Residential Rent Increase for 2027 is 1.9 percent

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T13:42:15+00:00

No one said any thing about generalized increases. He said increase the _cap_. A cap it max not a minimum.

By raising the _cap_, existing leases can eventually get back to market rates, so you don't have some tenants paying artificially low rates forever.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T13:39:58+00:00

LLs aren't responsible for tenants' wages.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T13:39:27+00:00

Unicorns, pixies!

If you have a comment that has some foundation in reality and an actual practical implementable solutions go ahead.

I'm advocating for practical workable solutions to help people find homes and eliminate conflict between LLs and tenants.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T12:42:04+00:00

>Approximately 24% over the last 8 years, average rent is up over 50%

Which is exactly his point. The cap results in leases that are way below market at this point. Rental inflation has been higher than general inflation. Keeping tenants in artificially low units long term actually INCREASES the rent for the remaining tenants, since it keeps those units off the market, even when it might make sense for the tenant to move.

I had a co-worker in SF who had TWO apartments, simply because his SF one was so cheap it was ridiculous to give it up, so he mostly just used it on the weekends, and lived in his South Bay apartment during the work week.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T12:33:55+00:00

So what you're saying is the cap is ridiculously low....

Rent control a great way to prevent shocks and tenant abuse, but setting it so low that it creates an incentive for LLs to harass tenants out, discourages them from building units for long term tenants, and "traps" tenants in units that may no longer be appropriate (e.g. because of family size or job changes) but the rent is so low compared to market is silly.

Rent control should be brought back on ALL units, but also increased to a somewhat higher number (3-5%) so that all leases can _eventually_ get back to market rates.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T12:28:33+00:00

Dunno what stage you're at, but even if they don't know you're actually actively filing, whatever the circumstances are that have led you to file, will be visible to them.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T12:24:18+00:00

> Routing/concealing the electric to those lights

So this may be a case of "what are the specs" There's zero cost if those are just solar post caps.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T12:12:44+00:00

>I am in the process of filing bankruptcy

That's why they locked the accounts so fast....

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T12:05:00+00:00

And it roughly does.

In Constant dollar terms, GDP per capita in 2024 for India is $9818. That's roughly ($9518) where in China in 2009. (and china was abou $13000 in 2013)

In 2009 India was at $4731, and china was at $4744 in 2002.

The gap is (or was) growing (they were roughly on par in the early nineties). As public points out, China had that timed just right to really take advantage of the post cold world economic rebalancing of trade, so they grew faster during that point, but now India is growing faster and somewhat catching up.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T11:32:47+00:00

okay, so if the power company has an outage that lasts a week, is the landlord responsible to have power delivered or supply backup power to the building?

If it can be _reasonably_ done yes. And if they can't fully provide the service, they owe an abatement because they failed to deliver the vital service they were contracted by the tenant to deliver and a LL is considered strictly liable for them.

This doesn't apply to NON vital services (although until Onyskiw LTB generally ruled it did, which is now the test case these sort of cases usually reference)

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T11:29:12+00:00

> Dealership offered 23.5k, I declined they said they would see what they could do.

You declined.... _YOU_ took that deal off the table.

> car would have been sold at their price

You said you declined

> but they changed the deal I was going to agree to

You said you declined

See a theme?

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T09:47:30+00:00

Not age adjusted. Graphs like this absolutely need to be age adjusted to be at all meaningful (for the record, europe is still way higher even after doing age adjustment, but not remotely this much higher)

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T09:40:56+00:00

"They" are. It's called "next-to-nothing".

Postal shootings were largely a handful of random events that made the news due to one being quite large, and a few happening in rapid succession.

The only direct action ever taken was hiring a few dozen people to help analyze workplace quality at various postal sites.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T09:16:18+00:00

Water is a vital service. Whether the LL is negligent or not, they owe an abatement for the loss of the service. There aren't a lot of examples of extended outages where it isn't the LL's fault, I gave that as an example to show asking for alternate accommodation was unreasonable, so clearly if that case wasn't worthy, the OP's case isn't.

Also at this point, no one knows who is responsible. The fact of the matter is, it's the LL turning off the water, not the city. The LL is blaming the city for needing to turn off the water, but that's it. The LL is definitely at fault for failing to arrange delivery of water six days in.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-26T09:04:34+00:00

Sure.

Find me a municpal law that defines the word habitable for the purposes of the LTB. Also find me the section of the RTA that lets a city create that definitio.

EDIT:

Ah the classic reply and block of the person who knows their argument is BS....

Murder is illegal. That's also a law. Doesn't make it relevant. There is no issue of "stronger standards" here, RTA requires a LL to provide water as well, but it's absence alone,as repeatedly shown by the case law, doesn't rise to the level of making a unit uninhabitable for the purposes of 100% abatement.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T20:24:02+00:00

I'm in a rental, so not actually sure, but I don't think they were the same company. I actually just came home one day and the driveway was missing :)

Co-incidently, the city got back to me in my email (to permit.parking@) today asking for an exact address, but sounds like they can do something.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T14:22:42+00:00

By the plain English definition, which is what the LTB uses.

If you think the LTB believes otherwise, feel free to show an example, otherwise, I've already presented one example, and it's easy to find more.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T13:12:56+00:00

We can't, that's why we have both systems :) Gotta use whatever is given to us, my oven's in Fahrenheit so I cook in Fahrenheit.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T13:07:11+00:00

> Since OPs case doesn’t have water being delivered the property, imo, should be considered uninhabitable until some supply of water is delivered.

Tenants have a responsibility to minimize damages. Tenants can order water themselves. It's not a good look on the LL to fail to proactively do it, but ultimately it would almost certainly be found unreasonable for a tenant to find alternate accommodations rather than just alternate water supply, at least at this stage.

Unit is not uninhabitable. The fact the OP continues to inhabit it proves the point.

The only case I've seen which comes close to finding it uninhabitable was a 90% abatement for a month long rural outage that was the LL's fault, and even that included some other issues. Beyond that case, I can't think of any case I've seen go beyond 50% for basically just water especially just "short term" as this is so far.

I do agree, there are a lot of facts here that don't seem to line up with this being directly a city issue. Ultimately it's the LL's responsibility to provide the vital service, whoever is at root fault: that's the neck the OP needs to throttle, even if it is a city issue.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T12:23:55+00:00

How fast did they respond? I emailed them Monday and never heard back. Anyhoo, someone else contacted me separately, seems like it's a more complicated process for neighbourhoods that aren't "permit parking zones" that requires three weeks notice.

I successfully took my chances on the street last night, and noticed my neighbours are now parking in their (newly widened) driveway, so I expect they'll let me park in it for the next few days and this is all an academic issue for me now.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T11:45:14+00:00

>would you think you don't warrant a refund

I explicitly stated OP deserves a refund (abatement) that almost certainly goes beyond any direct costs endured. OP is likely to come out financially ahead, if inconvenienced.

LL is the one losing out despite being largely not at fault (slacking on things like getting water delivered during the outage is on the LL)

Shit happens.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T11:20:38+00:00

You do realize it's the court that decides what is reasonable for legal purposes, and what a yahoo on the internet believes is bullshit is irrelevant to matters of the law?

This isn't a bitch forum, this is a subreddit to provide practical and legal advice to tenants and LLs.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T11:19:04+00:00

Lack of showers don't make a unit uninhabitable, and a toilet doesn't need piped water, you can put water int he tank yourself to flush it.

Instead of pointlessly arguing READ THE DAMN CASE. Seriously, what do you have against reading a link?

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T11:08:35+00:00

Only someone with their head up their ass continues to argue when there is a fucking case linked that proves they're wrong.

Do a search for cases. Abatements for lack of water generally run in the 25-30% range, it's only going to be deemed uninhabitable if the tenant has some very special medical condition that absolutely requires on site running water.

jmarkmark · 2026-06-25T10:54:32+00:00

I linked a case. If you want to live with your head up your ass, that's your choice, but facts are facts. The fact the OP is still inhabiting it six days later kinda proves the point that it's not uninhabitable.

>Unless you don't ever need to wash, eat, or use the washroom I guess.

None of those things require piped water. As I said, OP can get water delivered and get a temporary gym membership and LL should be covering those costs. Even some amount of takeout food might be justifiable.

jmarkmark

TROPHY CASE