this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
63 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

9223 readers
2062 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
63
Move over, millennials. A third of Canada’s single renters are seniors (archive.is)
submitted 4 days ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is grim:

Renters are twice as likely to spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing than homeowners, according to Statscan data released last year, and the agency has found single-person households broadly to be more likely than other household types to be living in unaffordable or unsuitable housing.

...

The report also found higher rates of “material deprivation” among renters and single-person households. Respondents were identified as materially deprived if they couldn’t afford at least two essentials from a list including unexpected expenses, spending money, small gifts, bills, maintaining a comfortable temperature in their home, transportation and more.

It’s something that’s on Joy Edwards’s mind. The 70-year-old has been living in the same Toronto apartment since the 1980s, when she got divorced. While her rent for a two-bedroom apartment is well below the Toronto average, it eats up 60 per cent of her monthly Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security payments.

Ms. Edwards said she was able to retire by minimizing her expenses and sometimes receiving some food from her church and a local community centre. But with developers expressing interest in her building, she said she worries “all the time” about being asked to leave.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/retirement/article-move-over-millennials-a-third-of-canadas-single-renters-are-seniors/

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Well do anything to solve the housing crisis, except build more homes.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Private equity firms should not be able to own houses. There's homes, they're being bought and scalped essentially. And since renting is so ludicrously profitable most buildings end up being rented out by these massive firms rather than sold.

[–] marathon01@lemmy.ml -4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What about apartment buildings, aren't they homes too? Good luck enforcing something like that! Probably be a charter violation too.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I want houses 100% decommodified. If decommodified housing is a charter violation (it's not) then it's time to change the damn charter. We're not the states bud, I'm not gonna treat it like some holy document.

Just curious, do you know what the "ml" in "Lemmy.ml" stands for since you're defending landlords?

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

There are rental buildings and condominiums.

Rental buildings are "obviously" rented. The building is owned by one owner/company and operated by a management firm to oversees the property.

Condominiums have units that are owned by owners. Condominiums have boards which are run by owners. The owners hire a management firm to run the property and oversee day to day operations.

Unfortunately, many new buildings going up in Toronto as a example are predominantly rental properties. These are built by private investors that own the property and rent units out.

Generally these rental units are created as small as legally possible to maximise profits.

What I find fascinating in some EU countries is you can get a group of 10-15 strangers get together to build themselves a co-op building/condo. They get together, pool their investments, buy a parcel and build themselves a 3-4 story building that looks like any other building in the surrounding area. No private/forgin investors involved or needed.

(Co-op short for cooperative, its a business or organization democratically owned and controlled by its members, who share common needs and interests.)

[–] NeuronautML@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

In my EU country you also get that co-op without getting together with anyone before the building is built. Some company builds the building and sells out the apartments. After purchase you are legally bound to your Condominium, which you have mandatory fees depending on the amenities, such as elevators, insurance, sometimes swimming pool maintenance. Residents are just expected to organize themselves. The building is considered cooperatively owned by the apartment owners and therefore you are cooperatively responsible for its maintenance and integrity.

You also have meetings to democratically decide on what to spend on, like electric chargers, which kind of insurance to get or hiring a new administration company to manage things. You can skip the meetings if you want, but legally, you must pay the Condominium dues they give you.

It's not just 3-4 story buildings either. I've been part of 11 story condominiums, with 3 apartments a floor. I never thought this would be something fascinating in some parts of the world. It's quite normal here. What changed recently is now many condominium meetings are online, because it's easier.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There's a bunch of stuff we could do that would make houses more affordable in addition to building homes. Our governments haven't done those. That includes:

  1. Change tax laws so housing and property isn't an attractive investment.
  2. Bring in a significant number of new immigrants to work in home construction.
  3. Train more people to work in home construction.
  4. Enforce rules around mortgage fraud and income verification.
  5. Enact useful money laundering laws that would prevent real estate from being used to launder money.
  6. Stop housing from being converted into short-term rentals (AirBnb&co).
  7. Discourage short-term rentals.

CMHC&co should be building affordable housing and selling/renting it at below market rates. But it'll take decades for that to have an appreciable effect. In the meantime, there's a bunch of regulatory changes that would make housing more affordable right now - the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and other parties are barely talking about any of them (they have mentioned #3).

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)
  1. Allowing cities to build more density and restricting urban sprawl. It may sound counter intuitive to restrict a bit of sprawl and SFH, but when applied properly those restrictions can help encourage upzoning and density in key areas.
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The federal Liberals have tied some municipal funding to loosening zoning restrictions (I believe Fredericton is voting on the issue today), and the CPC proposed a similar policy before the election.

It's one of those policies that relies on builders to construct affordable units in a timely manner, so I don't expect it to have a significant impact on the housing crisis. Improving density is good for a bunch of reasons that we undoubtedly agree on, so it's positive overall.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

We could just be less weak with our policy and demand builders build a certain % of affordable units on certain plots. We could also start a real government supported affordable unit program. A big part of our housing issues fall on trusting developers to just build what we really need when we know they only build to maximize profits.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

A housing allowance for everyone who makes under say 100000 a year fully paid for by taxes on non primary residence home owners

Tax the fucking rich and let the vast majority of people CHOOSE how they want to live.

Also this has significant reduction of crime and societal benefits as well as health benefits.

Think of everyone you have ever known or heard about that didn't leave a bad situation because they didn't know how they would afford a place to live. From domestic abuse, to homelessness and all the other situations.

Yes a few people will take advantage of this, but the vast majority of people will be lifted up. If done correctly where the money they earn from whatever job/career they have isn't sacrificed so that they can go out into their communities and eat at restaurants, use services, hire professionals, actually go to your doctor, we will live in a much better society

[–] gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com 11 points 4 days ago

Woo! We're all in hell together now! /s

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

A new sitcom premise could be old people being roommates. Picture something like the big bang theory, or friends, but everyone is a senior.

[–] PlaidBaron@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

I dont know if youre kidding or genuinely havent heard of the Golden Girls.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)