As Quebec faces an unparalleled housing crisis, many owners prefer to keep their housing vacant. Hundreds of affordable apartments would be voluntarily abandoned. It should make us think.
Why do owners choose to manage emptiness instead of helping to house families who would need a roof on their heads? Because it’s more chargeable.
Of course, there are the profiteers. Often, these are large real estate investors. Or finished ends who know the law well and know that it has flaws from which they can take advantage of.
This week, the case of the 200 apartments left vacant in Pointe-aux-Trembles in a complex that contains 650 has caused a stir.
The case, revealed by Noovo, rightly raised the anger of the current residents of the neighborhood and all those who are looking for an affordable roof, something rare these days.
No rent control
For example, did you know that uninhabited accommodation for more than 12 months is not subject to the control of rents? Like me, you were probably not aware. However, this kind of detail does not escape professionals. Once the past year, nothing prevents them from fixing the rent as they see fit. There is zero risks remaining “vacant” when you know that you can double your profit.
Welcome to the filthy world of the free market to the detriment of its neighbor. We often speak of speculation, but it is rather speculative retention. We voluntarily keep an empty accommodation while waiting to rent it or even sell it more expensive. In Quebec, it is completely legal.
Many small owners tell me doing the same for other reasons. They no longer want to manage difficult tenants. Even less live with fear every month than the tenant has become insolvent. I understand the owner, who has trimed hard his life to pay his duplex which he considers his retirement, to no longer want to manage disorder and losses. He prefers to count on the value of property in the long term.
Force the hands of the rental companies
When an empty accommodation becomes more advantageous than inhabited accommodation, something does not turn round in our society. So, should we force a owner to rent your accommodation? Of course not. It would be boring the fundamental right to have its own property. However, there is a way to force the hand of speculators.
It is a shame that the Minister of Housing, France-Élaine Duranceau, does not see the importance of acting. For her, these are “private housing, not [des] affordable subsidized housing ”by the State. So we let it go, Madam Minister?
However, France has now imposed a surcharge on vacant housing for over a year. Other countries have reverse tax incentives: the more empty your accommodation, the more you pay. It forces the hand, without biting legally questionable rights. Above all, it sends a clear message that the home cannot just be a yield case.
