Insightful Letters to the Real Estate Magazine Editor https://realestatemagazine.ca/category/columnists/letters/ Canada’s premier magazine for real estate professionals. Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:25:50 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 https://realestatemagazine.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/cropped-REM-Fav-32x32.png Insightful Letters to the Real Estate Magazine Editor https://realestatemagazine.ca/category/columnists/letters/ 32 32 Letter to the Editor: Tax dollars for climate change mitigation vs. more affordable housing — which is best? https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-is-investing-in-climate-change-mitigation-really-the-best-use-of-our-tax-dollars/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-is-investing-in-climate-change-mitigation-really-the-best-use-of-our-tax-dollars/#comments Wed, 20 Mar 2024 04:03:24 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/?p=29543 “It takes money away from somewhere else, and I believe somewhere else — making housing more affordable — is a better use of our tax dollars”

The post Letter to the Editor: Tax dollars for climate change mitigation vs. more affordable housing — which is best? appeared first on REM.

]]>

On February 22, REM published a well-researched and well-argued article about the public outcry against ever-increasing property taxes.

One small, innocuous phrase that says so much caught my attention: The Montreal mayor was quoted as stating we are facing “unprecedented challenges” around inflation, housing and climate change.

While most of the problems around inflation and housing were actually caused by governments, I want to challenge the assertion that we’re facing an unprecedented challenge around climate change.

 

Is climate mitigation investment worth taking money from more affordable housing?

 

Spending our tax dollars on climate mitigation is very expensive and causes more tax increases, but this will have (and is already having) a more significant effect on our economies.

Is the investment in climate mitigation worth the huge amounts of our tax dollars, especially given that there are no win-win solutions?

 

There is no climate emergency: Making housing more affordable is a better use of our tax dollars

 

It takes money away from somewhere else, and I believe somewhere else — making housing more affordable — is a better use of our tax dollars.

I decided a year and a half ago that climate was important enough to study in-depth. I can’t go into detail in a letter of this length, but I can say that all my claims are easily verifiable. Climate is a very complex system and I can only scratch the surface.

There is no argument against CO2 rising rapidly (currently about 400 ppm). But, there is no climate emergency, there is no scientific consensus and there are no climate “deniers.”

 

Let’s start with CO2

 

CO2 has indeed risen quite rapidly in the last 150 years and industrialization is very likely contributing to it, but it is NOT the cause. The earth’s climate changes naturally over several cycles as long as 120,000 years due to variations in the planet’s orbit and spends many years in cooler periods (ice ages) and then shorter periods in warmer interglacials. We happen to be in a peak interglacial right now (yay).

What happens during these peaks? CO2 and temperature rise rapidly, which have been much higher than now (about as high as 1,000 ppm) and likely will be again. One day, though, Canada will be under a mile of ice again and there is nothing anyone can do about it. 

 

Between new technologies and population decline, CO2 will come down

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of the United Nations, came up with several scenarios to determine what will happen under various CO2 emission models. They recently dismissed their worst-case scenario (the one all the end-of-the-world predictions are based on) as highly unlikely, and I believe they’re considering removing the second worst-case scenario, too.

It turns out Western nations’ carbon emissions have been declining for a couple of decades. Nations like China and India are major contributors, firing up new coal-powered plants every week. The IPCC’s worst-case scenario for sea level rise is 18 inches by 2100. Plus, the world’s population is predicted to peak within 50 years and then decline. Between new technologies and population decline, CO2 will come down.

 

Consensus: Foreign to science

 

It also turns out there is no scientific consensus. Consensus is not even a concept in the world of science.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

 

– Albert Einstein

The whole purpose of science is to question assertions, and consensus is foreign to the endeavour. The 97 per cent consensus position was first put forward by John Cook, from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, who reviewed hundreds of papers, and it has been vigorously challenged. Another scientist reviewed the same papers and found something like a 5 per cent consensus. 

 

Yes, CO2 is increasing — but it’s about the level of concern

 

Last year, the CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence) research foundation produced a climate declaration challenging the “consensus” and so far over 1,900 scientists and professionals have signed on, including a Nobel Prize winner.

This brings us to the “deniers”, an embarrassing argument for any scientist to make. This is called arguing against the person and is widely recognized as no argument.

No serious scientists deny increasing CO2, but many question the level of concern.

Remember the argument that increasing CO2 will make the world more arid and threaten food production? CO2 is plant food and, drum roll please, an area one to two times the size of the U.S. has greened and food production has increased dramatically.

 

Investing climate money in housing affordability will dramatically improve the lives of ordinary Canadians

 

So, with all these factors to consider, is climate change a wise use of our property (or other) tax dollars? I say no, certainly not yet. Bjorn Lomborg eloquently laid out the details of climate and the consequences of mitigation. The more we spend on climate, the less we can spend on roads, bridges, schools, medicine and housing.

Canada contributes 1.5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Our efforts will have zero impact on climate but will result (and already are) in economic disaster. Investing that money in housing affordability instead will dramatically improve the lives of ordinary Canadians. On top of this, research finds that the better off people are economically, the more they are amenable to saving the planet.*

 

*For example, a UN survey found poorer nations ranked climate their last priority, with things like better healthcare and better job opportunities coming higher. A 2030 version of this survey is currently underway.

 

The post Letter to the Editor: Tax dollars for climate change mitigation vs. more affordable housing — which is best? appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-is-investing-in-climate-change-mitigation-really-the-best-use-of-our-tax-dollars/feed/ 1 Letter to the Editor: When it comes to ORWP, embracing change is for the greater good https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-when-it-comes-to-orwp-embracing-change-is-for-the-greater-good/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-when-it-comes-to-orwp-embracing-change-is-for-the-greater-good/#comments Tue, 08 Aug 2023 04:02:48 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/?p=23492 "It's not just about me; I see the value it brings to our profession."

The post Letter to the Editor: When it comes to ORWP, embracing change is for the greater good appeared first on REM.

]]>

Editor’s note:

 

In the interest of safeguarding the author’s well-being and preserving an open environment for diverse opinions, we have chosen to publish the following letter anonymously. We would like to assure our readers that the author’s identity has been thoroughly verified. The author is a respected veteran realtor within their community and is not currently serving on a board or in an elected position.

 

The decision to withhold the author’s identity was made to protect them from potential harassment or backlash that has unfortunately been experienced by some contributors, allowing the focus to remain on the content of the letter rather than the author’s identity.

 

At Real Estate Magazine, we value and encourage open discussion; we also believe in providing a safe space for  voices to be heard. 

 

Throughout my 38 years as a realtor, I’ve witnessed countless heated debates in our industry. Having served as a two-time past president of my local association and getting involved in local politics, I’ve definitely faced resistance to change from friends and colleagues.

I still remember the intense backlash we received when introducing the Data Distribution Facility (DDF). People were furious, claiming we were “giving away their data.” Of course, as time went on, fellow realtors realized that the DDF actually gave us more control over our data, and now it’s just standard practice.

When I came across OREA’s initiative to create a benefits program for all members, particularly the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP), it stirred up much controversy, especially on social media.

When I first heard about the plan, I wasn’t supportive either. I thought it was redundant since I already had benefits through my wife, a retired teacher. But my perspective changed after digging into the details and speaking with former TRREB President Kevin Crigger, who helped create the plan.

I became a proponent of the plan once I realized that the ORWP would complement my existing coverage. It’s not just about me; I see the value it brings to our profession. Many across the province who previously lacked coverage will now have access to various benefits, including my son, who lacks any coverage.

Sure, I understand some aren’t thrilled that the ORWP is mandatory, and they’d prefer the option to opt-out. But practically speaking, for it to be an affordable group plan, everyone needs to participate.

Considering their extensive services, I’ve always believed that OREA’s annual dues were good value. Now, with the benefits plan coming at a cost that’s less than what most of us spend at Starbucks or Tim Hortons in a year, it’s evident that we’re getting excellent value for our money.

In my many years of selling homes and cottages, I’ve come to love the people in this profession. I know we realtors are fiercely independent, and that’s probably why there’s some pushback against the ORWP. But I really wish some critics could be more constructive in their feedback towards the volunteers who worked hard on this plan. After all, they’re realtors like the rest of us, volunteers who genuinely want to support their colleagues and raise our professional standards.

It’s never pleasant to be yelled at while trying to do good; I’ve experienced it myself. So my advice to fellow realtors is to take the time to read up on the ORWP. Ask questions, voice concerns, and seek clarity— it’s your right. I did it, and despite my initial reservations, I believe it’s a good plan.

Looking ahead, OREA’s planning an extensive communications campaign, and it would be great to have as many in-person meetings as possible. Zoom fatigue is real, and meaningful conversations are more likely to happen face-to-face. We excel at selling, so let’s use that skill to communicate effectively.

Doing the right thing isn’t always popular, at least in the short run. But I genuinely believe the ORWP is right for us, and it’ll have a lasting, positive impact on realtors in Ontario.

 

 

The post Letter to the Editor: When it comes to ORWP, embracing change is for the greater good appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-when-it-comes-to-orwp-embracing-change-is-for-the-greater-good/feed/ 101 Letter to the Editor: The ORWP is a long-awaited lifeline https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-the-orwp-is-a-long-awaited-lifeline/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-the-orwp-is-a-long-awaited-lifeline/#comments Tue, 01 Aug 2023 04:02:51 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/?p=23401 Realtor Erin Corcoran shares her perspective on the ORWP, emphasizing its benefits after being without coverage for 17 years

The post Letter to the Editor: The ORWP is a long-awaited lifeline appeared first on REM.

]]>
The new OREA wellness program, from my viewpoint, is a fabulous and beneficial program that is going to be implemented soon for Ontario realtors. Keep in mind this is my opinion, and although many are opposed, many are still in favour.
 
You see, I haven’t been covered by benefits in over 17 years. That’s 17 years of having to pay for everything at full price. That’s travel insurance, life insurance, dental, vision and more, which I haven’t had since before 2010. I’ve even been declined for certain programs that I have tried to apply for because of a rare blood disorder that most insurance companies don’t cover because it scares them and they know nothing about; and if I was able to get it, the amount I would have had to pay would have been an extreme amount; more than medications, etc., per year.
 
With the ORWP, there are no medical tests or questionnaires required to participate. That in itself is beyond incredible for me.
 
I’ve talked to many others that are covered by spouses, etc. or on other family plans, but I haven’t had that opportunity. Both my fiance and I are self-employed, which is hard to support a family of 5 and the cost of living plus an added astronomical amount towards benefits & coverage. Finally, an answer we have been looking for.
 
Never mind the added bonus of dental and eye care for a small added fee. Both of which I require as an individual.
 
I’ve heard talk of how some think it’s not fair for this program to be mandatory or how realtors shouldn’t be involved with organized real estate and not be members of OREA. But why? Why would you then do a disservice to your clients and not want to have access to the MLS system or be covered by errors or omissions? I know some people are incredibly set off by the lack of an opt-out option and the mandatory amount we must pay.
 
OREA says, “The premium for the Standard Plan will be $659.88 annually per Member and will form part of the OREA dues, bringing the total annual OREA dues to $769.88. For less than $2 a day, 96,000 Members across this province will have the peace of mind of a safety net.”
 
$2 a day, that’s it? To have backing from an insurance company, to have safety and a little reassurance when travelling or getting new glasses. That’s the same price as a large coffee from Tim Hortons.
 
We were all sent the same emails asking for our input regarding what we thought and what we, as TRREB members, were looking for.. stability!
 
Why is it a problem now? Because OREA or TRREB didn’t specifically ask whether you would want this if it was mandatory. Or because your voice wasn’t heard?
 
I voted for our representation for TRREB, and I have attended OREA AGMs in the past. I am involved with knowing and learning more about our industry, and I also watch the virtual meetings online. I got involved and understood what is happening through different task forces within our industry, so I feel I have the right to speak out about this topic.
 
Have you? Have you gotten involved? Read all our emails? Know what’s happening within your own board? If the answer is no, then let me be blunt. I don’t feel that there is an option for you to blame others or get angry over a mandatory benefits program. Do you want a change? Then get involved!
 
I’m seriously excited for the program to start in January. I encourage everyone that’s not as excited to look at it from another point of view.
 
Erin Corcoran
Sales representative
Re/Max Prime Properties
 

The post Letter to the Editor: The ORWP is a long-awaited lifeline appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-the-orwp-is-a-long-awaited-lifeline/feed/ 73 Letter to the Editor: CREA responds to Realtor Cooperation concerns https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-crea-responds-to-realtor-cooperation-concerns/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-crea-responds-to-realtor-cooperation-concerns/#comments Wed, 12 Jul 2023 04:02:14 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/?p=22982 CREA responds to a REM reader's concerns surrounding Realtor Cooperation: Reinforces client interests, allows private marketing options and addresses potential misuse

The post Letter to the Editor: CREA responds to Realtor Cooperation concerns appeared first on REM.

]]>

We appreciate the continued dialogue around Realtor Cooperation as we get closer to the date that the new policy will come into force on Jan. 3, 2024. In his letter to the editor on Jul. 6, 2023, broker Cory Raven suggested the new Realtor Cooperation Policy conflicts with a realtor’s Primary Duty to Client in Article 3 of the Realtor Code. It doesn’t.

The policy reinforces and supports the Primary Duty to Client, which states, “a REALTOR® shall protect and promote the interests of his or her client.” Listing a property on an MLS system can result in more offers and better offers, which, I’m sure we can agree, is in a client’s best interest.  

Where a client wants a less public approach to marketing, realtors can still market exclusively within their own brokerage or through one-on-one direct marketing with realtors from other brokerages without triggering the policy.  

It’s only once there is any “public marketing,” like advertising a pre-launch wine and cheese party or a “coming soon” sign on a front lawn, the policy is triggered, following which the listing realtor has three days to list the property on an MLS System. This approach, which is supported by a strong majority of boards and associations across the country, addresses serious issues raised by the potential for misuse and abuse of limited marketing practices, which can often not be in the best interests of clients. We are confident Realtor Cooperation will serve the best interests of both realtors and their clients.   

Between now and January, we’re committed to providing the support needed for both the adoption and enforcement of this policy. We encourage you to bookmark this webpage as resources and information will continue to be shared there.

– The Canadian Real Estate Association 

The post Letter to the Editor: CREA responds to Realtor Cooperation concerns appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-crea-responds-to-realtor-cooperation-concerns/feed/ 9 Letter to the Editor: Conflicting obligations and Realtor Code amendments needed https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-conflicting-obligations-and-realtor-code-amendments-needed/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-conflicting-obligations-and-realtor-code-amendments-needed/#comments Thu, 06 Jul 2023 04:00:41 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/?p=22811 A reader shares concerns about the Realtor Cooperation Policy and emphasizes the need for clarity and communication regarding conflicting obligations with the Realtor Code

The post Letter to the Editor: Conflicting obligations and Realtor Code amendments needed appeared first on REM.

]]>

As many know, in January 2024, CREA will restrict the public marketing of exclusive listings not on MLS.

I further wonder if, in January, there will be a change to the CREA Realtor Code. Article 3 currently reads, “A realtor shall protect and promote the interests of his or her client,” and that will be impossible to fulfil if early marketing activities, a pre-launch wine and cheese party, or a “coming soon” sign on the lawn are in the interest of an agent’s seller (all of these and more creative marketing solutions will be limited starting January 2024).

I’d suggest, starting January 2024, Article 3 of the Realtor Code either be deleted or amended to read “A realtor shall protect and promote the interests of CREA and its products and services over the interest of his or her client” to be more accurate and in line with the new policy.

If Article 3 is not removed in January and there is a conflict between Article 3 and the new policy, would CREA rather an agent breach Article 3 or breach the new Clear Cooperation policy? At times it will be impossible to abide by both of these sometimes conflicting rules of the Realtor Code. 

Most agents are just trying to help their clients day in and day out and wish to do so within the rules that govern them. CREA can assist in this by amending the code to clarify which of these conflicting obligations takes precedence over the other and communicating that to agents well before January. 

Cory Raven

Managing broker/owner

Re/Max Select Realty

Vancouver, B.C.

 

The post Letter to the Editor: Conflicting obligations and Realtor Code amendments needed appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letter-to-the-editor-conflicting-obligations-and-realtor-code-amendments-needed/feed/ 12 Letters to the Editor: Einstein was right https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-to-the-editor-einstein-was-right/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-to-the-editor-einstein-was-right/#comments Thu, 07 Apr 2022 04:00:06 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-to-the-editor-einstein-was-right/ As everybody knows, supply and demand is a basic principle. If supply is higher, prices go down. If demand is higher, prices go up.

The post Letters to the Editor: Einstein was right appeared first on REM.

]]> A long time ago, Albert Einstein said: “Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

It’s a fact of life that you’ll find stup… (sorry, “dreamers”) in any profession and institution and, certainly, the government and the Ontario Real Estate Association are not exceptions. As proof about the government’s stupidity (about real estate) is that they are still keeping FINTRAC in spite of its uselessness, its $77-million annual budget and the lack of real results.

If that “stupidity” at the federal level was not enough, now they are chasing a new mirage at provincial level with OREA’s help and its recommendations to the cute More Homes for Everyone Act (funny name, eh?).  In order to reduce the price of properties, what OREA recommended sounds a little bit ridiculous:

1) Use financial incentives to encourage municipalities to speed up zoning bylaw amendments.

2) Increase the certainty of development charges to bring down prices on new homes.

3) Strengthen consumer protections for purchasers of new homes by doubling fines and extending building license suspensions to address unethical conduct by developers.

Do they really believe that prices will go down just by applying these incongruent measures? Or is this just a show before elections? I don’t know what happens where they live but here, on planet Earth, it doesn’t work that way. The current prices, simply put, are the prices of this market. Probably the only way to get a reduction would be by flooding the market with thousands of properties next week. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

As everybody knows, supply and demand is a basic principle. If supply is higher, prices go down. If demand is higher,  prices go up. If you could buy diamonds by the pound from a big basket in No Frills, certainly they would be cheaper than the price you see in a jewelry store.

It seems to me that the government didn’t realize yet that, unfortunately, affordable housing (at least in Toronto and the GTA) is a naive and impossible dream. Do they think that in the next neighbourhood to be built (even with the above recommendations) will they see houses 40 per cent or 50 per cent cheaper than other locations around that area? Don’t try to artificially reduce the price of houses. Try to realistically increase people’s income!

In a nutshell: If you can’t afford a Mercedes, buy another car. Do not expect that the Germans will reduce the price for you. If you can’t buy a house in Toronto or the GTA, then do what Shrek did and move to The Land of Far Far Away.

You have to adapt to the market, not the other way around. I know that it’s not your fault, buyer, but like the rest of us, deal with it.

Jorge Branca
Sales representative and ABR
Century21 Leading Edge Realty
Toronto

The post Letters to the Editor: Einstein was right appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-to-the-editor-einstein-was-right/feed/ 1 Oshawa says REM column misrepresented facts on rental housing licensing review https://realestatemagazine.ca/oshawa-says-rem-column-misrepresented-facts-on-rental-housing-licensing-review/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/oshawa-says-rem-column-misrepresented-facts-on-rental-housing-licensing-review/#respond Fri, 01 Apr 2022 04:00:59 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/oshawa-says-rem-column-misrepresented-facts-on-rental-housing-licensing-review/ The article written by columnist Chris Seepe, contains speculation on behalf of the author who has misrepresented facts and made numerous false and defamatory statements. We have outlined the statements by the author and the facts below.

The post Oshawa says REM column misrepresented facts on rental housing licensing review appeared first on REM.

]]> The article “Oshawa proposal is state-sanctioned surveillance by unaccountable enforcement officers,” written by columnist Chris Seepe, contains speculation on behalf of the author who has misrepresented facts and made numerous false and defamatory statements. We have outlined the statements by the author and the facts below.

The title of the article: Oshawa proposal is state-sanctioned surveillance by unaccountable enforcement officers

Facts: The city’s municipal enforcement officers enforce bylaws and follow a bylaw process that is approved by elected members of Oshawa City Council, and as such, they are accountable to the community they serve.

The actions of municipal law enforcement officers must be defendable in a court of law and enforcement orders and penalties most often include appeal mechanisms. Additionally, in instances when a community member feels an order was wrongly given, there are a number of avenues for appeal. The city has a robust appeals system and furthermore, public sector misconduct complaints can be made to the Ontario Ombudsman in the event that a community member feels an officer(s) were not performing their roles with integrity.

Statement in the article: “In January 2022, the City of Oshawa’s City Council heard a proposal from its bylaw department to roll out a residential housing licensing program that would be the first of its kind.”

Facts: Oshawa City Council directed city staff to undertake a public consultation regarding a potential city-wide expansion of the current Residential Rental Housing Licensing (RRHL) program and report back with findings on the potential impacts. The city has not decided to “roll out” a program but is seeking public input and consultation to understand stakeholder concerns and determine whether such a program would be appropriate or effective for residents of the city.

The RRHL would not be “the first of its kind” as London, Toronto and Waterloo also have city-wide licensing.

Statement in the article: “Oshawa wants to license every type of rental housing.”

Facts: At this point, council is requesting feedback from all stakeholders on possible licensing. No decisions have been made.

In our consultation, one of the questions (Question 12 on the feedback form for property managers and landlords) asks property managers and landlords if they “think the program should be expanded to require all rental properties in the city to be licensed?” Additionally, question 13 on the feedback form gives property managers and landlords the opportunity to explain why or why not they feel this way, while question 14 asks property managers and landlords if they feel licensing should apply to individually owned dwellings, multi-unit dwellings under single ownership or both.

Statement in the article: “The city referenced data it created, managed and ‘analyzed’ using thinly veiled, one-sided surveys and carefully selected participants in ‘public feedback’ forums that could lead to only one pre-determined outcome.”

Facts: There is no pre-determined outcome or opinion on RRHL. City Council is requesting public and stakeholder feedback on the potential city-wide expansion of the RRHL.

The consultation invites community members to complete one of three stakeholder specific feedback forms: general public; tenants and renters; or residential property managers and landlords.

The next report to council, planned for later this year, will provide details of all the feedback received.

Statement in article: “The city’s foregone conclusion was that it must set up a demerit point system that rates how ‘bad’ every housing provider is by employing 33 additional bylaw officers at a cost of almost $5 million.”

Facts: There is no proposed demerit point system as part of the RRHL In fact, a previous demerit point system was removed by council during a review of the RRHL in 2021.

None of the proposed options considered for public consultation indicated a need for 33 additional municipal law enforcement officers.

Statement in article: “The city essentially sanctioned a state-run surveillance regime comprising relentless mandatory ‘spot’ inspections using unaccountable law enforcement Praetorian guards empowered to make legal interpretations and pronounce financial penalties for even the most trivial infractions.”

Facts: Again, no decisions have been made. Council has approved consultation to gauge feedback on a potential program expansion.

The city’s municipal enforcement officers enforce bylaws and follow a bylaw process that is approved by elected members of Oshawa City Council, and as such, they are accountable to the community they serve.

The actions of municipal law enforcement officers must be defendable in a court of law and enforcement orders and penalties most often include appeal mechanisms.

Statement in article: “Tenants will ultimately suffer the most in the long run under Oshawa’s proposed licensing program. The net result will be excessive property standards enforcement leading to minimalist property quality and no new housing construction, resulting in a grossly inadequate number of property standards-conforming rental units at extremely unaffordable rent rates.”

Facts: The city is seeking to obtain input from the general public, tenants and renters, and property managers and landlords on the potential city-wide expansion of the RRHL.

Specific questions in the tenants and renters and property managers and landlords feedback forms list the RRHL-associated fees.

Question 11 of the feedback form for tenants and renters provides the RRHL-associated fees per rental type and asks the question, “If these fees were passed on to tenants through increased rent, do you think there is value in licensing to ensure your rental unit complies with minimum health and safety standards (e.g. property maintenance and fire safety)?”

Question 12 asks tenants and renters, “Would you be okay with a city inspector entering your rental unit to inspect it at a scheduled time?”

Question 11 of the feedback form for property managers and landlords asks if they feel the RRHL-associated fees for costs related to inspections and administering the program are “too much, fair or too little”.

About the Residential Rental Housing Licensing Program

On January 24, 2022, Oshawa City Council directed city staff to undertake a public consultation regarding a potential city-wide expansion of the Residential Rental Housing Licensing program and report back with findings on the potential impacts. No decisions have been made at this time. Here is a link to the original council-directed report.

The City of Oshawa encourages and welcomes feedback from your industry and invites you to share with your readers the Connect Oshawa project page at https://connectoshawa.ca/rentallicensing, which includes a link to the online feedback form specific to residential property managers and landlords.

Community members can also provide their feedback by attending either in-person or electronically a Special Meeting of the Corporate Services Committee on Monday, April 4 at 9:30 a.m. Details are available by viewing the city’s meeting calendar.

Feedback on the RRHL Program will be received until noon Monday, April 18 and considered in the development of potential regulatory licensing standards that will be presented to the Corporate Services Committee later this year. More information is available by contacting mlels_policy@oshawa.ca or 905-436-3311.

The post Oshawa says REM column misrepresented facts on rental housing licensing review appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/oshawa-says-rem-column-misrepresented-facts-on-rental-housing-licensing-review/feed/ 0 Letters: List properties on the local boards’ MLS system https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-list-properties-on-the-local-boards-mls-system/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-list-properties-on-the-local-boards-mls-system/#respond Mon, 21 Jun 2021 04:00:28 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-list-properties-on-the-local-boards-mls-system/ Why do out-of-town Realtors list some properties only on their board and not the local board where the property physically exists?

The post Letters: List properties on the local boards’ MLS system appeared first on REM.

]]> Why do out-of-town Realtors list some properties only on their board and not the local board where the property physically exists?

Last week I was out showing houses in beautiful Brantford, Ont. As I was trying to get the lockbox to sync with my phone (a rare occurrence), my client, looking across the street, shouted: “Andrew, why didn’t you send us that one? That’s exactly what we’re looking for!”

Embarrassed and about to take a hammer to the lockbox, I shot back, “It must be a brand new listing! I’ll try to get us in right away.”

The sign belonged to a Toronto Realtor. Well, it wasn’t a new listing, it had been on TRREB for over two weeks. As far as getting an appointment right away, it didn’t happen. We came back the next day knowing very little about the property, as the listing agent still hadn’t sent me the information. The bottom line: Not listing a property on the board where the property physically exists is a disservice to the vendor and could result in a substantially lower sale price. Imagine listing a property in Brantford only on TRREB!

 

Andrew Karpavicius
Sales Representative
Royal LePage State Realty Brokerage
Ancaster, Ont.

The post Letters: List properties on the local boards’ MLS system appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-list-properties-on-the-local-boards-mls-system/feed/ 0 Letters: Happy buyer or commission? https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-happy-buyer-or-commission/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-happy-buyer-or-commission/#respond Thu, 13 May 2021 04:00:47 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-happy-buyer-or-commission/ Would you sell a house built in the 1940s to your mother without a home inspection? The recent frenzy to offer blindly on a property in multiple offers often results in the successful buyers having serious buyers’ remorse.

The post Letters: Happy buyer or commission? appeared first on REM.

]]> Would you sell a house built in the 1940s to your mother without a home inspection? Would a happy buyer and the potential of repeat business be of higher importance and morally just, rather than a quick commission? One would think so, but it’s not always the case.

The recent frenzy to offer blindly on a property in multiple offers often results in the successful buyers having serious buyers’ remorse. A seasoned, reputable agent would hopefully recommend a home inspection on a 75-year-old property, but sadly some of my clients have not been so lucky and have been guided by someone with less experience and more interest in a quick commission payout.

As a home inspector for 13 years, I can say I’ve pretty much seen it all. It’s always been a positive experience working with excited buyers and investors. While a few times a year a buyer armed with a full and comprehensive report will walk away from a property, those who proceed do so knowing what they may be facing to rectify deficiencies and plan for future end-of-life systems like a new furnace, AC unit or roof. Both those that walk away or proceed and purchase are happy to have been able to make an informed decision.

This overheated market is now generating buyers who have maxed out their budget and now have buyers’ remorse. Pressured to buy without due diligence because of multiple offers and tight schedules, many book a home inspection after the closing date but that is often too late.

Having spent top dollars, and possibly $100,000 over ask, they have a limited budget to deal with unexpected defects. The young inexperienced selling agent has since driven off in his Mercedes to check on his dog walker, cleaning lady and hot tub temperature (as posted and boasted on social media) and grossed a whopping $20,000 commission. That commission would not come close to covering the major deficiencies of their client’s new home that can go undetected until it’s too late.

Having to deliver the facts on a post-closing-date inspection is starting to feel like a doctor delivering difficult news to patient who is seriously ill. Seeing a buyer near tears on what is supposed to be a happy, new and exciting chapter in their life is not fun.

A recent client had some costly and concerning findings. Lead water supply pipe – a major concern for a young family. A furnace 19-years-old, AC 38-years-old, asbestos and 60 amp electrical service, basically rendering the home uninsurable until upgraded to a minimum 100 amp service.

These issues alone could cost $25,000 to $30,000 before the planned kitchen renovation or new windows.  Most of these items would have easily been discovered by a well-seasoned agent who has dealt with 75-year-old homes, and who would have recommended a home inspection during the seven days the house was being shown before offers were due.

Those smiles and eager looks of a first-time homebuyer fade quickly into the reality that they have some serious issues to remedy, potentially delaying that new kitchen and windows they had planned. They are not happy with their agent either.

Most of the agents I work with will find a window prior to when offers are due to schedule a home inspection that follows the industry Standards of Practice and provides buyers with a comprehensive report. Sometimes the buyer decides there is too much work and declines putting an offer forward, but generally they proceed with the information they need to make an informed decision and offer that will allow them to address key deficiencies that were disclosed before making an offer.

We all know it’s not a great time in real estate. Competition is fierce for buyers and agents alike. Agents are suing agents; buyers are suing agents and underhanded deals and games of the trade are putting wedges between those who are supposed to represent the needs of both buyers and sellers. Offer acceptance dates are being cancelled because of bully offers (that often puts the listing agent in the position of double ending the property). Winning bidders are being told “there are some very competitive competing offers” that are actually below theirs, and they end up over-bidding themselves. This is creating distrust in the industry.

House prices have increased approximately 35 per cent and so have commissions. All during a pandemic when some can’t put food on the table or pay rent. Seems a little off-putting when the listing to sale date can be two to five days and approximately $50,000 commission is paid out and the buyer is often left with buyers’ remorse.

So again, would you sell a 75-year-old home to your mother without a comprehensive home inspection? Do you want positive feedback, happy clients and a highly rated recommendation as a professional poised for a long and prosperous career? Or do you want the reputation of a Mercedes-driving salesman looking out for himself and ending up in court?

As a very seasoned (30-plus years), respected, professional agent recently said to me, “We created this environment and we need to fix it.”  She was referring to the current practice of list low, generate lots of interests and offers and drive the price up while disappointing prospective buyers. Now when a property is listed at an appropriate price, potential buyers don’t even look because they expect the price is artificially low and it will sell for $100,000 or more over ask.

Let’s hope things change quickly for the benefit of everyone.

Mike Hayes CAHPI RHI
National Home Inspector #NHICC00550
Ottawa

The post Letters: Happy buyer or commission? appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-happy-buyer-or-commission/feed/ 0 Letters: Charging everyone the same for E&O insurance isn’t fair https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-charging-everyone-the-same-for-eo-insurance-isnt-fair/ https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-charging-everyone-the-same-for-eo-insurance-isnt-fair/#respond Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:00:41 +0000 https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-charging-everyone-the-same-for-eo-insurance-isnt-fair/ Every licensed real estate broker and salesperson in Ontario must have Errors & Omission Insurance to protect the public and themselves from lawsuits from errors.

The post Letters: Charging everyone the same for E&O insurance isn’t fair appeared first on REM.

]]> Every licensed real estate broker and salesperson in Ontario must have Errors & Omission Insurance to protect the public and themselves from lawsuits from errors. I agree that it is needed, however the way we are charged is unfair.

Everyone pays the same fee – $475 per year. That’s whether you do one deal or 50, it’s the same old thing – the more successful riding on the backs of the less successful. For example, I am a small one-man independent brokerage. In 2019 I only had three sales – that works out to $158.33 per sale for insurance.

In 2020 I had one small sale. My gross commission was $3,000 and out of that I paid $475 for insurance.

That’s not fair. The insurance fee should be set on a pay-per-use basis on a sliding scale. For example, if you list a property the real estate board would charge a fee of $25. When the listing was sold you would pay another $25. There could be a sliding scale – if you did one to 10 transactions you pay $25 for each side. The next group that made 11 to 20 sales a year would pay $50 each side and so on based on each individual’s sales performance.

John Thurman, Broker
Byron Village Realty Inc.
London, Ont.

The post Letters: Charging everyone the same for E&O insurance isn’t fair appeared first on REM.

]]> https://realestatemagazine.ca/letters-charging-everyone-the-same-for-eo-insurance-isnt-fair/feed/ 0