Seafield Update

This is a quick follow-up post to the post I made on the RTO decision (PDF) last year to raise rents at an apartment complex in the West End. A relatively exhaustive series of blog posts is covering the decision. Start here.

In my analysis I was intrigued the RTO decision interpreted the law that it needn't use any evidence forwarded by tenants in making its decision to markedly increase rents above the annual cap. It turns out, according to the Supreme Court of BC, you can't do that. The law was meant as a way of ensuring that extreme cases of low rents could be fairly addressed. Unfortunately, the law has been difficult to interpret and follow. This case highlighted how much variance there is in rents, even between comparable units. Variance in rents is due to dwelling location, amenities, and quality, and quality of tenant; the law does not address the latter factor in any way.

What will this decision mean? Well, for rents that are significantly below market, there is some argument for ensuring the law is kept in some form. The alternative is a situation where the rental cap is removed and there is a continual push on the Legislature to do just that. On a street level it likely won't have much impact at all. This part of the law that allows above-cap rent increases is rarely used because of the significant amount of research and time required to make a valid case.

Removing the rental cap has its own problems, most notably that landlords can use it as a way of eviction. There are provisions for preventing this but are not universally enforced. The other method BC landlords often resort to is moving in to the property for some months -- the law says it must be at least 6 months -- but it is the prerogative of the evicted tenant to confirm this and complain to the RTO. We heard about this situation for a recent Olympic rental.

The biggest myth around rental caps is that it keeps rents below their fair market value. This is patently untrue according to all the data I have seen. The data we do have on rents come from CMHC (see UBC Sauder School of Business graph (PDF)). Average rent is increasing in line with average income, about 1.8% per year, which is less than the rental cap of around 3-4%.

No matter what the laws and protections awarded to both tenants and landlords, we do know that the vast majority of tenants are not subjected to looming eviction or massive rental increases (or even rental increases at the cap for that matter...). When a business relationship -- which the tenant-landlord relationship is in its essence -- goes sour and trust is lost, the boundaries of law, fairness, and morality are tested on both sides. I know of both tenants and landlords who seem to be perpetually in some sort of conflict with the other. I wonder if it's worth the time and cost.