increases the cost of living for everyone.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by activeStick

The BC tax enforcement on home owners with poverty-level incomes will help with the international students going to UBC living out of houses in North Van.

Also like the rule preventing flipping within 2 years of purchase.

Lots to like.

North Van? Pffft.

Look at the ones living in Point Grey and Shaughnessy first

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wow, we are, what $1.40 right now?

Hey Fuzz. Take a long hard suck on my arse!

[DirtyMike]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Hey Fuzz. Take a long hard suck on my arse!

lol

[Winsor_Pilates]

I like the look of those Eby proposals.
The removal of strata rental restrictions is very overdue. Buildings newer than 2000 already had this but it was odd having so many older strata that didn't allow rental.

[rubecube]

We need to do away with pet restrictions on rentals, like Ontario has done. Size limits are fine, but it's devastating when people with pets get renovicted and then have to give away a pet as well.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Hey Fuzz. Take a long hard suck on my arse!

So...is this how he got the username 'Fuzz?'

[Street Pharmacist]

Like like a good plan and there'll be some serious push back from some wealthy lobbies

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

We need to do away with pet restrictions on rentals, like Ontario has done. Size limits are fine, but it's devastating when people with pets get renovicted and then have to give away a pet as well.

Disagree.

I rent a basement suite, and there's no way I'm allowing a dog any bigger than a toy poodle on the property. Many people are also allergic to pets. Once a place has been rented to someone with a pet, it's a long time before someone with allergies can move into the unit.

The previous occupants of our house also allowed their puppy to urinate all over the carpet and used the shower as a toilet for it. A year later and multiple carpet cleanings later it still reeks of dog urine whenever it gets hot.

We're talking about basic human rights here and shelter. Let's not conflate the issue.

[Scornfire]

I quite like those proposals from Dave Eby

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

The previous occupants of our house also allowed their puppy to urinate all over the carpet and used the shower as a toilet for it. A year later and multiple carpet cleanings later it still reeks of dog urine whenever it gets hot.

What's the fundamental difference between a a bad tenant who lets their pet damage the property vs. a bad tenant who damages the property themselves?

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What's the fundamental difference between a a bad tenant who lets their pet damage the property vs. a bad tenant who damages the property themselves?

I'd contend that this very scenario is what dedicated pet agreements (Separate from the tenancy) specifically aim to combat. If my cat were to damage the carpet even 1/10th as bad as it sounds like that dog murdered blankall's I'd be on the hook for complete replacement, and I've already agreed to full steam cleaning of the carpet + air filters within my unit when I leave.

Further, that owner should probably be reported to your local animal bylaw enforcement authority, as they're clearly unfit to care for a dog.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What's the fundamental difference between a a bad tenant who lets their pet damage the property vs. a bad tenant who damages the property themselves?

No real difference. However, I have the right to refuse rental to someone who I think will cause me a nuisance or is more likely to damage my property. I have the right to choose between tenants, and if I for, whatever reason, don't want to rent to someone I can.

For example, if someone told me they planned on playing drums, I would probably rent to someone else. If someone told me that they planned to stain my rug, I would probably rent to someone else.

In the case of a larger dog, there is zero chance of me not interacting with that dog, or its mess, directly. I choose not to share my backyard with a dog.

You're proposing taking away that right to choose whether or not I want to interact with someone else's pet.

[afc wimbledon]

I'm a firm believer in tenants' rights and a dog owner but I don't think anyone has a right to have a dog in someone else's property, dog's trash a floor, my dog is old and blind and pees on the floor at times, it's my house though and I will replace the flooring when he has passed, a landlord shouldn't be on the hook for the lack of available social housing

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What's the fundamental difference between a a bad tenant who lets their pet damage the property vs. a bad tenant who damages the property themselves?

Pet presence makes that home uninhabitable for a segment of the population (allergy sufferers). I don't think it's unreasonable that a homeowner gets to decide who they discriminate against (pet owners vs. allergy sufferers) in this case. But in general, I'm not sure how practical/possible it is to enforce anti-discrimination on unique decisions like who to hire or rent to.

[kermitology]

It's a good start, but doesn't quite go far enough in my mind. It still allows municipalities to change variance rules to prevent multi-family homes from being built. There are municipal elections happening in October and a bunch of the anti-density candidates in Victoria are wringing their hands about this. Eby was housing minister before starting his leadership campaign, and he was threatening this if municipalities didn't get their #### together. Any candidate who is surprised by this is not competent enough to be on a council.

Also greater Victoria has too many councilors and mayors. It's ridiculous.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What's the fundamental difference between a a bad tenant who lets their pet damage the property vs. a bad tenant who damages the property themselves?

The tenant with the pet (dog/cat) can easily do an order of magnitude more damage just with a minor amount of laziness or apathy.

I mean there is obviously a spectrum of "bad" tenants and it's not a binary thing. But everything being equal, a bad tenant with a pet is probably likely do more damage than one without.

Spoiler!

Something, something, assault rifles. /s

[Weitz]

All those new proposed rules just makes me think rent costs will increase.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weitz

All those new proposed rules just makes me think rent costs will increase.

Every hoop comes with a price tag.

[Weitz]

Maybe not increase. But sewer value without decreasing rental rates?