The most interesting part is how this is one of the few serious sources of backpressure on rent. Normally landlords are so loathe to reduce rents that they'll let a property sit vacant for months, but this tax makes that extremely painful so they're forced to instead meet the market on rent prices.
What's the reasoning here? I've tried to talk landlords down by less than a month's rent when taken over the course of a typical year lease, been told to shove off, only to watch the unit go unrented for months until they finally drop the price.
This is especially true in commercial real estate, where your other tenants (e.g. in the same mall) sometimes have a "most favored nation" provision - if anyone else gets lower rent, they do too.
I’ve even seen it in SF lately - sign a 12 month lease and your first month is free.
I have no idea if the math works out for that, and he was negotiating, but he didn't budge a cent and we took our business elsewhere so it did seem like his hands were tied the same as your example.
The flip side to it is that I'm actually willing to move if they say no. I would rather not, because moving is a pain, but if you're not willing to take the other listing, it wasn't really comparable.
edit: However, I have only negotiated with individual landlords in AB. I have not tried in BC.
So if you are renting 60% of your units at $4k per month, you can borrow against the income you'd make if you had all 100% rented out. But if you had to lower the rent on the other 40% by $1k to get 90% occupancy -- you'd have a larger income, but be able to borrow less money.
If your goal is to use leverage to borrow as much as you can and cash out before the cycle ends (which I think is what most people are doing in RE) then this is how you do it.
Yep, the more of a mansion you have, the more you are hit, and the less likely you can get a renter who will be ready to pay the premium rate.
Moreover, "antislum" rules in some parts of regional district may prohibit subdividing the property for rent. Ironically, they were said to be passed under the influence from NIMBY people.
> While most owners contacted by CTV News said they don’t want groups renting out the homes, the rentals present a cheaper housing alternative for students and young professionals.
Huge mansions rented to a single person.
From the article: "these rentals offer a single room in a multi-bedroom house for anywhere between $700 and $1,500"
I read this with your quote as saying they don't want to rent to groups of students who already know each other, presumably because they don't want their luxury mansion turning into a frat house cum party pad and possibly getting trashed. They are renting rooms out to multiple individuals who are sharing the properties however.