Op-Ed: Vacancy decontrol has failed tenants and should be abolished

We have seen a stark increase of no-fault evictions and renovictions in Ontario as a result of vacancy decontrol


Prior to the pandemic, Ontario was experiencing an affordable housing crisis. After 18 months it has become far worse.

Low-income renters across the province are struggling with the combined pressures of rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and lack of housing options. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated an already precarious situation faced by thousands of renters. If the provincial government wants to help renters, it should end vacancy decontrol.

Vacancy decontrol is the term used to describe the limit on how much landlords can charge new renters for their unit. For renters with units occupied before November 15, 2018, Ontario’s rent control system limits annual rent increases to a percentage based on the Consumer Price Index.

However, when a unit is vacated the landlord is able to charge any new rent that the market will bear. The impacts of this scheme are significant.

According to the MLS Home Price Index, in the GTA, the average monthly rent for vacant units is some 20 per cent higher than the average rent for occupied units ($1,817 versus $1,513).

This financial incentive has resulted in some landlords not waiting for renters to move out to take advantage of vacancy decontrol. We have seen a stark increase of no-fault evictions such as landlord’s own use evictions and renovictions as a result.

The process has significantly contributed to the loss of affordable housing and contributed massively to skyrocketing rents. To be sure. average rents in the GTA have grown much faster than average income, placing rental households in increasing precarity.

The 2019 Toronto Vital Signs report stated that from 2008 to 2019 Toronto housing prices increased four times faster than income. Removing vacancy decontrol is critical to curbing the increasing cost of rental housing in Ontario and the rapid loss of affordable housing.

The provincial government eliminated vacancy rent controls in 1996, arguing the policy would encourage the creation of new rental units. Yet, that has failed to happen.

In the past 25 years, less than 8 per cent of new units built in Ontario were rentals, while condominium development has soared.

On the other hand, in Manitoba, which has a form of vacancy control, landlords can only increase the rent for a recently vacated unit to no more than the average rent for comparable units in the same residential complex. An analysis from the University of Winnipeg in 2011 found no evidence that these rent regulations had a negative effect on the supply or quality of rental housing.

Vacancy decontrol is a failed experiment that hasn’t led to increased housing supply, just increased housing costs for renters.

The Ontario NDP recently tabled Bill 23, Rent Stabilization Act, 2021 which is scheduled to go to second reading on November 25. If passed, the Bill would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to require landlords to set the rent for a new renter equal to or less than the last rent charged to the previous renter. The Green Party has also released a housing strategy that includes establishing a vacancy control system and strengthening rules and penalties for renovictions. With the upcoming provincial election, voters expect that strong housing policies will be a priority for all political parties.

There is no one solution to the affordable housing crisis, but vacancy control is one immediate measure parties can implement to help protect renters in Ontario. Without decisive action, the housing crisis will only continue to worsen.

Douglas Kwan is director and advocacy and legal services for Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario.

@nowtoronto

Brand Voices

3 responses to “Op-Ed: Vacancy decontrol has failed tenants and should be abolished”

  1. Evicted citizens — especially those enduring mental health tribulations (‘poor in spirit’) — who become the long-termed homeless, in effect cannot afford an official residence and therefor, by extension, are too poor to be permitted to practice what’s frequently platitudinously described as all citizens’ right to vote in elections.

    Progressive voters need to start electorally acting like the fiscal conservative voters: In most cases that I’ve witnessed in the last three decades of voting at all three levels of government, the latter electorate will, unlike the more dispersed progressive voters, manage to unite as a block to avoid splitting their money-first-minded vote.

  2. The writer is bias and short sighted. Calling vacancy decontrol a “scheme” frames property owners as criminals. Property owners are also hard-working people trying to make ends meet by providing clean, safe accommodations for tenants.

    They have struggled for years with low rent controls with no government support and during covid some tenants have worked the system to stay rent free for over a year with no legal or financial help available to the property owner due to massive backlogs in the broken system.

    If now, you further harm a property owners’ ability to pay expenses, then how or why would they want to upkeep the tenant’s accommodations or fix issues like leaks or pest control?

    A property owner/tenant relationship is symbiotic. Attacking property owners financially is not the way to solve the problem.

    If the government wants to get involved, it should consider subsidizing tenants who are having difficulties at this time.
    Because, if they continue to go after property owners it’s going to be disastrous in the future for everyone.

  3. The Ontario NDP recently tabled Bill 23, Rent Stabilization Act, 2021 which is scheduled to go to second reading on November 25. If passed, the Bill would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to require landlords to set the rent for a new renter equal to or less than the last rent charged to the previous renter.

    Well, right there is the best possible way to create slums. Why would a landlord put a dime into fixing up the place if they can’t get any higher return? If there is not a decent return on investment, fewer people will choose property investments, resulting in fewer rental units on the market, which will only raise rents, not lower them.
    This is one of the most poorly thought out proposals on the table. There is no regard for the law of unintended consequences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NOW Magazine