Well, that was fun!
My latest column in The Grid spawned a small controversy, even though, in my opinion, I was merely providing yet another inconvenient truth to those that didn’t want to hear it.
When IS it appropriate to shoot the messenger?
I do enjoy writing for The Grid, as it exposes me to a more diverse group of Torontonians, but after last week’s fiasco, I think it may be time to go…
We’ve talked about the idea of “discrimination” on this blog before, specifically as it pertains to the Toronto rental market, and what kind of decision-making process a landlord is permitted to go through in order to find a suitable tenant.
I wrote a rather lengthy piece last month, which you can, and should, read HERE.
The conclusion reached by the 20-something people who commented on my blog, was something to the effect of, “Yes, discrimination is discrimination, in theory, but if somebody works hard to own an investment property, they should be able to rent it to whomever they want.”
I’ve long maintained that if I own an investment property, I will rent it to whomever I choose. That’s my right as a property owner (even though it might, potentially, conflict with certain elements of the Canadian Human Rights Act), and I believe about 85% of my readers agreed.
That was the basis on which I wrote my article for The Grid, and I thought, incorrectly, that it was an accepted reality among today’s society.
I was dead wrong.
Feel free to read the article, and the 50+ comments that slander me personally and professionally, HERE.
“Don’t shoot the messenger” is a cliche we’ve heard over and over throughout or lives, but it’s less cliche and more poignant in this case, as I try to find a way to make sense of the feedback I received.
In my August article in The Grid, I set out to provide a “help column” for young renters in Toronto, and provide them with the reality that they face. I wanted to be honest, open, and realistic – something I feel many help columns don’t do.
I admitted that it is very difficult for a young renter, out of university, to find a landlord that wants to rent to them. And it seems, surprisingly, that the readership of The Grid found this to be astonishing, and quite possibly, insulting.
I anecdotally told the story of a condo I owned a few years back, and the experience I had interviewing prospective candidates. I mentioned that “two guys in ‘Tap-Out’ t-shirts with sideways hats” showed up to see my condo, and I turned them down. I wrote in my column, “Is this discrimination? Yes. Does it happen all the time? Absolutely.”
And you know what? The Sh!t hit the fan!
I usually don’t read comments on The Grid, for reasons I won’t delve into, but somebody sent me a message and said, “you gotta see this,” so I went and had a look. Would you believe that after only a few hours, there were 20+ comments, all calling for my head?
One person even posted a link to the RECO website whereby members of the public can launch a complaint!
People were quoting the Canadian Human Rights Act too.
I said “anecdotally” above, because that’s what the story was. I only get 650 words in my articles in The Grid, and the columns go through several edits. So I wasn’t able to add to that story, “Both prospective tenants were fresh out of Queen’s, currently job-searching, with credit scores in the 500’s, and both said that their parents would ‘cut a cheque.'”
So…..what’s wrong with not renting to a duo of unemployed kids with poor credit, exactly?
I also told the story of a client of mine who wanted to rent a condo at the Chocolate Lofts 3-4 years ago. There were 6-8 offers (I can’t recall), and she offered $100 over asking, with 6 months rent up front, while providing a gushing, hand-written note to the landlord, which sealed the deal. I did my job – and did it well! My client got the property, which was all she wanted all along.
Of course, The Grid readers quoted the Landlord & Tenant Act, saying that no landlord is permitted to ask for more than ONE month’s rent in advance.
Right.
And you know what else? You’re not supposed to jaywalk across a Toronto street. But it happens 10,000 times per day, and nary a ticket is issued. For somebody to suggest that RECO should discipline me for my anecdotal story above, is like somebody calling the police and saying, “I saw David jaywalk across the street, a few years back, I can’t recall when, or where, but in any event – you should issue him a ticket.”
I’m not using “it happens” as an excuse for breaking the law. I’m merely pointing out fact.
Another reader commented, “It is illegal for a landlord to ask for post-dated cheques.” That person is correct, but as I have a duty to point out, you have exactly a 0.00% chance of securing a rental in Toronto without providing post-dated cheques.
Again – I’m just explaining reality! Should I say something different? Should I advise clients, “Sure, refuse to provide post-dated cheques, you’ll be fine!” That would be doing a disservice to the client. That would be providing them with terrible advice.
So what does that make me?
A monster? A bad guy? Am I the problem?
I’m merely a Realtor, who writes a blog and a column, and provides the truth. I don’t make laws, and I don’t enforce them. I don’t write legislation, and I’m not the Landlord Police.
I simply set out to write a column in which I described the plight of today’s young renter in Toronto, and for providing the inconvenient truths that exist, I was torn a new ***hole. Sorry to be so blunt, but anything less than that description would prove inaccurate. I mean, did you READ the comments????
I read some of the comments, and it led me to believe that Toronto is full of some pretty unhappy people! People that are in denial; people that are disgusted, and people that are living in dream worlds, with no basic understanding of the free market economy.
My colleague and fellow blogger, Andrew LaFleur, Tweeted, “Fun times reading the comments section in @TorontoRealtyBlog’s latest. Bears in disbelief still about rental market.”
Maybe that’s it!
Maybe it’s not Internet trolls who didn’t like my column. Maybe it’s real estate bears!
Maybe we just live in a city where a lot of people are pissed about the cost of living!
We all know “that guy” who has been talking about the eventual real estate collapse for years. You know that guy? You know the guy in your office, who sold his house in 2009 to “time” the market, and then moved his family into an executive rental? You know how he said, “The market’s gonna crash” over and over through 2008 and 2009, then sold, then continued to say, “You’ll see, you’ll see”? Well, he’s spent $140,000 on rent since he sold, and his former house has gone up 15% since then.
Real estate bears are everywhere, and they’re in denial. They’re pissed off, and even though I can’t blame them for being upset with the cost of real estate, I don’t think denial is the answer.
Think about “that student” who was paying $290/month for a summer sublet in Waterloo, only to come to Toronto and find that a 1-bedroom condo is $1500/month, AND nobody wants to rent to a student! He or she is pissed!
Everybody wishes that Toronto was more like those towns on “House Hunters” where you can get a 4-bed, 4-bath house for $175,000, and have your pick of the lot.
I’ll say it again: I don’t make laws. I don’t write policy. I don’t draft legislation. All I do is inform people of realistic situations they might encounter in real estate, so don’t shoot the messenger!
What do I say to people who believe that you don’t write post-dated cheques for a rental, that you would never provide more than one month’s rent for a deposit, and that (gasp!) a landlord might not rent to every person who applies?
Look, I wish houses didn’t sell for more than asking! I wish there were ten houses available for every person who wanted to buy one! I wish we were in a bear market where you could offer $400K on a house listed for $500K!
But we’re not.
So I’m not going to tell a different story.
To the readers of The Grid – I’m sorry that you didn’t appreciate the reality I was trying to provide.
But life isn’t like the TV show Friends.
Monica and Rachel, who worked as a line chef and a coffee house waitress respectively, probably had a combined income of $50,000 yearly when that show started, and yet they were somehow magically living in a 2-bed, 2-bath, 1,500 square foot hard loft in Manhattan that probably costs $6,000 per month to rent.
This didn’t even remotely resemble a realistic snapshot of “life” for two young 20-somethings, and yet it is what young people could relate to best.
So let me ask the rhetorical question that should be on all our minds: shouldn’t we distinguish between dreams and reality?
If not, then what’s the solution?
BillyO
at 8:36 am
Love this post. You addressed it all: poor reading comprehension of the Grid commenters (how many thumbs’ed up the ‘its illegal for landlord to ask for more than first/last payment’), the bears that cannot fathom $1600+ a month for a one bed condo rental, and the entitlement of the 20 somethings (I just turned 30 and feel like I can’t even relate to these 23 year olds at all).
Also worth mentioning was the laughable comparison by some of the commenters about how condos suck, and you can rent a floor in a house in Leslieville or Parkdale for half of what a condo goes for.
Dave
at 8:50 am
The commenters on the GRID can be summarized into 3 groups:
1) College/Ossington renting Poli-Sci/English double major grads that are still searching for their cushy lifetime government job with pension, but stuck slinging coffees.
2) NDP volunteers who love to quote laws as if every single law ever written was adhered to and enforced in the real world
3) Realists who recognize that when a clean 2 bedroom unit within walking distance of a downtown subway becomes available, you need to be there with credit report, pay stubs, reference letters and deposit…and who cares about the RTA!
Jason
at 7:30 pm
“You addressed it all: poor reading comprehension of the Grid commenters (how many thumbs’ed up the ‘its illegal for landlord to ask for more than first/last payment’),”
It’s actually illegal – i have not read the post so my comprehension of your statement is that you support more than first and last.
“the bears that cannot fathom $1600+ a month for a one bed condo rental,”
Just as it’s ridiculous to spend 350k+ for that same 650+ sq. ft. condo. It’s ridiculous.
“the entitlement of the 20 somethings (I just turned 30 and feel like I can’t even relate to these 23 year olds at all).”
Well i’m older than yourself and don’t feel entitled but I also recognize when free market may not be all that it’s cracked up to be.
Ill stop here…
Jason
at 7:31 pm
Woops.. I guess I’m not technically savvy either 😉
Moonbeam!
at 9:29 am
The other truth you must stress is that Landlords have almost zero rights when trying to evict a troublesome tenant….. The rules favour tenants. Pity the landlord who is trying to get rid of a bad tenant… who is months behind on rent, vandalizes the place, has numerous pets, uses the place for illegal activities, etc…. that landlord will find out the hard way that his tenant is here to stay…. This is an inconvenient truth for a landlord, even just renting out a basement apt. Anyone ever see the movie “Pacific Heights”??
ScottyP
at 5:28 pm
There are plenty of oblivious pollyannas out there who are more than capable of providing useless, sugar-coated advice to newly arrived immigrants, feeding them banalities about how we live in a society of gumdrops and fairy tales and friendly, socially-conscious landlords, where everyone gets along oh so wonderfully in beautiful, blissful, multicultural Toronto.
And then, there are those precious few who tell it like it is. Keep telling it like it is, David. Those newly arrived immigrants that Mooj made reference to will thank you for it.
Mooj
at 9:50 am
David, I’m a huge fan of the blog and your posts but these posts had hit a nerve with me. I think a lot of people complaining about your practices are off base and shooting the messenger but I think you’re also failing to see the other side of the coin.
The point of anti-discrimination laws in general is to avoid discrimination for EVERYONE. It’s not only there to protect 20 somethings out of school with poor credit and sideways Tapout hats. It’s also there to protect newly arrived immigrants that speak with an accent or the third generation chinese-canadian family. If you say its alright to discriminate against one class of people, what prevents you from discriminating against others.
Understand that there’s a lot of risk involved with owning a rental property, and that the whole discrimination vs. making an informed business decision debate is a slippery slope, but I think it’s important to remember the point of the laws in the first place.
Jason
at 7:26 pm
I agree with your post. Dave is forgetting the other side of the coin (understandably) because it’s convenient to forget that people may not look the part but have more, and can respect more, than you realize.
The more hurdles landlords put up.. the more liars will lie and find ways around the system which also also includes me. Ask my current landlord what they think of me and they’ll tell you I’m the best tenant they’ve had in all the years they’ve rented… but don’t piss me off.
As a former home owner I understand the requirements for respect, and as a business person I understand the need for profit… But again what landlords don’t realize is you also have to give and that’s where they lack. I think there needs to be stricter rules on living conditions with landlords (but I also believe they need better rights for evicting).
jeff316
at 12:18 pm
Well said. I enjoy David’s blog and Grid articles but every once in a while he comes out with one that shows a glaring lack of compassion, understanding and most important for a public person with a public soapbox – judgment. This was one of those. Age is just a number was another. That being said, given his prolific output, it’s understandable that for every eight hits there are two misses.
David Fleming
at 11:58 pm
@ Jeff316
I can’t argue with your logic, but just remember this: everybody is looking for something different on this blog. That post “Age is Just A Number” – that resulted on a dozen people telling me, “That was the funniest thing I’ve ever read!” It also resulted in a dozen people telling me, “You’re such an immature dick.”
I can’t aim to satisfy 100% of readers, otherwise I’d be like every other Realtor who says “yes” to every property they show, and who never takes a stance on anything.
So for every number-crunching post that many uninterested reader skips, I have to have a silly story from the front lines of real estate. And for every political debate that some readers don’t understand or care to understand, I have to show funny photos. Etc, Etc…
JG
at 10:27 am
Just absolute pure ignorance on the part of the commenters thinking they live in a Utopia state. That or they are products of our new education system that coddles them and they never ‘lose’. Whats that new term? Where everyone wins!
I was in the hunt for a rental and encountered the same experience that was described.
Brought in references, credit report, paystubs and job letters and even then I had trouble because my credit score wasnt ‘perfect’. But I understood this is the way it is. When you have multiple offers you choose your pick. I didn’t cry out discrimination.
Its obvious a lot of those commentors are still living in their parents basement and have not experienced the realities of the rental market.
Whatever you choose regarding continued writing for the Grid or not, I hope you never stop being honest in your Blog. The truth must always be told. (I kinda sound like x-files there 🙂 )
Keep up the outstanding good writing.
Tdotdaver
at 11:51 am
I’m a little surprised at your response to these comments David. Welcome to the internet – where people can be mean. Sticks and stones and all that. I hadn’t pegged you as someone who would care.
David Fleming
at 1:17 pm
@ Tdotdaver
I wouldn’t say I “care” as in my feelings are hurt.
But I care that there are naive and clueless people out there whose arguments (or lack thereof…) can be examined further.
Jeremy
at 1:03 pm
Has the Grid been deleting comments from that article? I counted maybe 5 that were actually critical of you and half of those weren’t shooting the messenger, they were addressing the fact that you used yourself as an example of someone who supposedly discriminates. There certainly weren’t 50 and they could hardly be called slander.
Obviously there’s nothing wrong with you documenting the reality of the current market and some commenters overreact. Perhaps a constructive follow-up post could attempt to align your views with the human rights act. Something like “it’s not discrimination if I’m simply choosing who I perceive to be the more reliable tenant. It’s not like I’d rather have my place empty and not make any money.” Or perhaps describe why it’s difficult to align the human rights act with the reality of the market and discuss possibilities for improving the situation, even if you don’t have a full solution.
David Fleming
at 1:17 pm
@ Jeremy
If a comment is exceptionally inflamatory, it is removed.
Read between the lines…
Floom
at 1:29 pm
David, I read the article -expecting something REALLY inflammatory. It’s not at all. And I read the comments -thers’s some crackpots but only a few are calling for your head. (Check out the comments following any Rosie DiManno article on thestar.com – even the more innocuous articles). I would say you did your job – you moved many readers to respond to you. One person commented that “sound like a broker, someone people hire to find them apartments” and further commented “most of us can’t afford that.” – I think if there anything you might have done differently, it would have been to explain that you are mainly focusing on the privately-owned condo rental market, the “shadow market”, which tends to attact a certain demographic of tenant: young professionals who want to live downtown. The “Extra space” afforded at Landsdowne and Bloor does not appeal to most of this demographic. They want to be within walking distance to King/Brant. And given the high demand for rentals downtown, landlords can and must be extremely choosy -especially given that the act strongly favors tenants (i.e. evicting a tenant is a nightmare). I think your article was squarely aimed at those young professionals, not families that live in rental apartment complexes in scarbourough, north york etc.
David Fleming
at 2:04 pm
@ Floom
As I responded to Jeremy, a lot of what I read last Wednesday is no longer there.
But you’re right- Rosie DiManno, Margaret Wente, Christe Blatchford – these ladies get hammered on a regular basis and they just keep their heads down and keep going. The personal attacks are so low-class. Somebody commented to Wente, “What the hell do you know? Look at your photo! You’re old and ugly!” Great argument!
Al
at 1:50 pm
100% support your column. Couldn’t be more bang on. I also have a condo that I rent out and guess what, call it whatever you want but it’s my hard earned investment and when I interview what I deem an unacceptable candidate then I move along (call it discriminatin, I don’t care). This world is becoming way to politically correct. If I don’t like the guys with Tap out shirts then I have a reason for it and it’s nobody’s business but my own. Good for you David for speaking the truth on how things actually work out there. Oh by the way, I get post dated cheques and damage deposits. Yikes!
Kristyn
at 4:00 pm
Kudos to David. Real Estate IS all about survival of the fittest, as is life. I am a Property Manager and I am blown away on a daily basis with how highly deadbeat tenants are protected by LTB law, and how fruitless it can be to collect money owed for damages, rental arrears, etc.. David is simply pointing out the truth…Keep it comin’ David.
JC
at 4:17 pm
I once got a sign-back from a Landlord that is now used by at least once company here in Ontario for their course on illegal lease clauses. The Landlord in this case was a Lawyer who should have known better.
I’ve been a Landlord and been VERY choosy about who I rented to because the law in Ontario favors Tenants. I didn’t ask for or expect extra deposits because I know my luck. I’d accept extra rent and then get hauled in front of the Board and told to give it back.
Part of the problem is that nice-looking people can be sleeze-bags too. Ask my neighbor who against my advice about leasing, leased to a “nice couple” with good credit and references who never paid a dime after moving in and trashed the place when they were finally evicted 8 months later. $35,000 mistake. Or another client who pitied a brother and sister pair of students and decided to rent to them (against my advice). Another expensive lesson learned.
I realize that the LTA is supposed to level the playing field so that people don’t have to worry about “extra” deposits, dogs, or whether you actually WANT to give someone post-dated cheques, but it’s done anything but. It’s come to the point where you pretty much have to advise your clients to lie about having pets because disclosing it from the start means you won’t get the place – despite that being illegal. It kills me how even some Landlord/Realtors who SHOULD know the LTA but don’t and put all sorts of illegal requests in listings (security deposits, no pets etc) and are ALL about getting post-dated cheques, to the point of hounding you about them. It says volumes to me about how much you’ll actually see them once the lease starts.
Joe Q.
at 4:30 pm
Hi David — a few thoughts:
1. People might bristle at the real-world / pragmatic advice that you offer — especially when it flies in the face of the “party line” or legalistic info they are used to reading. Both are valuable.
2. My understanding is that you are not required to provide an explanation when rejecting a rental application. Perhaps the best solution to “discrimination” accusations is just to screen your applicants carefully, pick the best ones, and politely reject the others without talking too much about it.
3. About post-dated cheques: aside from the “legality” of asking for post-dated cheques, my understanding is that it is actually considered fraudulent to issue a cheque for an amount not present in the issuer’s account at the time the cheque is issued. So someone who writes 12 post-dated cheques for $1,500 without having $18k in his bank account is committing a form of fraud. The date is immaterial (I believe the date box is considered a courtesy or convenience thing rather than a legal requirement). Maybe one of your other readers can clarify this.
4. The site design looks interesting but I think the main page looks too busy given that you only have 4-5 posts per week. Also, the fonts in your banner ad don’t render well.
5. Wasn’t one of the premises of “Friends” that they lived in a rent-controlled apartment one of them had inherited from a deceased grandparent?
Devore
at 3:20 am
For future posterity re #3.
That is in the US. In Canada, banks actually have to respect the date on the check, and it is not legal for them to cash it early. In the US, you are right. The date is irrelevant, and banks are not required to arbitrate between the check writer and the check casher, and writing out a check, or a series of them, for which there are not sufficient funds in the account they are drawn on is fraud, and you cannot require someone to commit fraud to satisfy a contract. All the same, I am sure it is common place anyways.
Frosty Johansen
at 5:49 pm
Don’t stop writing for the Grid, David! Nobody else writes as well as you do on RE issues for the everyday reader. This blog is great, but it’s often an echo-chamber of like-minded folks. Your Grid “voice” is different enough from this blog that I never feel you’re repeating yourself.
So keep telling the hard truths as you see them. I’ll keep on being appreciative / critical / vaguely insulting. But I believe your voice and experience must be heard widely.
fj
ScottyP
at 10:50 pm
That’s the nicest thing Frosty has ever said.
Chicken or Egg
at 7:15 am
RE on perceived high rental rates. David, either through direct reference or anecdote, can you comment on the number of condos that are rented out by owners who can actually cover their costs at anything <$1800?
Any mortgage over $250k is going to cost at least $1500, and we're not even looking at taxes, maintenance fees etc. So I can understand rents being high, but it's not there because of what the market will bear, more of a case of the financial circumstance of the owner. At least that's my take on it.
My point is that some believe that the downtown condo market is still going to do well, and I just can't see that if you have an oversupply of units and a pool of renters who excluded for bad lifestyle choices, along with a sluggish economy not willing to hire MFA grads into government jobs.
Joe Q.
at 10:32 am
I also wonder about this. David, it’d be interesting to take a “longitudinal” look at condo investing. Track special assessments and fees per sq ft for a couple of buildings over a period of 10 or more years. How much can a buyer of a new-build condo expect to pay in fees over an extended time period? Compare to rental yields etc.
Potato
at 7:36 am
“So…..what’s wrong with not renting to a duo of unemployed kids with poor credit, exactly?”
Nothing, really. But that’s not what you said. You said you wouldn’t rent to “two twentysomethings […], both wearing “Tap Out” t-shirts and their hats sideways.” You framed your refusal on superficial stereotypes, and never brought in the real reason. If you had to cut down on words, you should have cut out the superficial stuff and left in the relevant reasons. But discrimination isn’t something you’re sensitive to, as you said in your earlier blog post: “Am I guilty of discrimination? Yes, I am. Do I care? Not in the slightest.” You even drew attention to it in the Grid with “Sound like discrimination? Yes.” So I’m surprised that you’re surprised that you got negative comments from people that do care about such a touchy subject.
As for don’t shoot the messenger: it’s not really appropriate to say that when two of the first three paragraphs in the article are “here’s all the lousy stuff that I have a hand in personally perpetuating.” Sure, later on you get into “things are tough out there kids, here are some tips to cope” stuff, but you’ve already lost the ragers up front. What did your editor say as the article was coming together? Did they make it purposefully inflammatory?
And for the odd ad hominem here, what exactly do you think bears are in denial of?
David Fleming
at 11:08 am
@ Potato
The bears are in denial that:
a) They were wrong about the crash, whether they started predicting it in 2001 or 2011
b) That real estate has continued to appreciate
c) That there is a realistic chance that real estate will continue to appreciate even further, year after year, in some segments
Or maybe simplify it into “bear” versus “bull.” Or “yay” versus “nay.”
The real estate bears are ten times as angry when the market continues to rise, as the bulls are happy when the same occurs.
What’s a greater emotion? Anger, or happiness?
The bears seem to feel that if they rage “The market is going to crash!!!” all the time, then it will.
I have no personal stake in this battle. I will sell real estate in a hot or cold market, and I can look for a long-term family home if the market dips, so I’m not fussed. But I have to be honest here, as I’ve been all along, and say definitively – just because you WANT something to happen, doesn’t mean that it will. There is no reason to think that HOUSE prices will dip. Condos? Maybe. But single-family dwellings in the $600’s, which every person and their mother are out to get? I don’t see that happening any time soon. My apologies, to the bears…
Joe Q.
at 10:43 am
There is room for bearishness without calling for a crash, and certainly without rage or anger. There are plenty of RE bears who plainly recognize that prices continue to appreciate and that RE continues to be in demand (at least certain classes), and who don’t shout about a crash just being around the corner, but are nonetheless very disturbed about the unprecedented price-to-income and price-to-rent ratios, record-high household debt levels and home-ownership rates, etc. It is harder to dismiss these types of bears, whose bearishness is based on analysis of the economics of the housing market. At least I think it’s harder to dismiss them, because the only counter-arguments seem to boil down to “this time it’s different”.
Jason
at 8:10 pm
I’m going to have to correct you since you referred to my favourite TV show “Friends”. Monica and Rachel lived in a 2 bedroom, 1 bath on the show which belonged to Monica’s grandmother and they were living there illegally…Now that I’ve proven that I’m a total “Friends” nerd, I’ll be on my way…
David Fleming
at 11:50 pm
@ Jason
A girl in my office pointed this out, but was too shy to post on my blog.
So I said, “Fine, what about Joey – the out of work actor?” She replied, “Chandler is man enough to carry the household.”
I just can’t win!
kriskrohnreic
at 10:09 am
Great post. It’s good to know some quality blogs still exist now that have useful information. Thanks for sharing buddy.