Someone bought a century home in Saint John and is allowing it to rot. The buyer apparently lives in Toronto and doesn’t care that the building is falling apart.

This is shitty. Someone has the money for “an investment”, which means other people don’t get somewhere to live.

  • PenguinTD@lemmy.caEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    the pass off to tenants are simply not true, there is a threshold and after that threshold buying a home is cheaper than renting. And not occupied rental unit is actually “expensive” to the landlords, so they will be forced to sell.

    There are many things that affects how that would be applied, and the fall out of how you implement such tax.

    • you can’t design the rules only for big metropolitan cities.
    • remote region does benefit from ownership cause the owner pays property tax to help maintain some basic local infrastructures.
    • need serious loop hole check so you don’t ended up having companies gobble up everything “on sale” cause regular human landlords can no longer afford extra units.
    • buying a place should come with responsibilities to maintain that place, if left to rot or damage heritage site, government should be able to take over and bill the owner.